Free Will

[PointOfViewGun]

Do you believe people generally have free will? It is generally defined as the ability to choose how to act. I don't think it is wrong to say that most, if not all, societies are based on the assumption that free will exists, hence, we hold people accountable for the choices they make. Determinism, on the other hand, poses a threat for a lot of things we take for granted.



Also, please no Wikipedia links whenever you want to refer someone to a concept. If you want to use a concept as part of your argument then you should be able to explain what it is yourself and show understanding of it. Merely claiming knowledge of it and providing a link to an article on it is not a good way of arguing (unless there is disagreement on the definition of the concept).

[Theo]

You forgot to include compatibilism, which is the philosophical notion that free will and determinism are compatible ideas. In a compatibilist framework, you have the capacity to make choices, but not to choose your motivations.

[PointOfViewGun]

You forgot to include compatibilism, which is the philosophical notion that free will and determinism are compatible ideas. In a compatibilist framework, you have the capacity to make choices, but not to choose your motivations.

I've read a little about hat and there was criticism of it for muddying the definition of free will and determinism to reach that conclusion. So, I'm not really sold on that idea. For example, motivations don't really matter in free will, nor they explain determinism in its entirety. Would you like to give it a shot for people who don't really know about it?

[Theo]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a pretty good entry on the topic for anyone interested.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#FreWil

[Iskar]

I voted "Don't care". Let me elaborate why.

Statement 1: Either there is free will or there isn't.

Note to S1: The possibility "there is free will" in my reading includes any kind of mixed approach where one might assume that some of our actions are deterministic (e.g. dictated by our [neuro-]physiological setup, including subconscious reflexes and such) while some key decisions can be made freely. Thus there is really a situation of tertium non datur.

Statement 2: If there isn't then this entire discussion is idle.

Note to S2: If there isn't a free will, then me writing these words would be just a necessary though insignificant consequence of anything that has happened before. Even more, anything we do would be completely insignificant because if everything is predetermined then the concept of personality and identity falls apart, as we'd be just physical phenomena of an indifferent universe and any of our so called thoughts would be just a predetermined event. Even if you wanted to break out of you being just a soulless physical phenomenon then this wanting would be just another predetermined event.

S1 + S2 => We cannot assume the negative option without being logically compelled to stop discussing this. Hence it is contradictory to the presupposed premise that it is worth discussing, although we could probably not help it, because we might be predetermined to have a pointless discussion.
Hence, if we want to keep discussing then the issue is not whether there is free will, but only how much there is. But that is actually a case for neuroscientists to examine which actions (or even harder, if even possible: thoughts) occur without the test subject's conscious impetus.

Hence, on a pilosophical level I do not care. In order to avoid cognitive dissonance with our concept of self and personality I'd have to reject the second option, but if it is still the case, it does not matter, for I could not do anything about it, having no free will in that case.

That's why I don't care: The answer cannot have any influence on my mindset.

[Phier]

If all variable could be known I think we would discover "free will" was an illusion, but being we do not know all the variables our current existence may as well be considered free will.

[Himster]

Without evidence of a positive-claim the default-position is a negative-position. The distinction between "I don't believe" and "I don't care" is minor/semantic, but I understand why it was included.
I voted no.
Not because I believe there is no such thing as "free will", but rather: whether it actually exists or not is irrelevant to my existence, therefore I don't believe and I cannot say I do believe.

[basics]

Setekh,

If we look at Adam's situation in the garden we can see that he did in fact have a will but was it free? Some might say it was because he disobeyed God but I feel those that say that jump the gun a little here. In the first place he was confined by God to keep His rules so therefore he was not free at all, why? Because the result of any separation from God meant death, the latter being a consequence of failing the former, which is still the case today.

On making the wrong decision he and his mate were cast out of the garden to being ruled by Satan and the curse. Therefore from one binding he stepped into another far worse than the first. Some argue that because God supplied him and her with skins He saved them but that is a total misconception on their part, why? Because the skins were a sign of the covenant wherein if man could keep it from birth till death he would be saved but no-one could keep it. Both became sinners and until Someone was able to erase them, their sin, they were bound to it.

So, if they had free will and they were saved why was the entrance back into the garden denied them? Why indeed of all the saints listed prior to Christ's coming, are Adam and Eve not among them? The first saint or Christian was Abel but not his parents. Although under God's brolly to ensure a continuation of the race and the coming of Messias sin was still the enduring factor they were under. This brolly would eventually cover the nation that God chose to be Holy yet as we see it's bondage to the curse remained in the nature of its people with few exceptions.

Therefore as Luther, Calvin and others have preached, there is no such thing as free-will. One either belongs to Christ or one belongs to Satan. That is the overall teaching of Scripture.

[ShockBlast]

Setekh,

If we look at Adam's situation in the garden we can see that he did in fact have a will but was it free? Some might say it was because he disobeyed God but I feel those that say that jump the gun a little here. In the first place he was confined by God to keep His rules so therefore he was not free at all, why? Because the result of any separation from God meant death, the latter being a consequence of failing the former, which is still the case today.

On making the wrong decision he and his mate were cast out of the garden to being ruled by Satan and the curse. Therefore from one binding he stepped into another far worse than the first. Some argue that because God supplied him and her with skins He saved them but that is a total misconception on their part, why? Because the skins were a sign of the covenant wherein if man could keep it from birth till death he would be saved but no-one could keep it. Both became sinners and until Someone was able to erase them, their sin, they were bound to it.

So, if they had free will and they were saved why was the entrance back into the garden denied them? Why indeed of all the saints listed prior to Christ's coming, are Adam and Eve not among them? The first saint or Christian was Abel but not his parents. Although under God's brolly to ensure a continuation of the race and the coming of Messias sin was still the enduring factor they were under. This brolly would eventually cover the nation that God chose to be Holy yet as we see it's bondage to the curse remained in the nature of its people with few exceptions.

Therefore as Luther, Calvin and others have preached, there is no such thing as free-will. One either belongs to Christ or one belongs to Satan. That is the overall teaching of Scripture.

Holy crap, I`m a satanist ?

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't think determinism pushes someone to not care about whether they have free will or not. Just because we can't do anything about it doesn't mean it doesn't matter. It's certainly relevant to our lives. A great portion of our lives are constructed on the premise that free will exists. It is the difference between causation and responsibility. If there is no free will then there is no point in holding people responsible. There is no point in a lot of things, if not all. Our existence can only be meaningful if we have free will.

Setekh,

If we look at Adam's situation in the garden we can see that he did in fact have a will but was it free? Some might say it was because he disobeyed God but I feel those that say that jump the gun a little here. In the first place he was confined by God to keep His rules so therefore he was not free at all, why? Because the result of any separation from God meant death, the latter being a consequence of failing the former, which is still the case today.

On making the wrong decision he and his mate were cast out of the garden to being ruled by Satan and the curse. Therefore from one binding he stepped into another far worse than the first. Some argue that because God supplied him and her with skins He saved them but that is a total misconception on their part, why? Because the skins were a sign of the covenant wherein if man could keep it from birth till death he would be saved but no-one could keep it. Both became sinners and until Someone was able to erase them, their sin, they were bound to it.

So, if they had free will and they were saved why was the entrance back into the garden denied them? Why indeed of all the saints listed prior to Christ's coming, are Adam and Eve not among them? The first saint or Christian was Abel but not his parents. Although under God's brolly to ensure a continuation of the race and the coming of Messias sin was still the enduring factor they were under. This brolly would eventually cover the nation that God chose to be Holy yet as we see it's bondage to the curse remained in the nature of its people with few exceptions.

Therefore as Luther, Calvin and others have preached, there is no such thing as free-will. One either belongs to Christ or one belongs to Satan. That is the overall teaching of Scripture.

Why then men still walk along the path of Satan? If what you said made sense then Adam and Eve would have no way of eating that apple as they were clearly told that eating the apple was forbidden. Are you saying that the Satan is more powerful over Men compared to God?

[basics]

Holy crap, I`m a satanist ?

ShockBlast,

Only if you actually worship the thing. One doesn't have to do that to be under his influence which is what I inferred, how? Because it is his power that holds people from God, not necessarily himself as Scripture tells.

[Himster]

I don't think determinism pushes someone to not care about whether they have free will or not. Just because we can't do anything about it doesn't mean it doesn't matter. It's certainly relevant to our lives. A great portion of our lives are constructed on the premise that free will exists. It is the difference between causation and responsibility. If there is no free will then there is no point in holding people responsible. There is no point in a lot of things, if not all. Our existence can only be meaningful if we have free will.

If our existence has no inherent meaning then we are free/destined to make our own meaning. We are destined to believe in (or act as if there is) free-will. An absurdity, of course, futile even: we are all Sisyphus pushing that rock up that hill and we can all be as content as he, if we will it so (AKA if we're destined to be so).

There's a fine-line perhaps between deterministic-nihilism and deterministic-stoicism.

[PointOfViewGun]

If our existence has no inherent meaning then we are free/destined to make our own meaning. We are destined to believe in (or act as if there is) free-will. An absurdity, of course, futile even: we are all Sisyphus pushing that rock up that hill and we can all be as content as he, if we will it so (AKA if we're destined to be so).

There's a fine-line perhaps between deterministic-nihilism and deterministic-stoicism.

I don't see how you can make some meaning out of that kind of life. Anything you do is not actually a product of you. You're just a medium.

[ShockBlast]

ShockBlast,

Only if you actually worship the thing. One doesn't have to do that to be under his influence which is what I inferred, how? Because it is his power that holds people from God, not necessarily himself as Scripture tells.

I don not worship satan nor god, for a matter of fact I don`t worship any deity.

[Himster]

I don't see how you can make some meaning out of that kind of life. Anything you do is not actually a product of you. You're just a medium.

We seem to be biologically programmed to do so, to make meaning, to invent and conjure. We don't have a choice but to have meaning bestowed upon us: It's too late. Always has been too late. Always will be. (Yes, I quoted Watchmen, shut up)
If destiny/determinism is a thing (either naturally or metaphysically caused) we were always destined to conjure the trillion meanings we have and we are destined to conjure the trillion more in the future. There are more meanings in life than stars in the sky. No meanings? Bah.

I suppose you want "factual" meaning? (You might be better off not thinking about it if that's the case, join a cult if that is what you seek) Why do you want to feel so special? Perhaps you feel shame when you consider you might be "mere" stardust that has acquired a degree of self-awareness? Shame is an interesting idea, one might be forgiven for thinking that shame is a lack of pride, I beg to disagree, shame is the result of excessive pride, shame is a species of hubris.
"Just a medium"? Think about that.

What makes that "bad"? Are you sure it's not your pride?

[PointOfViewGun]

We seem to be biologically programmed to do so, to make meaning, to invent and conjure. We don't have a choice but to have meaning bestowed upon us: It's too late. Always has been too late. Always will be. (Yes, I quoted Watchmen, shut up)
If destiny/determinism is a thing (either naturally or metaphysically caused) we were always destined to conjure the trillion meanings we have and we are destined to conjure the trillion more in the future. There are more meanings in life than stars in the sky. No meanings? Bah.

I suppose you want "factual" meaning? (You might be better off not thinking about it if that's the case, join a cult if that is what you seek) Why do you want to feel so special? Perhaps you feel shame when you consider you might be "mere" stardust that has acquired a degree of self-awareness? Shame is an interesting idea, one might be forgiven for thinking that shame is a lack of pride, I beg to disagree, shame is the result of excessive pride, shame is a species of hubris.
"Just a medium"? Think about that.

What makes that "bad"? Are you sure it's not your pride?

Yes, when I say meaning I mean actual meaning. Not just a name we use. There is no meaning or point in life if we don't have control over it. In essence you're no different than a rain drop falling off the sky. Whether it's bad or not is irrelevant to that. That's a matter of personal taste.

[Himster]

Yes, when I say meaning I mean actual meaning. Not just a name we use.

Do you think you can tell the difference? Can anyone?

There is no meaning or point in life if we don't have control over it.

You seem awfully sure about that: Are you sure it's not just your pride talking?

In essence you're no different than a rain drop falling off the sky. Whether it's bad or not is irrelevant to that.

Yup, a rain drop. An exquisite quirk of physics, caught in a cycle, giver and taker of lives, nothing is softer yet even the hardiest of things cannot withstand it's mighty floods.

That's a matter of personal taste.

In a deterministic universe taste is also the product of destiny, like everything else.

[PointOfViewGun]

Do you think you can tell the difference? Can anyone?
You seem awfully sure about that: Are you sure it's not just your pride talking?
Yup, a rain drop. An exquisite quirk of physics, caught in a cycle, giver and taker of lives, nothing is softer yet even the hardiest of things cannot withstand it's mighty floods.
In a deterministic universe taste is also the product of destiny, like everything else.

Do tell me what pride has to do with pointing out that there is no meaning or point in life if we don't have control over it.

[Himster]

Do tell me what pride has to do with pointing out that there is no meaning or point in life if we don't have control over it.

Not that part: the part I was referring to was whether or not that meaning is/is-not knowable.
But even the desire for the sort of meaning you're talking about as the scent of pride on it, don't you think?

[PointOfViewGun]

Not that part: the part I was referring to was whether or not that meaning is/is-not knowable.
But even the desire for the sort of meaning you're talking about as the scent of pride on it, don't you think?

Not really. Accusation of pride is an senseless choice here as it requires to be substantiated. You're just throwing it in to muddy the discussion.

Concepts like meaning or point relies upon our control of life. If we don't have such control then those constructs collapse.