I resolve the contradition of free-will like i do any other unevidenced beleif by takin it for what it is... an unevidenced beleif.!!!
Determinism and free will .
- Thread starter Emil
- Start date
I resolve the contradition of free-will like i do any other unevidenced beleif by takin it for what it is... an unevidenced beleif.!!!
I dont see any evidence for free-will an i dont want to abolish laws an courts :shrug:
The main message in life is that it is all fun and games until someone gets hurt. The main question man can not answer with laws is that if no physical harm is done has man broken any laws? Possibly to whom benefited from laws broken would be a better question to answer what caused them to be broken in the first place. Do our morals not confirm why. To say a man has no morals is to confirm he serves a higher purpose (of which his body can suffer punishment, but the mind has suffered before the crime was committed)
I'm not talking about what would convince someone, I'm talking about what is.
What you say is exciting but does not belong in this thread.
I suggest you open a new thread about it.
Yes, you are right of course.
Despite its being such a huge problem for philosophy students and their lecturers, aside from that it is not a problem at all.
It's not too big a problem even for that small band, when they aren't thinking about it.
Frankly, I think it's obvious that we have free will.
Take the obverse: what then could possibly lead us to the appearance that we do choose freely?
However, I think the problem with this issue arises from inept definitions. In particular, people tend to take the term free will to far, to mean much more than it really implies: free will does not mean that 'anything goes'; it is not a denial of causality.
By free will, what I mean is that we have the option of election. Strictly interpreted, this is a denial of the case that each and every choice we make is directly determined. However (and this is the big one...), I do believe in structural determinism.
In short then, the environment within which we find ourselves is causally determined; our options of choice represent a matrix of possibility that is limited. But the choice that is made itself is not made without our input.
But our input is causally determined.
For a "choice" to be made that is "free" then it surely needs to be selected without causation for the selection.
As for your last sentence - it's circular (or something like that) - "choice" surely requires the input of the one making the choice?
To me it is no more meaningful than saying "But the movie that is made itself is not made without a camera"... the latter half merely compounding the definition of the first part.
The question is... is there "choice".
There either is, or there is the illusion of choice.
To me for there to be real "choice" (as opposed to the illusion of) there needs to be an influence not caught up in the causal chain, but also that is in accordance to the "mind"... i.e. so not merely random.
I am not aware of any evidence of this.
And surely if an uncaused influence is in accordance to the "mind" there is likely to be a causal link?
It therefore seems more rational to me that "choice" is an illusion that comes after the event... even perhaps simultaneously... as the brain realises what it is doing and convinces you that you wanted to do it.
Sometimes it doesn't bother telling us, and we find ourselves doing things without thinking about it... without "choices" seemingly being made.
But the illusion is pervasive. And I would suggest (without backup/evidence/support) that it could even be a necessity for self-awareness.
Last edited:
By that I meant our means of selection.
No.
The situation is determined, and thus, limits our possible choice, but the choice is solely ours
Not at all. See, that's exactly what I was getting at concerning the far too broad common interpretation of 'free will'. Your stated requirements could never be met, by any selection method.
Not quite.
There's a difference between describing what a movie is, and the mechanisms involved in making one.
I think that's a false dichotomy (given the common definitions).
Then you'll never see any such thing. Again, those conditions could never be satisfied (except of course, by some sort of 'god', but, we're talking about reality here..).
I'll agree that, as you're trying to define it, "choice" is illusory.
A simple question:
After a good meal when and what you eat first?
This is an expression of free will or it is determined?
A more complicated question:
On a island where no other people are,where there is fruit, fish and animals.
When you hunt the first animal?
It depends on several factors (hunger, fruit, fish, your opportunity to make weapons and your knowledge to hunt).
This is an expression of free will or it is determined?
The same questions but in terms of an animal.
Free will determined by your knowledge. Most people pick the right "subconscious" decisions based on their knowledge, but every once in a while there is a switch that just doesn't work for some reason. That is when it goes beyond their control. It is important to distinguish between what you control and what is controlling you. It could be your mind or it could be the mind of someone else.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
While I don't see evidence that confirms free will I don't see any evidence for causal determinism.
Do you know of any evidence for free will.???
Good point.
I would thought that by now it would be obvious that ontologically, "free will" is not the kind of object that is subject to evidenciary support...
Then I am confused how you could agree that at the microscopic level there is only cause/effect (determinism or randomness - but no choice) - which is what I think you agree with - yet at the same time introduce something that offers at the macro level precisely what is not possible at the micro level... without the macro-level being illusory.
If you define "choice" as purely a macro observation or ability or whatever then you surely limit the understanding of what is really going on. And given that determinism is very much a micro-consideration, surely the discussion of free-will (given the thread title) and thus "choice" should go to those same levels... i.e. what is going on at the core... not just what is observed at the macro-level.
You seem to want to accept the micro-level but ignore the implications for the macro:
If at the micro level their are only things/actions that are either caused or random (such as radioactive decay) - how do you propose there to be something at the macro level that is both uncaused and non-random - i.e. the requirements for "choice"?Glaucon said: