Does free will exist?

[NMSquirrel]

Nobody would freely choose to be unhappy.

um..MOST nobody,more appropriate,as SOME do choose to be unhappy,whether consciencely intentional is up for debate, ask any psychiatrist..

This would suggest that our unhappiness is our own doing.

it usually is, happiness is a state of mind and conditional on what/how we think.
some ppl are more comfortable being unhappy.

 

[wynn]

I am not claiming reincarnation exists, I am making a point that sometimes people would choose to suffer.

Only an amoral, arational agent would choose to suffer.


If I hastily run down a flight of stairs, fall and break several bones, this doesn't automatically mean that I chose to break my bones.

It can be the result of what you choose.

Sure, the consequences of our actions are sometimes pain and suffering.
But that doesn't automatically mean that we chose the consequences that eventually came about.

 

[wynn]

So which should one choose, there fallible experience which is self-evident,
or fallible reasoning which suggests you are in complete opposition to something which appears to be a simple fact?

For millenia, philosophers, theologians, politicians, educators, law makers and others have been puzzled by the notion of free will.
It has never been considered a "simple fact."

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

Sorry, I have very little respect for psychiatry anymore. There's just too much history of fraud and woo there for me to really take it seriously.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sure, the consequences of our actions are sometimes pain and suffering.
But that doesn't automatically mean that we chose the consequences that eventually came about.

The choices have already been made.

For millenia, philosophers, theologians, politicians, educators, law makers and others have been puzzled by the notion of free will.

Really?
Sources?

It has never been considered a "simple fact."

Well come with something that explains this ''seemingly'' simple fact,
which shows that it's not what it seems.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The choices have already been made.

Really?
ALREADY been made? Before we get to the point where we think we make the decision?
Then they aren't choices, are they?

As for the rest: Jan, bugger off and get an education.
If you're going to going in a thread about free will you could at least have the common decency to learn something about the history of the subject.

Sorry, my bad. Common decency is something you're notably short of.

 

[wynn]

Really?
Sources?

Well come with something that explains this ''seemingly'' simple fact,
which shows that it's not what it seems.

Start here, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Really?
ALREADY been made? Before we get to the point where we think we make the decision?
Then they aren't choices, are they?

We make choices, other beings make choices, and a possible
result is unhappiness for some.

As for the rest: Jan, bugger off and get an education.

Why don't you actually explain what you're getting at.
If free will is an illusion, then how do we know that the reasoning we use
isn't another illusion? At what point can we say ''this is reality''?

If you're going to going in a thread about free will you could at least have the common decency to learn something about the history of the subject.

I know something about free will.
This is my stance. Free will exists.

Sorry, my bad. Common decency is something you're notably short of.

You mean something you're short of.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

We make choices, other beings make choices, and a possible result is unhappiness for some.

Doesn't address my question, nor does it relate to your earlier claim:

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
The choices have already been made.

Why don't you actually explain what you're getting at.
If free will is an illusion, then how do we know that the reasoning we use
isn't another illusion?

Now you're getting it. We don't.

I know something about free will.
This is my stance. Free will exists.

That's a belief, not knowledge.

You mean something you're short of.

Nope. You're the one that reverts to duplicity and lies when you can't find a rebuttal.

 

[Gustav]

You mean the reason that an agent with free will makes a bad choice is because the choice lacks a particular godlike attribute?
Isn't this like saying that our free will is useful (" ") only for causing ourselves and others harm?

only if you take the particular and hold it to be the general

 

[wynn]

Hi Gus!

 

[Jan Ardena]

1. Doesn't address my question, nor does it relate to your earlier claim:



2. Now you're getting it. We don't.


That's a belief, not knowledge.


Nope. You're the one that reverts to duplicity and lies when you can't find a rebuttal.

1. It addresses the original context.

2. There's no ground then?
If it works for you, go for it.


3. You're in illusion.


4. No I don't.
You're either a lier or a trickster.
And you should learn to answer questions instead of


jan.

 

[Gustav]

Now you're getting it. We don't.

would you like to elaborate on that line of reasoning? could you possibly be a brain in a vat?

dy
do we know of any "non physical components to reality"?

is that a stupid question?

 

[wynn]

A possible reason for why we're unhappy is because we lack the wisdom to make choices that would actually lead to happiness; not because we wouldn't have free will.

Further, for us to be happy, there probably need to be many factors in place - our actions, as well as other people's actions and maybe further circumstances as well.

I do think that it is precisely the fact that we are sometimes - often enough - unhappy, that makes us question whether we have free will or not.
Questioning free will is anything but an idle speculation.


(I am apriori for free will, although I couldn't rationally explain my reasons for my stance.)

 

[Dywyddyr]

1. It addresses the original context.

It does not address your claim. A claim that invalidates much of your own argument here.

2. There's no ground then?
If it works for you, go for it.

Try reading what I wrote: we don't know.

3. You're in illusion.

False.

4. No I don't.
You're either a lier or a trickster.

Also wrong.
Try reading some history. That of your own duplicity and lies;
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2548005&highlight=lying#post2548005
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2482775&highlight=lying#post2482775
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2694879&highlight=lying#post2694879
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2715749&highlight=lying#post2715749
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2721765&highlight=lying#post2721765

And you should learn to answer questions instead of

???what?
I did answer the questions.

 

[Dywyddyr]

would you like to elaborate on that line of reasoning? could you possibly be a brain in a vat?

Not so much "brain in a vat", but how do we know that what we think we're thinking is actually thoughts and reasoning as they arise and not pre-programmed "thoughts"?
How could we tell the difference?
I.e. are we puppets following a script with the illusion of free will and independent thought or are we actually thinking for ourselves?

 

[Gustav]

I do think that it is precisely the fact that we are sometimes - often enough - unhappy, that makes us question whether we have free will or not.

that correlation is not logical as you yourself point out...

A possible reason for why we're unhappy is because we lack the wisdom to make choices that would actually lead to happiness; not because we wouldn't have free will.

 

[wynn]

that correlation is not logical as you yourself point out...

I don't see a contradiction between the two stances.

Unhappiness makes us wonder about things.

 

[Dywyddyr]

is that a stupid question?

Sorry, didn't see it 'til now.
Senger, the "something arising from nothing" guy, proposed that there could be before the Big Bang. But I'm not aware of any currently around.

 

[Gustav]

Not so much "brain in a vat",

why not? are you drawing arbitrary lines in the sand for aesthetic reasons?

.......but how do we know that what we think we're thinking is actually thoughts and reasoning as they arise and not pre-programmed "thoughts"?

i suppose one has to figure out the nuances for themselves, it is a measure of one's intellect to successfully adduce causation from correlation to some degree or another.

what about you? can you form an intention that translates to an action that you can then tentatively attribute to an act of free will rather than to a conditioned response to some prior instance(s)?

But I'm not aware of any currently around.

does non-physical equate to massless? somewhat? not at all?