What is free will.

radicand said:
The 2005 second quarter issue of The Philosopher’s Magazine tackled the issue of the problem of free will. The article was written by John Martin Fischer. I am not a subscriber so I cannot link the article.

Anyway, Mr. Fischer defines it briefly in the opening paragraph by writing: "...free will as motivated by the desire of an agent to make a difference to the world through his free choice..."

I am normally not one to just take some one else's word for it, but I like this as a definition. This seems to be a solid definition.

What is your motivation behind the question?
Click to expand...

The motivation behind the question was going to lead to the classic '...well if god gave you free will then why blahdy, blahdy blah...'. etc

I just wanted to see if people would understand what free will is. It turns out most cant.

Now i like your quoted definition. It ties in directly to how i would define it.
 
QuisUtDeus said:
The motivation behind the question was going to lead to the classic '...well if god gave you free will then why blahdy, blahdy blah...'. etc

I just wanted to see if people would understand what free will is. It turns out most cant.
Click to expand...
or could it, by chance be, that you have no idea?
 
QuisUtDeus said:
The motivation behind the question was going to lead to the classic '...well if god gave you free will then why blahdy, blahdy blah...'. etc

I just wanted to see if people would understand what free will is. It turns out most cant.

Now i like your quoted definition. It ties in directly to how i would define it.
Click to expand...

I do think that the quoted definition goes a little further than most want it too. It seems to say that though we may have free will, how will we use it?

The article delves further into a discussion of causal determinism. it is fascinating stuff. However as much I love reading this type of material, it can be difficult to wrap my mind around (I guess some might say that less complicated stuff than this is difficult for me to wrap my mind around).

So, what say you about the classic portion of your question? I have some thoughts, but would love hear other ideas.

So if God gives us free will, then?
 
I doubt there is free will.

I am more deterministic, because of what events have occured in my life. They were determinend, unable to procede as if it were all one free event.
 
It's always this way with those who claim there is no free will. Basically, if mankind is not made up of omnipotent gods free of external influence, you claim he has no free will. That's crap. It's just a way to dodge responsibility for your actions.
Click to expand...

The first bit I don't quite follow - free will is an illusion regardless to whether there are gods or not. As for dodging responsibility.. not really. As I said to lg - ultimately we are victims of genetics/environment/experience but that you are still responsible for your actions simply by fact of doing them - whether you would have chosen to do them in the first place or not. I assume for instance that from a legal perspective a person is still guilty of a crime even if he killed someone by accident.

So we were of about equal intellegence. When I graduated, I decided to go to college, he joined the army.
Click to expand...

I don't see where the statement concerning intelligence comes into it, (unless we are to assume all soldiers are idiots). Needless to say, your environment and experiences differed which led one to join the army and you to go to college.

Why? Why did he quit while I got a BS and then a doctorate?
Click to expand...

The 'why' is the question that needs to be looked at very closely. Ask yourself why you 'chose' that specific path. Then ask a 'why' to that answer, (if you said: "because I wanted to get a good job/earn good money" I would ask why you even consider a good job and money as important). Ultimately it is a response, not a choice.

I suppose of course however that we'll always disagree - we have no choice but to, unless experience leads us to a different conclusion.

------

I thought you said it was all environment?
Click to expand...

nope
sorry - you don't do anything - its all environment and genetics (or are you forgetting that)
Click to expand...

You thought wrong. I said that what we perceive as 'choices' are responses to external factors. You're seemingly getting that confused with them not actually doing anything.

You know those kids toy cars, (battery powered), that when turned on just drive all over the place? They are lead by genetic and environmental factors. The 'genetic' in this case would be the cheap rubber wheels and flimsy plastic axels that twist whenever they hit a tiny bump in the road. The environmental in this case would be the bump in the road. So this car is driving along, hits the bump - the wheels bend and it ends up driving through a glass window. It had no choice in the matter but you really cannot sit there and say that it didn't do anything. It most certainly did do something - it drove through a glass window.

From a legal perspective one would then move the car elsewhere to prevent it driving through another window.

Hope that helped.

now there is no need for you to air your views and suggest what should or shouldn't be done since its all meaningless
Click to expand...

I don't have a choice in the matter. Clearly you have not understood one word of what I have stated, (not your choice, it's something to do with the brain).
 
Last edited:
QuisUtDeus said:
The motivation behind the question was going to lead to the classic '...well if god gave you free will then why blahdy, blahdy blah...'. etc

I just wanted to see if people would understand what free will is. It turns out most cant.

Now i like your quoted definition. It ties in directly to how i would define it.
Click to expand...

Classic. He gets his statements refuted and can't argue against it. Then he waits until other crap comes up that he can (try to) refute.

I just wanted to see if people would understand what free will is. It turns out most cant.
Click to expand...
Go back to my post in reply to yours and prove that there is free will.

And while your at it, do the same with Oli's post, after mine. I think it was #28 and #29. And while your at that snake's post on modus operandi.
 
Last edited:
s0meguy said:
Classic. He gets his statements refuted and can't argue against it. Then he waits until other crap comes up that he can (try to) refute.
Click to expand...

Curious, whose statements were refuted and who was trying to argue against it? Have you even read our exchange? Unless, I am mistaken I was asking in good faith and thought that Q was answering in good faith.

Maybe, I am mistaken.

But I do know that I am not refuting free will, nor do I know from where you are coming from.
 
radicand said:
Curious, whose statements were refuted and who was trying to argue against it?
Click to expand...
Go back to the posts I mentioned, nobody has replied to them with a reasonable explanation in favor of free will. And to both your questions: QuisUtDeus

Have you even read our exchange? Unless, I am mistaken I was asking in good faith and thought that Q was answering in good faith.

Maybe, I am mistaken.

But I do know that I am not refuting free will, nor do I know from where you are coming from.
Click to expand...
And no I didn't really read it (I skimmed the thread to see if he had replied), but either way it boils down to QuisUtDeus (or something) avoiding replying to the posts that I just mentioned because he can't bring up a reasonable argument to defend his opinion. But instead he replies to other posts that he can argue with, so that he can avoid having to admit that he was wrong and face it.
 
Chris Cremin said:
LG. It seems that even when SL quotes a revered teacher you disagree with him. Can you find a few examples of where a vedantic university calls Vivekananda bogus?

Is it not in any case something that you believe in.
That if we bind ourselves to the material world, we are caught up in the cycle of cause and effect, and that to escape this cycle we need to go beyond material things.

Sometimes I feel that you two have to disagree with each other as a point of principle. It is like a game you are playing.
Here you seem to have adopted each other's viewpoints, and you are still disagreeing!
Click to expand...

vedanta is a specialized part of the Vedas - it deals with the conclusion of the vedas - in other words anyone claiming to be a vedantist must deal with that specific part of the vedas called the vedanta sutra this is done through one of two ways - composing a commentary on the vedanta sutra or establishing one's views in connection with an existing commentary (kind of like if you want to present something in science you put it for peer reviewing or you work with what is already peer reviewed) - so there are several vedanta sutra commentaries available - Vivekananda falls in with the advaita school's Sariraka Bhasya commentary (a popular yet perhaps not so philosophical commentary ... but thats another topic), yet Vivekananda makes many claims (there is no need to concern oneself with sin for eg) and proposed many ideas (slaughtering cows in temples for eg - it was an appeal to muslims) that certainly would beg a reference to vedanta or vedantic commentary. Thus you find that the books and lectures of Vivekananda are more humanitarian than vedantic.

Instead Vivekananda, at least from the views of vedantists, is understood as a political person (much like gandhi) who took issues of india's religiously surcharged and muchly divided post british raj environment and worked towards national unity, with religiousity existing under the principle of utility rather than concise elaboration or adherence.
 
Last edited:
To the thinkers:

does not determinism make one want to think what events cause this? is there a god? i wonder to the atheists here if they think about such. Determinism is inevitible.

Freewill... is something that indeed can be thought about in a religious manner.
 
existabrent said:
To the thinkers:

does not determinism make one want to think what events cause this? is there a god? i wonder to the atheists here if they think about such. Determinism is inevitible.
Click to expand...

Yes... either it is infinite or it has been started by something that we don't understand. Although the last one is unlikely, because the 'thing' that started it had to be created as well. So in the end, something had to be infinite (or outside of our capability to understand, something that isn't influenced by time) that started it all. Until proven otherwise, I'll stick with existence being infinite in terms of time.
 
Superluminal:

I just thought I'd ask something while we're on the subject..

You said that free will exists and then mentioned that it was supported by chaos theory. I'm not too clued up on chaos I must confess, but doesn't that whole "a butterfly beating it's wings in Brazil can cause a snow storm in Seattle" (or whatever), imply otherwise? That actions caused are the result of external influences as opposed to choice?

Like I said, I'm not really clued up on chaos so anything that can help would be appreciated.
 
madanthonywayne said:
These two statements do not jibe.

Your belief in God is nothing more than the interaction of your genotype and the enviroment? Your ideas on philosophy nothing but DNA + external stimuli? Human thought no more impressive than a phototaxic response in a plant?
Click to expand...

My response was tailored to aggravate supe, of course.:eek:
 
Human thought no more impressive than a phototaxic response in a plant?
Click to expand...

You know, I notice this kind of emotional appeal most often with theists. They feel ashamed to be related to monkeys, can't grasp why if there is no god people wouldn't just go around killing each other and so on. Surely they must understand that regardless to whether they're related to a monkey or pond slime, they can still see themselves as 'great'. I don't understand why the monkey comes into it to begin with. It is inconsequential to their own greatness.

Likewise I must say the same here. You don't choose what food your tastebuds will happen to like, but it doesn't in any way hinder the enjoyment you get from that food. You do not choose for your ears to like a specific sound of music, but it doesn't make that sound any less impressive. That plantlife you speak of still becomes a mighty oak absolutely regardless to whether it chooses that path or not and I find it quite perplexing that anyone could believe that merely because they didn't choose to be who and where they are that the journey was of any less value, or they are somehow less of a person because of it.
 
s0meguy said:
Go back to the posts I mentioned, nobody has replied to them with a reasonable explanation in favor of free will. And to both your questions: QuisUtDeus


And no I didn't really read it (I skimmed the thread to see if he had replied), but either way it boils down to QuisUtDeus (or something) avoiding replying to the posts that I just mentioned because he can't bring up a reasonable argument to defend his opinion. But instead he replies to other posts that he can argue with, so that he can avoid having to admit that he was wrong and face it.
Click to expand...

All my arguments are based on belief, trust, virtue, spirituality and humility how am I meant to argue something without going against this? All ready being guilty to it I have take action to stop. In fact i wish to only discuss with those with spiritual belief.
 
QuisUtDeus said:
In fact i wish to only discuss with those with spiritual belief.
Click to expand...
then why come to a science forum for such a discussion, you would be better of at a Christian discussion forum which will agree with you.
everybody agreeing is not conducive to a debate, it makes the whole thread moot.
 
madanthonywayne said:
What are you, a robot? You never do things spontaneously?

It's always this way with those who claim there is no free will. Basically, if mankind is not made up of omnipotent gods free of external influence, you claim he has no free will. That's crap. It's just a way to dodge responsibility for your actions.

A guy I knew in high school always scored one point less than me on exams. So we were of about equal intellegence. When I graduated, I decided to go to college, he joined the army.

While in the army, he signed up for the college fund. He got out with like $50,000 to use for school. He went one semester, then dropped out. Why? Why did he quit while I got a BS and then a doctorate? I choose to stay. He choose not to.

Another guy in college decided to stay up all nite and party every single nite. He ended up dropping every class except for weight lifting which was at like 3 PM. So he'd party all nite, roll out of bed at 2:45 and go lift weights. He only lasted one semester. That was his choice. My choice was to party less and study more.

In high school most of my friends were into various drugs. I wasn't. I choose not to. I didn't want to fuck up my brain. I figured I might need it later.

So go ahead and believe you're some kind of biological robot responding involuntarily to stimuli. I'll go ahead and continue making choices.
Click to expand...

Sounds like existentialism at its finest.

"Man is condemned to be free."
-- Jean Paul Sartre
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top