Free Will

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
If the universe is in fact a closed system, i.e. if since the exact moment of the Big Bang there has been no force or energy outside of it exerting influence upon it (such as as supra-natural God), and if (regardless of whether or not we can discern it) the unfolding of events is governed absolutely and unerringly by a rigid and unchanging system of physical laws, then the free will of the individual cannot exist.

In other words, everything that has ever happened and will ever happened HAD to happen as ordained by the precise nature, velocity, heat, mass, etc. of the event of matter’s inception. Every thought in your head and the exact manner and timing of every breath you have ever drawn was written in stone since the beginning of time.

Obviously, the premises are two giant “ifs”, and either or both of them could well turn out not to be. Theology and quantum physics certainly cast heaps of doubt on them. But it is a possibility, and an interesting thought.[/quote]

No, we are not scientifically determined.[/quote]

That you state this as fact does not make it so. On what basis is this claim made? What does it even mean?[/quote]

It means that science cannot predict the future. It can only look at a result and assign a cause in the past. All scientific predictions of a system are estimation.

It is possible the universe is predetermined, but if it is it is unknowable by science. [/quote]

Read what I wrote originally and take note of the fact that I never said anywhere that “science” could “know” the future, or even glean the slightest semblance of understanding of this infinitely complex cause-and-effect chain.

What I wrote was what I meant, and I never wrote or meant to imply anything close to what you took from it. I laid out an argument that is both simple and valid (i.e. the conclusion follows from the premises). Whether or not it is sound (i.e. the premises are true and therefore so is the conclusion) is another question, and one to which I do not have the answer (nor does anyone).[/quote]

Your premise is already invalidated by the behavior of subatomic particles. Your premise requires scientific determinism that does not exist.

Absolute law do not necessarily contradict free will. In fact, free will could be one of those laws.

[joyfull_beast]

First, “free will” is one of most vague concepts in all of philosophy (along with “possibility”). It has no intrinsic importance; it’s talked about because it’s thought that free will is necessary for moral responsibility. So I’ll just talk directly about MR.

Second, it’s not conceptually coherent (not possible) for anyone to be morally responsible. Here’s a non-technical argument that gives the intuitive thrust of why:

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.

2. So in order to be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are â?? at least in certain crucial mental respects.

3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.

4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do

3 is true because the way you are is totally a result of your nature and nurture. no need to decide the exact contribution of each (nature vs nurture debate), just to realize that the way you are is a result of their sum total.

Another argument:
To be responsible for how you are now, there must have been an earlier you who is responsible for the way you are now. But for that earlier you to be responsible, there must be an even earlier you that is responsible for the earlier you that is responsible for how you are now, etc. This is an infinite regress which can’t happen for someone that hasn’t existed forever.

[Brother_Chris]

Free will originates from the love of G-d.

I don’t see it as a paradox. G-d loved us and so he gave us free will. St. Augustine clearly pointed out that we had free will against the Manicheans.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Boy this didn’t take long.
[/quote]How about a serious question I’d like your thoughts on.

If God creates the universe knowing with absolute exactness everything that will ever happen, are we not theologically determined from creation? Is the combination of him creating us and the knowledge of everything that will happen enough to suppose we don’t have free will?

Can a being that is all powerful create something he doesn’t have absolute control of? (can he make a rock so big he canâ??t lift it?) If he doesn’t control it or didn’t intend absolutely everything, he isn’t all powerful. I see god’s creation of free will as paradoxical.
[/quote]That’s abuncha questions. =] I just don’t have enough hours in the day for everybody all the time as I’d like. All this will develop from what I unquestionably believe are the biblical Christian positions as I get time. Cortes is first in line from months ago, but my answers to him will hit exactly what you’re asking. For now the core of my thoughts will be found here 301 redirect in concise confessional form. This was the most accepted single Christian confession of the American colonies. Check “Of Providence” and “Of Free Will” and anything else that catches your eye. This is as accurate as it gets in the format of short statements (a confession). I’ll try to do more tonight. NOTHING I will say originates with me.

[joyfull_beast]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:
if anyone actually cares about the issue:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

for everyone else who wants a place to put out their uneducated thoughts on the matter, please continue.

“hey i haven’t bothered to learn anything about the issue but i think ”[/quote]

+10 Douche-bag points.

You are right, on every issue we should just read the encyclopedia. If you discuss anything you’re an idiot.

You should let the mods know, they can close down this forum and just link us to an encyclopedia.[/quote]

Hit a nerve, did I?

On every issue you should know the basic issues before venturing an opinion, yes. No one here seems to know anything at all about free will so any discussion is pointless and doesn’t further the debate.

But no need to close the forum. Like I said, people love giving their opinions whether or not they have any fucking idea what they’re talking about. That’s the real purpose of forums, not to actually learn anything. Don’t mind me trying to elevate the level of discourse. [/quote]

Then why are you here? Of all the people here, you’ve probably added the least to the topic at hand and been the most personal and least substantial.[/quote]

The link I gave has more value than every other comment combined. And I just posted some quality shit.

I’ll also add this. The whole quantum mechanics business is misguided. OK, if QM is true then the universe isn’t determined. That still doesn’t make room for free will. QM says some events are random. No one can give an account of how free will is consistent with random events. If fact, many people argue a deterministic world is REQUIRED for free will. This is because in order to have free will, you must be able to exert your will. And exerting your will requires a law-governed world. If you want to use your free will to throw a baseball, but there is no deterministic law of gravity, you won’t be able to.

This is a metaphysical (and perhaps meta-ethical) problem guys. Science has nothing to contribute.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:
First, “free will” is one of most vague concepts in all of philosophy (along with “possibility”). It has no intrinsic importance; it’s talked about because it’s thought that free will is necessary for moral responsibility. So I’ll just talk directly about MR.

Second, it’s not conceptually coherent (not possible) for anyone to be morally responsible. Here’s a non-technical argument that gives the intuitive thrust of why:

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.

2. So in order to be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are â?? at least in certain crucial mental respects.

3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.

4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do

3 is true because the way you are is totally a result of your nature and nurture. no need to decide the exact contribution of each (nature vs nurture debate), just to realize that the way you are is a result of their sum total.

Another argument:
To be responsible for how you are now, there must have been an earlier you who is responsible for the way you are now. But for that earlier you to be responsible, there must be an even earlier you that is responsible for the earlier you that is responsible for how you are now, etc. This is an infinite regress which can’t happen for someone that hasn’t existed forever.

[/quote]

Much better.

I still think you could be part of your own nurture.

It is possible that there is something of you, external and infinite that gives you an initial responsibility.

[Theface]

Like Beast said, it is a vague concept. It is one that has been discussed for a long time, and will continue to be discussed for a long time. I took a Philo class on Free Will, interesting topic to see what many great philosophers wrote about it, but is ultimately a question that doesn’t necessarily have an answer, or at the very least not an answer in this current manifestation of life. It’s all in who you view as being the captain of the ship. Is it you, or is it the great unknown? Do you take responsibility for your actions, or do you say it’s beyond me, and nothing I could do would change it.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Boy this didn’t take long.
[/quote]How about a serious question I’d like your thoughts on.

If God creates the universe knowing with absolute exactness everything that will ever happen, are we not theologically determined from creation? Is the combination of him creating us and the knowledge of everything that will happen enough to suppose we don’t have free will?

Can a being that is all powerful create something he doesn’t have absolute control of? (can he make a rock so big he canÃ?¢??t lift it?) If he doesn’t control it or didn’t intend absolutely everything, he isn’t all powerful. I see god’s creation of free will as paradoxical.
[/quote]That’s abuncha questions. =] I just don’t have enough hours in the day for everybody all the time as I’d like. All this will develop from what I unquestionably believe are the biblical Christian positions as I get time. Cortes is first in line from months ago, but my answers to him will hit exactly what you’re asking. For now the core of my thoughts will be found here 301 redirect in concise confessional form. This was the most accepted single Christian confession of the American colonies. Check “Of Providence” and “Of Free Will” and anything else that catches your eye. This is as accurate as it gets in the format of short statements (a confession). I’ll try to do more tonight. NOTHING I will say originates with me.
[/quote]

I’ll check it out, this is something I’ve never been able to fully reconcile in my head. And according to some people here, nothing anyone says originates with them. =0)

[smh23]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
If the universe is in fact a closed system, i.e. if since the exact moment of the Big Bang there has been no force or energy outside of it exerting influence upon it (such as as supra-natural God), and if (regardless of whether or not we can discern it) the unfolding of events is governed absolutely and unerringly by a rigid and unchanging system of physical laws, then the free will of the individual cannot exist.

In other words, everything that has ever happened and will ever happened HAD to happen as ordained by the precise nature, velocity, heat, mass, etc. of the event of matter’s inception. Every thought in your head and the exact manner and timing of every breath you have ever drawn was written in stone since the beginning of time.

Obviously, the premises are two giant “ifs”, and either or both of them could well turn out not to be. Theology and quantum physics certainly cast heaps of doubt on them. But it is a possibility, and an interesting thought.[/quote]

No, we are not scientifically determined.[/quote]

That you state this as fact does not make it so. On what basis is this claim made? What does it even mean?[/quote]

It means that science cannot predict the future. It can only look at a result and assign a cause in the past. All scientific predictions of a system are estimation.

It is possible the universe is predetermined, but if it is it is unknowable by science. [/quote]

Read what I wrote originally and take note of the fact that I never said anywhere that “science” could “know” the future, or even glean the slightest semblance of understanding of this infinitely complex cause-and-effect chain.

What I wrote was what I meant, and I never wrote or meant to imply anything close to what you took from it. I laid out an argument that is both simple and valid (i.e. the conclusion follows from the premises). Whether or not it is sound (i.e. the premises are true and therefore so is the conclusion) is another question, and one to which I do not have the answer (nor does anyone).[/quote]

Your premise is already invalidated by the behavior of subatomic particles. Your premise requires scientific determinism that does not exist.
[/quote]

Ok. Let’s try again.

First of all, in argumentation, a premise is not invalidated. An argument is invalidated. And it is only invalidated if its conclusion does not follow from its premises. This has nothing to do with whether or not the premises are correct. My conclusion is in fact valid. It may not be sound (I have explicitly said as such), but it is certainly valid.

As for your mention of subatomic particles: yes, as I have already stated, quantum physics casts doubt on that particular premise. But it would be very stupid of us to mistake doubt for certain invalidation. That we cannot discern an ordered logic in quantum mechanics does not in any way necessitate that such an order does not exist.

Perhaps events can unfold uncaused and/or unbridled by a mechanical and rigid system of laws. Perhaps they cannot. It really comes down to unanswered questions. As I have said from the beginning.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:
if anyone actually cares about the issue:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

for everyone else who wants a place to put out their uneducated thoughts on the matter, please continue.

“hey i haven’t bothered to learn anything about the issue but i think ”[/quote]

+10 Douche-bag points.

You are right, on every issue we should just read the encyclopedia. If you discuss anything you’re an idiot.

You should let the mods know, they can close down this forum and just link us to an encyclopedia.[/quote]

Hit a nerve, did I?

On every issue you should know the basic issues before venturing an opinion, yes. No one here seems to know anything at all about free will so any discussion is pointless and doesn’t further the debate.

But no need to close the forum. Like I said, people love giving their opinions whether or not they have any fucking idea what they’re talking about. That’s the real purpose of forums, not to actually learn anything. Don’t mind me trying to elevate the level of discourse. [/quote]

Then why are you here? Of all the people here, you’ve probably added the least to the topic at hand and been the most personal and least substantial.[/quote]

The link I gave has more value than every other comment combined. And I just posted some quality shit.

I’ll also add this. The whole quantum mechanics business is misguided. OK, if QM is true then the universe isn’t determined. That still doesn’t make room for free will. QM says some events are random. No one can give an account of how free will is consistent with random events. If fact, many people argue a deterministic world is REQUIRED for free will. This is because in order to have free will, you must be able to exert your will. And exerting your will requires a law-governed world. If you want to use your free will to throw a baseball, but there is no deterministic law of gravity, you won’t be able to.

This is a metaphysical (and perhaps meta-ethical) problem guys. Science has nothing to contribute.[/quote]

Not true, and I think you misunderstand the randomness in quantum. It is random only in the eye of science. It means that science cannot predict what you will do, and as such cannot eliminate the possibility of some sort of human (or other) will from the equation. Which is a big deal. If science could figure out, exactly, everything that will ever happen, you can eliminate free will as a variable. But it seems as if that is impossible.

You seem to think that absolute laws impact the feasibility of free will, but I don’t see it. You can have absolute laws both with and without free will. Laws of the universe can bound will, and be absolute without eliminating some measure of choice.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
If the universe is in fact a closed system, i.e. if since the exact moment of the Big Bang there has been no force or energy outside of it exerting influence upon it (such as as supra-natural God), and if (regardless of whether or not we can discern it) the unfolding of events is governed absolutely and unerringly by a rigid and unchanging system of physical laws, then the free will of the individual cannot exist.

In other words, everything that has ever happened and will ever happened HAD to happen as ordained by the precise nature, velocity, heat, mass, etc. of the event of matter’s inception. Every thought in your head and the exact manner and timing of every breath you have ever drawn was written in stone since the beginning of time.

Obviously, the premises are two giant “ifs”, and either or both of them could well turn out not to be. Theology and quantum physics certainly cast heaps of doubt on them. But it is a possibility, and an interesting thought.[/quote]

No, we are not scientifically determined.[/quote]

That you state this as fact does not make it so. On what basis is this claim made? What does it even mean?[/quote]

It means that science cannot predict the future. It can only look at a result and assign a cause in the past. All scientific predictions of a system are estimation.

It is possible the universe is predetermined, but if it is it is unknowable by science. [/quote]

Read what I wrote originally and take note of the fact that I never said anywhere that “science” could “know” the future, or even glean the slightest semblance of understanding of this infinitely complex cause-and-effect chain.

What I wrote was what I meant, and I never wrote or meant to imply anything close to what you took from it. I laid out an argument that is both simple and valid (i.e. the conclusion follows from the premises). Whether or not it is sound (i.e. the premises are true and therefore so is the conclusion) is another question, and one to which I do not have the answer (nor does anyone).[/quote]

Your premise is already invalidated by the behavior of subatomic particles. Your premise requires scientific determinism that does not exist.
[/quote]

Ok. Let’s try again.

First of all, in argumentation, a premise is not invalidated. An argument is invalidated. And it is only invalidated if its conclusion does not follow from its premises. This has nothing to do with whether or not the premises are correct. My conclusion is in fact valid. It may not be sound (I have explicitly said as such), but it is certainly valid.

As for your mention of subatomic particles: yes, as I have already stated, quantum physics casts doubt on that particular premise. But it would be very stupid of us to mistake doubt for certain invalidation. That we cannot discern an ordered logic in quantum mechanics does not in any way necessitate that such an order does not exist.

Perhaps events can unfold uncaused and/or unbridled by a mechanical and rigid system of laws. Perhaps they cannot. It really comes down to unanswered questions. As I have said from the beginning.[/quote]

In quantum, the conclusion and theory is that no pattern can be discerned as a governing rule of the universe. What you are talking about is not a filling in of knowledge but a reversal. It isn’t a gad in understanding, it is known as much as gravity attracts, or moving charged particles create magnetic waves. It’s possible, but not exactly in the terms you are using.

But you are sounding like lifty where your “axiom” is essentially the conclusion. Yes, if we are determined then we are determined.

[joyfull_beast]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:
if anyone actually cares about the issue:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

for everyone else who wants a place to put out their uneducated thoughts on the matter, please continue.

“hey i haven’t bothered to learn anything about the issue but i think ”[/quote]

+10 Douche-bag points.

You are right, on every issue we should just read the encyclopedia. If you discuss anything you’re an idiot.

You should let the mods know, they can close down this forum and just link us to an encyclopedia.[/quote]

Hit a nerve, did I?

On every issue you should know the basic issues before venturing an opinion, yes. No one here seems to know anything at all about free will so any discussion is pointless and doesn’t further the debate.

But no need to close the forum. Like I said, people love giving their opinions whether or not they have any fucking idea what they’re talking about. That’s the real purpose of forums, not to actually learn anything. Don’t mind me trying to elevate the level of discourse. [/quote]

Then why are you here? Of all the people here, you’ve probably added the least to the topic at hand and been the most personal and least substantial.[/quote]

The link I gave has more value than every other comment combined. And I just posted some quality shit.

I’ll also add this. The whole quantum mechanics business is misguided. OK, if QM is true then the universe isn’t determined. That still doesn’t make room for free will. QM says some events are random. No one can give an account of how free will is consistent with random events. If fact, many people argue a deterministic world is REQUIRED for free will. This is because in order to have free will, you must be able to exert your will. And exerting your will requires a law-governed world. If you want to use your free will to throw a baseball, but there is no deterministic law of gravity, you won’t be able to.

This is a metaphysical (and perhaps meta-ethical) problem guys. Science has nothing to contribute.[/quote]

Not true, and I think you misunderstand the randomness in quantum. It is random only in the eye of science. It means that science cannot predict what you will do, and as such cannot eliminate the possibility of some sort of human (or other) will from the equation. Which is a big deal. If science could figure out, exactly, everything that will ever happen, you can eliminate free will as a variable. But it seems as if that is impossible.

You seem to think that absolute laws impact the feasibility of free will, but I don’t see it. You can have absolute laws both with and without free will. Laws of the universe can bound will, and be absolute without eliminating some measure of choice.[/quote]

Compatiblists disagree with you. They say free will is being able to get what you want (see what I mean about vagueness?) so as long as you can get what you want, you’re free. This is consistent with a determined universe. By this definition of free will even if everything was 100% determined and science could predict what would happen perfectly, as long as someone could get what they want they are free. The real question: is this definition of free will the same as the one we have an intuitive idea of?

Random simply means uncaused in QM. Determined means caused. Everything is caused or not. Nothing but semantics here.

[smh23]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
If the universe is in fact a closed system, i.e. if since the exact moment of the Big Bang there has been no force or energy outside of it exerting influence upon it (such as as supra-natural God), and if (regardless of whether or not we can discern it) the unfolding of events is governed absolutely and unerringly by a rigid and unchanging system of physical laws, then the free will of the individual cannot exist.

In other words, everything that has ever happened and will ever happened HAD to happen as ordained by the precise nature, velocity, heat, mass, etc. of the event of matter’s inception. Every thought in your head and the exact manner and timing of every breath you have ever drawn was written in stone since the beginning of time.

Obviously, the premises are two giant “ifs”, and either or both of them could well turn out not to be. Theology and quantum physics certainly cast heaps of doubt on them. But it is a possibility, and an interesting thought.[/quote]

No, we are not scientifically determined.[/quote]

That you state this as fact does not make it so. On what basis is this claim made? What does it even mean?[/quote]

It means that science cannot predict the future. It can only look at a result and assign a cause in the past. All scientific predictions of a system are estimation.

It is possible the universe is predetermined, but if it is it is unknowable by science. [/quote]

Read what I wrote originally and take note of the fact that I never said anywhere that “science” could “know” the future, or even glean the slightest semblance of understanding of this infinitely complex cause-and-effect chain.

What I wrote was what I meant, and I never wrote or meant to imply anything close to what you took from it. I laid out an argument that is both simple and valid (i.e. the conclusion follows from the premises). Whether or not it is sound (i.e. the premises are true and therefore so is the conclusion) is another question, and one to which I do not have the answer (nor does anyone).[/quote]

Your premise is already invalidated by the behavior of subatomic particles. Your premise requires scientific determinism that does not exist.
[/quote]

Ok. Let’s try again.

First of all, in argumentation, a premise is not invalidated. An argument is invalidated. And it is only invalidated if its conclusion does not follow from its premises. This has nothing to do with whether or not the premises are correct. My conclusion is in fact valid. It may not be sound (I have explicitly said as such), but it is certainly valid.

As for your mention of subatomic particles: yes, as I have already stated, quantum physics casts doubt on that particular premise. But it would be very stupid of us to mistake doubt for certain invalidation. That we cannot discern an ordered logic in quantum mechanics does not in any way necessitate that such an order does not exist.

Perhaps events can unfold uncaused and/or unbridled by a mechanical and rigid system of laws. Perhaps they cannot. It really comes down to unanswered questions. As I have said from the beginning.[/quote]

In quantum, the conclusion and theory is that no pattern can be discerned as a governing rule of the universe. What you are talking about is not a filling in of knowledge but a reversal. It isn’t a gad in understanding, it is known as much as gravity attracts, or moving charged particles create magnetic waves. It’s possible, but not exactly in the terms you are using.

But you are sounding like lifty where your “axiom” is essentially the conclusion. Yes, if we are determined then we are determined.[/quote]

You and I are on the same page with regard to QM and the possibility of randomness. Hence my use of the word “if” in the original argument. It’s a theory, though, and the fact that we cannot detect a governing principle does not mean that one does not exist.

As far as the nature of my argument: that is what an argument is. If the argument is truly valid, the premises are necessary components of the conclusion, which is consequently contained wholly in the premises. Simplify to their natural ends the premises and EVERY valid argument looks like “if x, then x”.

My argument stands. You may pick apart the premises if you like, but you do not have definitive answers. Neither do I. That is the nature of the beast. And that’s really all I care to expound on such a simple and uncontroversial notion.

[MassiveGuns]

Free will exists. The human brain has evolved as a complex decision making machine. It is precisely because of the fact that we have to make so many choices in order to survive that it is so complex. The concious mind’s default axiom is that the choices you make directly effect the outcome of your life.

You have constant proof that free will exists every waking moment of your life. To ignore this is stupid. And if you wish to take the stance that all decisions are pre-ordained, since we are fully rational and intelligent beings with strict mechanisms for making decisions that will always pick the same answers given the same circumstances, you are ignoring the fact that humans are NOT always rational or intelligent and quite capable of making very stupid mistakes that almost defy sanity and logic, and if given the same decision twice could easily pick a different choice without knowing the future or having the benefit of hindsight.

[joyfull_beast]

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Free will exists. The human brain has evolved as a complex decision making machine. It is precisely because of the fact that we have to make so many choices in order to survive that it is so complex. The concious mind’s default axiom is that the choices you make directly effect the outcome of your life.

You have constant proof that free will exists every waking moment of your life. To ignore this is stupid. And if you wish to take the stance that all decisions are pre-ordained, since we are fully rational and intelligent beings with strict mechanisms for making decisions that will always pick the same answers given the same circumstances, you are ignoring the fact that humans are NOT always rational or intelligent and quite capable of making very stupid mistakes that almost defy sanity and logic, and if given the same decision twice could easily pick a different choice without knowing the future or having the benefit of hindsight.[/quote]

Perfect example of someone who has no idea what free will is, but probably has the same idea as 99% of people who talk about it. No one is saying you can’t make choices bro.

[MassiveGuns]

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Free will exists. The human brain has evolved as a complex decision making machine. It is precisely because of the fact that we have to make so many choices in order to survive that it is so complex. The concious mind’s default axiom is that the choices you make directly effect the outcome of your life.

You have constant proof that free will exists every waking moment of your life. To ignore this is stupid. And if you wish to take the stance that all decisions are pre-ordained, since we are fully rational and intelligent beings with strict mechanisms for making decisions that will always pick the same answers given the same circumstances, you are ignoring the fact that humans are NOT always rational or intelligent and quite capable of making very stupid mistakes that almost defy sanity and logic, and if given the same decision twice could easily pick a different choice without knowing the future or having the benefit of hindsight.[/quote]

Perfect example of someone who has no idea what free will is, but probably has the same idea as 99% of people who talk about it. No one is saying you can’t make choices bro. [/quote]

Determinism and choices are perfectly compatible right? Free will isn’t the ability to make choices? Just because you’ve read some philosophy books does not mean you understood whats in them BRAH. If you want to make a point, then articulate it. And if you want to spout some “free will is an illusion” compatibilist crap that you read on a cereal box, then get me some xanax first.

[joyfull_beast]

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Free will exists. The human brain has evolved as a complex decision making machine. It is precisely because of the fact that we have to make so many choices in order to survive that it is so complex. The concious mind’s default axiom is that the choices you make directly effect the outcome of your life.

You have constant proof that free will exists every waking moment of your life. To ignore this is stupid. And if you wish to take the stance that all decisions are pre-ordained, since we are fully rational and intelligent beings with strict mechanisms for making decisions that will always pick the same answers given the same circumstances, you are ignoring the fact that humans are NOT always rational or intelligent and quite capable of making very stupid mistakes that almost defy sanity and logic, and if given the same decision twice could easily pick a different choice without knowing the future or having the benefit of hindsight.[/quote]

Perfect example of someone who has no idea what free will is, but probably has the same idea as 99% of people who talk about it. No one is saying you can’t make choices bro. [/quote]

Determinism and choices are perfectly compatible right? Free will isn’t the ability to make choices? Just because you’ve read some philosophy books does not mean you understood whats in them BRAH. If you want to make a point, then articulate it. And if you want to spout some “free will is an illusion” compatibilist crap that you read on a cereal box, then get me some xanax first.[/quote]

lol

first of all i articulated several points i wanted to make in previous posts. and you don’t even understand what a compatibilist is yet you keep throwing the term around. they think determinism is compatible with free will, so they wouldn’t say “free will is an illusion” like you posted lol.

what a basic error and proves my point about people who know nothing about a subject eager to give their opinion on it, while being too lazy and intellectually dishonest to at least learn the fundamentals of the issue.

fyi the categories are: compatibilists vs incompatibilists. the IC’s are broken down in to what’s called libertarians (not to be confused with the political group) who think we have free will and thus the world is not determined, and the NFWGs (the no free will guys, yes this is the techincal term lol) who say obviously that there is no free will, and are silent on whether or not determinism is true.

I’m a NFWG which makes me an incompatibilist.

The idea that you chose, for instance, what cereal to eat and so you have free will misses the issue entirely. It’s similar to people who kick a wall and declare that therefore the wall exists, ignoring the more fundamental question of the external world (e.g., if we’re in the matrix, you can kick the wall but it’s just a computer simulation you’re in, the wall doesn’t really exist. in reality, you’re sitting in a fucking goo being harvested for body heat and your sense perceptions are being controlled by a computer program)

The other problem with debating free will is that 90% of people are committed to it before they even know the first thing about it, because of theological reasons.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< that earlier conversation led me to do something I normally do not have to do: To admit I could not explain the basis or origin for one of my core beliefs: that there exists and man possesses free will and the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence. [/quote]Lemme start with this. Another question first. Don’t let me down here. What is THE, bar none, THE most important choice a man (or woman) will ever make?

[Alpha_F]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< that earlier conversation led me to do something I normally do not have to do: To admit I could not explain the basis or origin for one of my core beliefs: that there exists and man possesses free will and the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence. [/quote]Lemme start with this. Another question first. Don’t let me down here. What is THE, bar none, THE most important choice a man (or woman) will ever make?
[/quote]

The choice to surrender their will to a higher will.

[joyfull_beast]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< that earlier conversation led me to do something I normally do not have to do: To admit I could not explain the basis or origin for one of my core beliefs: that there exists and man possesses free will and the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence. [/quote]Lemme start with this. Another question first. Don’t let me down here. What is THE, bar none, THE most important choice a man (or woman) will ever make?
[/quote]

Should I kill myself? Or to put it more poetically to be or not to be.