Do you Think we have Free Will

[Copernicus]

IT adequately and specifically describes the nature of "Limited Free Will" as I have described it and relates neurobiology and psychology work that leads to the conclusion. I seriously question your literacy level to understand the article..

I previously gave other references, which you would not acknowledge

This reflects you have not understood the references as cited.

Your intentional ignorance is profound.

Shunya, it is your responsibility to mount a coherent argument in defense of your claim. Giving me reading assignments and telling me that I don't understand them if I don't see how they prove your claim is just pointless. You can either use your own words to describe what you believe "limited free will" to be or you cannot. I haven't seen much evidence of the former, so I'm inclined to believe the latter.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..We can physically see the behavior of people with mental illnesses and diagnose them on the basis of those physical observations.

..and so?
My point is that it is not necessarily through physical observations, such as measuring blood plasma,
or what have you..

..Nowadays, we can also detect physical brain anomalies associated with the illnesses and treat them with medicines and surgery..

Are you implying that mental illness is only about physical abnormalities in the brain?

Opposing views and unsubstantiated waffle can be found within any discipline..

True .. but philosophy seems to be one of those subjects .. much like history.
Granted, you need to "know your stuff", but if you can waffle, it might increase your chances of passing exams.

Religious claims made on the basis of incomplete or unsubstantiated information--for example, texts about observed miracles that cannot be verified and must be accepted on the basis of faith.

Right, OK.

..but theology isn't dependent on miracles, as I'm sure you are aware.

 

[Copernicus]

We can physically see the behavior of people with mental illnesses and diagnose them on the basis of those physical observations.

..and so?
My point is that it is not necessarily through physical observations, such as measuring blood plasma,
or what have you..

Diagnoses are based on a wide variety of repeatable observations, including patterns of behavior and other medical tests. I think that you understand what I mean by qualifiers such as "verifiable" and "repeatable". Evidence needs to be manifest to others, not just the person making a claim.

Are you implying that mental illness is only about physical abnormalities in the brain?

Everything having to do with mental activity correlates with physical brain activity, as far as anyone can tell. Whether we characterize that activity and its causes as abnormal depends on how one defines "normal". If mental states were not physical, then we would not be able to affect them by introducing physical changes to the brain--through drugs, therapy, or surgery. But the term "mental illness" is a very broad category, and I don't pretend to have any special expertise on such illnesses.

True .. but philosophy seems to be one of those subjects .. much like history.
Granted, you need to "know your stuff", but if you can waffle, it might increase your chances of passing exams.

That's true of any subject, not just philosophy. In any case, philosophy is a very broad field in the humanities. I suspect that you dismiss such subjects so easily because you haven't spent a lot of time studying them. If you had, you would know that waffling doesn't always work as well as you think it does.

Right, OK.

..but theology isn't dependent on miracles, as I'm sure you are aware.

Actually, I'm not aware of that. I don't see how any study of deities can avoid miraculous events such as divine revelation and prophecies. One can, of course, become expert in the study of religious texts and the divinities associated with them, but one can also do that with any works of fiction. If you want to interpret theology as a branch of the literary arts, I suppose I could see that as a way of maintaining that theology is not dependent on miracles.

 

[shunyadragon]

Shunya, it is your responsibility to mount a coherent argument in defense of your claim. Giving me reading assignments and telling me that I don't understand them if I don't see how they prove your claim is just pointless. You can either use your own words to describe what you believe "limited free will" to be or you cannot. I haven't seen much evidence of the former, so I'm inclined to believe the latter.

You either need glasses or an English comprehension, or just stonewalling and ignoring the references, I vote for all three problems

Again . . .

IT adequately and specifically describes the nature of "Limited Free Will" as I have described it and relates neurobiology and psychology work that leads to the conclusion. I seriously question your literacy level to understand the article..

I previously gave other references, which you would not acknowledge

This reflects you have not understood the references as cited.

Your intentional ignorance is profound.

End of our conversation.

 

[Copernicus]

You either need glasses or an English comprehension, or just stonewalling and ignoring the references, I vote for all three problems

Again . . .

IT adequately and specifically describes the nature of "Limited Free Will" as I have described it and relates neurobiology and psychology work that leads to the conclusion. I seriously question your literacy level to understand the article..

I previously gave other references, which you would not acknowledge

This reflects you have not understood the references as cited.

Your intentional ignorance is profound.

End of our conversation.

It would be nice if we had a conversation instead of endless stonewalling. The problem is that one is either a compatibilist or an incompatibilist. As I understand it, you claim to be neither, yet you have never said how you manage to step outside of that dichotomy. The problem with the above mantra is that nobody has used the term "limited free will" but you and that 5-year-old closed down discussion on a social media site. None of your other references mention the term, and your descriptions have been vague. Can you say whether or not you consider yourself an incompatibilist? If so, do you believe in some concept of free will that is undetermined? Can you describe it? Or will you just keep repeating the above, as if it explained what you mean by the term?

 

[muhammad_isa]

If mental states were not physical, then we would not be able to affect them by introducing physical changes to the brain--through drugs, therapy, or surgery..

That's not true..
For example, a psychiatrist might prescribe a sedative to a patient that is very anxious .. it
doesn't follow that it is being prescribed, due to having a brain tumour.
Anxiety is a mental state, and its causes are not limited to physical abnormality.

Psychologists are more concerned with talking therapies, and they are not 'physical' either.

Actually, I'm not aware of that..

No?

Theologians use various forms of analysis and argument (experiential, philosophical, ethnographic, historical, and others) to help understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote any myriad of religious topics. As in philosophy of ethics and case law, arguments often assume the existence of previously resolved questions, and develop by making analogies from them to draw new inferences in new situations.
Theology - Wikipedia

 

[shunyadragon]

It would be nice if we had a conversation instead of endless stonewalling. The problem is that one is either a compatibilist or an incompatibilist. As I understand it, you claim to be neither, yet you have never said how you manage to step outside of that dichotomy. The problem with the above mantra is that nobody has used the term "limited free will" but you and that 5-year-old closed down discussion on a social media site. None of your other references mention the term, and your descriptions have been vague. Can you say whether or not you consider yourself an incompatibilist? If so, do you believe in some concept of free will that is undetermined? Can you describe it? Or will you just keep repeating the above, as if it explained what you mean by the term?

You either need glasses or an English comprehension, or just stonewalling and ignoring the references, I vote for all three problems

Again . . .

IT adequately and specifically describes the nature of "Limited Free Will" as I have described it and relates neurobiology and psychology work that leads to the conclusion. I seriously question your literacy level to understand the article..

I previously gave other references, which you would not acknowledge

This reflects you have not understood the references as cited.

Your intentional ignorance is profound.

End of our conversation.

 

[Nakosis]

It would be nice if we had a conversation instead of endless stonewalling. The problem is that one is either a compatibilist or an incompatibilist. As I understand it, you claim to be neither, yet you have never said how you manage to step outside of that dichotomy. The problem with the above mantra is that nobody has used the term "limited free will" but you and that 5-year-old closed down discussion on a social media site. None of your other references mention the term, and your descriptions have been vague. Can you say whether or not you consider yourself an incompatibilist? If so, do you believe in some concept of free will that is undetermined? Can you describe it? Or will you just keep repeating the above, as if it explained what you mean by the term?

I can reply to this specific question, though I am only speaking for myself.
I am neither a compatibilist nor an incompatibilist, Reason being, I don't see the philosophy of determinism as having any value when it comes to the question of free will.

Determinism defines free will as something that couldn't possibly exist and then claims it doesn't exist. So the dichotomy exists only if you accept determinism as a philosophy in the first place. It'd be similar to asking an atheist whether Jesus is God or the son of God. Because of my view, neither answer holds anything meaningful.

To put it simply, I don't think free will should be defined by the philosophy of determinism. It is simply not useful in a discussion about free will.

 

[shunyadragon]

I can reply to this specific question, though I am only speaking for myself.
I am neither a compatibilist nor an incompatibilist, Reason being, I don't see the philosophy of determinism as having any value when it comes to the question of free will.

Determinism defines free will as something that couldn't possibly exist and then claims it doesn't exist. So the dichotomy exists only if you accept determinism as a philosophy in the first place. It'd be similar to asking an atheist whether Jesus is God or the son of God. Because of my view, neither answer holds anything meaningful.

To put it simply, I don't think free will should be defined by the philosophy of determinism. It is simply not useful in a discussion about free will.

We mostly share the view of the problem of demand for only the extremes of compatibilism and incompatibilism as acceptable and the belief in either in Libertarian Free Will or Hard Determinism. I believe that that these options are philosophical extremes that are untenable. I have over a period of several threads cited a number of sources that demonstrate that freedom of choice is unresolved and such extremes do not explain the nature of human freedom of choice. The sources demonstrate that our ability of the freedom of choice is limited to some degree, but that degree of freedom is not yet determined. The references cite Neurobiological and Psychological research on the subject.

The reality remains the question of our freedom of choice remains an open question and unresolved. I believe even though our freedom of choices is very limited due to many factors beyond our control we have the potential of making choices in limited circumstances.

Also, I believe that the question of moral responsibility is not relevant to the question of Will. Moral Responsibility is necessary our human evolved social behavior for the survival of the species and exists regardless of whether we have freedom of choices or not.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Moral Responsibility is necessary our human evolved social behavior for the survival of the species and exists regardless of whether we have freedom of choices or not.

No, it doesn't.

If the vast majority believed that we were not free to make decisions, then how could we
hold people responsible for their actions?
You can't have one without the other .. it is senseless.

 

[shunyadragon]

Theologians use various forms of analysis and argument (experiential, philosophical, ethnographic, historical, and others) to help understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote any myriad of religious topics. As in philosophy of ethics and case law, arguments often assume the existence of previously resolved questions, and develop by making analogies from them to draw new inferences in new situations.
Theology - Wikipedia

I, again disagree with Wikipedia and need clarification on certain aspects of the reference. There is a difference between the independent academic study of religion and Theology, and the study of Theology to justify belief. Universities separate the independent academic studies of religion from the study of Theology.

In an independent theoretical analysis there are not any potential experimental possibilities and no objective verifiable evidence to make any determination of the possible results to justify religious beliefs. The belief in religions and their beliefs is subjective and not objective. Independent academic historical studies and research for Theological beliefs and claims should be based on sound academic archaeological and historical research independent of of justification of Theological beliefs, claims and arguments.

 

[Nakosis]

We mostly share the view of the problem of demand for only the extremes of compatibilism and incompatibilism as acceptable and the belief in either in Libertarian Free Will or Hard Determinism. I believe that that these options are philosophical extremes that are untenable. I have over a period of several threads cited a number of sources that demonstrate that freedom of choice is unresolved and such extremes do not explain the nature of human freedom of choice. The sources demonstrate that our ability of the freedom of choice is limited to some degree, but that degree of freedom is not yet determined. The references cite Neurobiological and Psychological research on the subject.

I would think limited at least to physical possibilities. I would think also limited to knowledge. The more you know, the more options you have available to you.

The reality remains the question of our freedom of choice remains an open question and unresolved. I believe even though our freedom of choices is very limited due to many factors beyond our control we have the potential of making choices in limited circumstances.

I don't have a problem myself with this understanding.

Also, I believe that the question of moral responsibility is not relevant to the question of Will. Moral Responsibility is necessary our human evolved social behavior for the survival of the species and exists regardless of whether we have freedom of choices or not.

Yes, usually discussions about free will and moral responsibility go hand in hand. I suppose I can understand that the need for moral responsibility be irrelevant to the question of free will but haven't greatly considered what that means.

 

[Nakosis]

No, it doesn't.

If the vast majority believed that we were not free to make decisions, then how could we
hold people responsible for their actions?
You can't have one without the other .. it is senseless.

I just see the meaning here is that they can be separate discussions.
There exists an obvious need for moral responsibility in our society.

At the same time, the debate on free will has not been resolved. There is probably no need to drag moral responsibility into a discussion on free will.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Universities separate the independent academic studies of religion from the study of Theology.

They may well do.. we refer to the topic, and not individual syllabus.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I just see the meaning here is that they can be separate discussions.

Naturally, they can be separate discussions i.e. moral responsibility, and human free-will

At the same time, the debate on free will has not been resolved..

..so many people believe,,
..but we need a consistent definition of free-will .. and then it has (been resolved)

There is probably no need to drag moral responsibility into a discussion on free will.

No, I would agree.
I just don't happen to agree with the notion that moral responsibility is accepted due to 'evolution'.

 

[Copernicus]

It would be nice if we had a conversation instead of endless stonewalling. The problem is that one is either a compatibilist or an incompatibilist. As I understand it, you claim to be neither, yet you have never said how you manage to step outside of that dichotomy. The problem with the above mantra is that nobody has used the term "limited free will" but you and that 5-year-old closed down discussion on a social media site. None of your other references mention the term, and your descriptions have been vague. Can you say whether or not you consider yourself an incompatibilist? If so, do you believe in some concept of free will that is undetermined? Can you describe it? Or will you just keep repeating the above, as if it explained what you mean by the term?

I can reply to this specific question, though I am only speaking for myself.
I am neither a compatibilist nor an incompatibilist, Reason being, I don't see the philosophy of determinism as having any value when it comes to the question of free will.

Notice that I asked more than one question, and you didn't answer all of them. It's clear that shunya isn't going to budge and answer them either, but I think his unwillingness to do so is a sufficient answer for my purposes. He did endorse your post, but he still hasn't tried to explain how he defines the "free" part of free will in a way that is inconsistent with compatibilism. I suspect he just likes the fact that you try to take the same view that there is some kind of middle ground between compatibilism and incompatibilism--an absurdity, IMO. A compatibilist, of course, would say that determinism has no value when it comes to the question of free will, so you have aligned yourself with compatibilism at this point, although you started out by denying that you were a compatibilist.

Determinism defines free will as something that couldn't possibly exist and then claims it doesn't exist. So the dichotomy exists only if you accept determinism as a philosophy in the first place. It'd be similar to asking an atheist whether Jesus is God or the son of God. Because of my view, neither answer holds anything meaningful.

Let's try to be a little more precise. "Determinism" is the position that all physical events have causes. It does not per se define free will. How to define free will is the question that hard (not soft) determinists try to define in such a way that is incompatible with free will. They are incompatibilists that believe free will simply doesn't exist. That is, they use a reductionist argument to take an eliminative materialist position on the question of free will. Soft determinists tend to be compatibilists who believe that free will can be defined as a fully determined act of will. That said, I would quibble with your analogy, but I don't want to get derailed over an argument about its appropriateness.

To put it simply, I don't think free will should be defined by the philosophy of determinism. It is simply not useful in a discussion about free will.

Oh, I agree. And so does every other compatibilist out there. So, how do you think free will ought to be defined in a way that is inconsistent with compatibilism? Shunyadragon doesn't seem able or willing to do it. Can you?

 

[Copernicus]

If mental states were not physical, then we would not be able to affect them by introducing physical changes to the brain--through drugs, therapy, or surgery.

That's not true..
For example, a psychiatrist might prescribe a sedative to a patient that is very anxious .. it
doesn't follow that it is being prescribed, due to having a brain tumour.
Anxiety is a mental state, and its causes are not limited to physical abnormality.

Talking isn't physical? Do I have to show you videos? Or maybe you think that processing language is not accompanied by physical brain activity? Do you think that mental states have nothing to do with chemical and neural activity in the brain? Why would a pill have an effect on a mental state like anxiety if the state itself were not the result of physical brain activity that changes after a person takes a pill?

Psychologists are more concerned with talking therapies, and they are not 'physical' either.

I included "therapy" in my list. Sometimes it is just a massage. That can also change brain activity that correlates with emotions and moods. A method that is not quite as reliable as the others is prayer. Quite possibly, prayer is a form of therapy that fails the most often and the most spectacularly.

Actually, I'm not aware of that. I don't see how any study of deities can avoid miraculous events such as divine revelation and prophecies. One can, of course, become expert in the study of religious texts and the divinities associated with them, but one can also do that with any works of fiction. If you want to interpret theology as a branch of the literary arts, I suppose I could see that as a way of maintaining that theology is not dependent on miracles.

No?

Theologians use various forms of analysis and argument (experiential, philosophical, ethnographic, historical, and others) to help understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote any myriad of religious topics. As in philosophy of ethics and case law, arguments often assume the existence of previously resolved questions, and develop by making analogies from them to draw new inferences in new situations.
Theology - Wikipedia

I restored some of the context that you snipped. I did not say that theology only dealt with miracles. What I said was that theology could not ultimately avoid a dependency on miracles. Otherwise, it would seem to reduce to forms of analysis and argument that dealt with other types of subject matter.

 

[shunyadragon]

They may well do.. we refer to the topic, and not individual syllabus.

There is no concept here of :Individual syllabus?" misuse of the English language.

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

languages.oup.com

syllabus - an outline of the subjects in a course of study or teaching.

Again . . . Universities separate the independent academic studies of religion from the study of Theology.

 

[Nakosis]

Oh, I agree. And so does every other compatibilist out there. So, how do you think free will ought to be defined in a way that is inconsistent with compatibilism? Shunyadragon doesn't seem able or willing to do it. Can you?

The problem with this is that you can simply declare anything that is not libertarian free will or determinism as compatibilism. My problem with compatibilism is the view that however we define free will has to be compatible with determinism. Hence the name compatibilism.

In my view, the universe is not determined. So if you agree with me, then you are not a capatibilist.

I define free will as the ability to make choices which was not determined by past events.

 

[DKU]

* In this context Free Will is defined as the ability to make choices that are not fully determined by past events nor fully random

I know this is a hard question and that nobody claims to have 100% certanity..... but in your opinion what is more likely to be true?... do you think humans have the aility to make choices ?

God created Adam and satan with free will and humans the children of Adam have free will , we will be judged on what we do here