I've already explained that.If your thoughts are your own....how then you will is not?
And you haven't answered my other question.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I've already explained that.If your thoughts are your own....how then you will is not?
I've already explained that.
And you haven't answered my other question.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2488642-post59.htmlSeems I missed your explanation.
If by will you mean desire, we do have desire. I previously said:And I think my question to you sums it up.
Thought without will?...that seems so odd.
But our will is bound by causality.We can do what we will, and we can will what we will, for the most part.
Thanks for all the replies. Here's my view.
I don't consider free will to be a meaningful concept. Many debates on free will I've observed are based on certain conditions, such as "if there is an omniscient god, free will doesn't exist" or "if the universe is not totally reducible and deterministic, then we can potentially have free will", etc.
But, I don't view it as existent or nonexistent based on any conditions. I view it as something that is inherently without meaning. Basically, either things are causal, with all events being based on previous events, or chance can exist, or that there is some combination of both causality and chance (which seems to be the case) but neither causality or chance or any combination of the two are necessary or sufficient ingredients for free will to exist. I propose free will is a meaningless concept not because certain conditions are not met, but rather, because there are no relevant ingredients to define it. So free will is basically equivalent to a square circle.
I view the self as an iterative model. We can do what we will, and we can will what we will, for the most part. We do have consciousness and the ability to choose, but our choices are based on our current state, which itself was based on a previous state, and so on, all the way back to inception. The conscious state chooses its next state, and that state chooses its next state, and so on. Humans have desires, and they can perform actions to try to meet those desires. To a certain extent, they can also desire to change their desires, and do so over time. But it's all bound mainly by causality. Many might view a lack of free will, or being bound by causality, to be a bad thing, but if there are no meaningful alternatives, then this is not the case, and it's neither a good thing or a bad thing in and of itself.
Can you define it?Seeing through the ploy....freewill exists.
One alternative is called hard indeterminism. Neither "causality" nor "chance" are sufficient to explain the world, because both exist. As they exist, they are part of what is alleged to be explained.You haven't answered my question regarding whether you propose something other than chance or causality as being involved in the process.
Can you define it?
Do you have a definition with meaning?
Hard Indeterminism proposes that neither free will nor determinism exist. From what I've seen, it bases this on the observation that if there is not determinism, then actions would be governed by chance, which is not free.One alternative is called hard indeterminism. Neither "causality" nor "chance" are sufficient to explain the world, because both exist. As they exist, they are part of what is alleged to be explained.
As Luis basically pointed out, this isn't philosophically rigorous. It's a passive definition rather than something that has enough substance for a debate.Webster's can.
"The ability to choose between alternative possibilities in such a way that the choice and action are to some extent creatively determined by the conscious subject at the time."
I suppose you will need a break down of that work for your understanding?
How about?... your next response is an action of your 'freewill'.
What is wrong with it?Do you have a definition with meaning?
I disagree that that's a proper image of hard indeterminism.Hard Indeterminism proposes that neither free will nor determinism exist. From what I've seen, it bases this on the observation that if there is not determinism, then actions would be governed by chance, which is not free.
With that I can agree (as I've supported another approach).I've already brought up that neither causality nor chance are sufficient for something like free will to be meaningful.
How do you describe hard indeterminism?I disagree that that's a proper image of hard indeterminism.
What is wrong with it?
What?...Webster's lacks clarity?
Or are you hoping that in the course of wordplay you can find way, to twist your perspective into the conversation?
Free will is the ability to make a choice when a choice is available.There are a lot of debates regarding whether people have free will or not. I've never seen a definition of free will that I find to be satisfactory, though. I feel that if it's not properly defined, the question of whether people have something is not very meaningful.
For those here that believe in free will, can you please provide your definition of free will? For clarity, depending on your position it may help to define what a will is, and then to explain how a free will is different than a will that is not free.
Thanks.
But then my computer has free will.Free will is the ability to make a choice when a choice is available.
What is a choice?Free will is the ability to make a choice when a choice is available.
Ah, the other member of the free will trinity raises its head.What is a choice?
Oh, actual meaning... my bad...Other than a complete lack of actual meaning, I guess nothing...