• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Defining Free Will

Penumbra

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thief said:
Seems I missed your explanation.
Click to expand...
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2488642-post59.html

And I think my question to you sums it up.

Thought without will?...that seems so odd.
Click to expand...
If by will you mean desire, we do have desire. I previously said:

Penumbra said:
We can do what we will, and we can will what we will, for the most part.
Click to expand...
But our will is bound by causality.

Can you explain how god leads to a reasonable definition of, and a working model of, what free will is?
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Penumbra said:
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.
Click to expand...

So I took a look.

This is what I would call an argumentative ploy.

This is an example of discussion to express the empty meaning of an idea (free will) while using such discussion is in itself meaningless.

Like a square circle....

Seeing through the ploy....freewill exists.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Penumbra said:
You haven't answered my question regarding whether you propose something other than chance or causality as being involved in the process.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Penumbra said:
Can you define it?
Click to expand...

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'.
 
Penumbra

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Willamena said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

I've already brought up that neither causality nor chance are sufficient for something like free will to be meaningful.

Thief said:
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'.
Click to expand...
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.

What does it mean to "choose"? Who is it that is making the choice, and on what basis?

What does "creatively determined" mean? What is creativity?

Is the conservation of energy violated anywhere in this?
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Penumbra said:
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.
Click to expand...
I disagree that that's a proper image of hard indeterminism.

Penumbra said:
I've already brought up that neither causality nor chance are sufficient for something like free will to be meaningful.
Click to expand...
With that I can agree (as I've supported another approach).
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Thief said:
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?
Click to expand...

Webster reflects traditional usage, and the traditional concept of free will is indeed unclear at best.

If we are aiming to useful definitions, quoting Webster is of no use, sorry.

As for "twisting my perspective", that is a loaded choice of words for what amounts to doing what a debate area is supposed to exist for. Better luck with your next bluff, pal. :p
 
sandy whitelinger

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Penumbra said:
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.
Click to expand...
Free will is the ability to make a choice when a choice is available.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
Penumbra said:
What is a choice?
Click to expand...
Ah, the other member of the free will trinity raises its head.
icon14.gif
1) "WILL,"

2) "FREE WILL"

3) "CHOICE"
​
None of which has meaning in light of our deterministic universe.



Every "because" affirms determinism​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top