we have no free will - prove me wrong!

[IndigoChild5559]

And how factors 4 and 2 turn out are likewise dependent on their causes. They can't turn out to be other than how they're caused to.

.

.

I already said that #2 was NOT an expression of free will.

Number 4, however, is. There are innumerable times in my life that it would have been relatively easy for me to have done what was right, but I just didn't feel like putting forth the moral effort of will. Other times, it took great moral effort of will, but I managed to do what was right. This is free will.

 

[Skwim]

No, those are you choosing A or B. For the factors to be different, you would have to be different (different circumstance, different learning, different preferences, etc.),

Yup. Although it may only take one factor to have been different so as to affect the outcome.

which of course defies reality, as well as belief.

Why?

There is no "could have been different" that makes will free.

Yup.

Will is free in the choosing.

No. As I said before; will is the capacity to act decisively on one's desires. and Free will is to do so undirected by controlling influences. There are controlling influences that make the will do A rather than B.

Please do enlighten me as to what would have made it impossible for me to turn left?

Those factors (causes) that brought on the turning right event rather than a left turning event. For the left turning event to have taken place, one or some of the cause that led up to the right turning event would have to had been different. But they weren't, so the left turning event could never have taken place. Think of it as

1+ 8- 6+2+4+9-4-2+10+23 = 45
To arrive at some other number, at least one of the other numbers would have to be different, if none of them are then the outcome has to be 45.

.​

 

[Skwim]

I already said that #2 was NOT an expression of free will.

My mistake. Sorry, but I couldn't help it.

There are innumerable times in my life that it would have been relatively easy for me to have done what was right, but I just didn't feel like putting forth the moral effort of will. Other times, it took great moral effort of will, but I managed to do what was right. This is free will.

Now you're obviously using "will" in the sense of determination, rather than as the capacity to act decisively on one's desires. It doesn't fly.

.

 

[Willamena]

Yup. Although it may only take one factor to have been different so as to affect the outcome.


Why?

Because you are just you. You are not "could a been different" you. The world is just the world, not a "could have been different" world.

Yup.


No. As I said before; will is the capacity to act decisively on one's desires. and Free will is to do so undirected by controlling influences. There are controlling influences that make the will do A rather than B.

.​

Will is the capacity of acting on one's desires. Free will is not something other than will. The context for will being free--the context for "no controlling influences"--is no godly influence, no fatal influence, and no random influence.

It's not you acting on your yourself (if that were even possible).

 

[Ponder This]

Therefore we can say that all things that happen are determined/caused by things that have happened in the past

What about an 'unhappened' cause?
Not that I'm opposed to the notion that the universe 'caused' itself, would you call that free-willed self-determination?

 

[leroy]

if the situations are identical, then my desires in both cases would be the same, so I would decide the same. Put another way, if I desired to choose differently, then the situations would NOT be the same.

i assume that even with free will, my decision is going to be based on my desire, right? Otherwise, why say the choice was mine? In fact, the concept of responsibility *requires* that it be *my* desires that affect the choice, right?

if the situations are identical, then my desires in both cases would be the same, so I would decide the same. Put another way, if I desired to choose differently, then the situations would NOT be the same.

i assume that even with free will, my decision is going to be based on my desire, right? Otherwise, why say the choice was mine? In fact, the concept of responsibility *requires* that it be *my* desires that affect the choice, right?

Yes, that is the whole point; someone who believes in free will would say that he could have acted differently under the same circumstances.

There are many factors that influence your decisions, (desires is just one of many factors) the determinist would argue that those factors fully determine your choices, while the “free willist” would argue that at least sometimes these factors influence your choices but they don’t fully determine them. In other words, if I am hungry I am more likely to eat a hamburger rather than a salad, but I would still have the ability to choose a salad if I will it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You're absolutely correct. Free will is no more than an illusion spurred on by need. A concept that arises and survives for several reasons. For Christians it is necessary for the confirmation of the validity of sin and salvation, so it's highly doubtful any Christian will ever agree with us. Therefore, as I've found out from similar discussions here on RF, if any do reply to you be ready for a lot of unreasoned, unexplained, and specious responses. Don't expect many thoughtful, well reasoned replies.

.

Oh, I was going to quote Daniel Dennett....at horrendous length.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I like the idea of having free will so please, prove me wrong

I'm not sure there is any doing that. Free will clearly does not exist, as there are too many factors that too easily dismiss it for such a thing to exist. What we have, at best, if we have it at all and not just the illusion of it, is a Constrained Will.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yup. Although it may only take one factor to have been different so as to affect the outcome.


Why?


Yup.


No. As I said before; will is the capacity to act decisively on one's desires. and Free will is to do so undirected by controlling influences. There are controlling influences that make the will do A rather than B.



Those factors (causes) that brought on the turning right event rather than a left turning event. For the left turning event to have taken place, one or some of the cause that led up to the right turning event would have to had been different. But they weren't, so the left turning event could never have taken place.

You're not making any sense. Since the 'cause' on my turning right in the first place was that I chose to turn right the only diffidence required is that I choose to turn left instead. It's the choice that determined if I'd turn right or left. According to your logic it was the act of turning right that caused me to make the decision. It doesn't work that way.

Think of it as

1+ 8- 6+2+4+9-4-2+10+23 = 45
To arrive at some other number, at least one of the other numbers would have to be different, if none of them are then the outcome has to be 45.

.​

Not sure how this is applicable. Let's say all of the numbers to the left of the = sign represents the factors involved prior to me making a right turn (the #45). Of those 9 numbers 8 of them are reasons why I MIGHT choose to turn right. The 9th number (23) is my actual decision to turn right. All of the first 8 factors could be the same, but I COULD choose to turn left, making the 23 a 24, which means that my sum is now 46... the act of turning left.

So yes, you'd have to change one of the numbers in order to get a different sum. I simply call changing one of those numbers exercising my free will to choose to go left over right.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And I agree. But why is that inconsistent with free will? It seems to me that 'free will' means *I* am free to make decisions among the possibilities. And, in each case, the past events that determine the choice are all inside of my brain and hence are 'me'.

You are definitely on the right track, but I think only need to add the impact of the inherent feedback that the human mind undergoes. And feedback is what allows for what are know as "chaotic" systems. Thus something I did in the past (whether through "free will" or not) will also have been observed by me internally. And that observation from the past is also part of the decision-making process.

Thus, if I have to make a choice between vanilla ice cream and pralines'n'cream, I'll probably choose lowfat yogurt, since my belts just a little tighter than I like.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Free will requires agency...This thread is proof of that

There are sufficient means that are basically manipulating someone, with the manipulated not realizing they are being manipulated and acting freely of their own accord. I assume you are at least familiar with motivational interviewing, one such technique to guide someone along a path without this person realizing they are being prompted and lead down a specific path (not often realizing it, anyways).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One point about free will I think we should be aware of: if we do not have it, then everyone of us must instantly stop blaming ourselves and others for anything at all that happens, including school massacres and terrorism, and also stop taking credit for anything, including "religious faith." Which obviously makes, us at least logically, ineligible for either punishment of reward, either on earth or in heaven.

 

[Polymath257]

now you understand what it feels like for a new born not to know, or not to have prior experience, and still make a choice. as alan watts said there are infinite possibilities but you got to choose; otherwise there is no reality. you must make a choice to have experience. in having experience you have knowledge, in having knowledge you can make a more informed choice. as the form becomes more informed it becomes more knowing. faith/belief is necessary for reality to be known


And you would, naturally, as you began on this adventure of dreams, you would fulfill all your wishes(choices). You would have every kind of pleasure you could conceive. And after several nights of 75 years of total pleasure each you would say “Well that was pretty great”. But now let’s have a surprise, let’s have a dream which isn’t under control, where something is gonna happen to me that I don’t know what it's gonna be.

And you would dig that and would come out of that and you would say “Wow that was a close shave, wasn’t it?”. Then you would get more and more adventurous and you would make further- and further-out gambles what you would dream. And finally, you would dream where you are now. You would dream the dream of living the life that you are actually living today.

It's funny, because the scenario I described would, to me, say I have no choice in the matter at all: it is randomly done and not at all by me!

 

[Polymath257]

As I said before, #4, resisting temptation by act of will, is not a reason.

Why not?

 

[George-ananda]

I like the idea of having free will so please, prove me wrong

I think your argument is based on an assumption that is not true: that consciousness is a creation of the physical brain. From my study of the paranormal I believe consciousness can exist without a physical brain. 'What Consciousness Is', is one of the great mysteries of science today.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One point about free will I think we should be aware of: if we do not have it, then everyone of us must instantly stop blaming ourselves and others for anything at all that happens, including school massacres and terrorism, and also stop taking credit for anything, including "religious faith." Which obviously makes, us at least logically, ineligible for either punishment of reward, either on earth or in heaven.

I don't think that is necessarily true. If you do something, you did it. An electric current has no choice in where or how it will flow, it just does, and it still does it. Dr. Martin Luther King was still a civil rights activist regardless, and Ted Bundy was still a violent serial killer regardless. Blame, fault, reward, punishment, they would have to be approached differently if we understood today we have no free will, but actions have consequences, actions have reactions. That part will never change regardless of how the free will debate is concluded.

 

[Skwim]

One point about free will I think we should be aware of: if we do not have it, then everyone of us must instantly stop blaming ourselves and others for anything at all that happens, including school massacres and terrorism, and also stop taking credit for anything, including "religious faith." Which obviously makes, us at least logically, ineligible for either punishment of reward, either on earth or in heaven.

Exactly! which is why many Christians automatically dismiss the possibility of no free will. Without free will the notion of Sin and Salvation falls flat. And you're also correct that without free will blame and praise are also meaningless.

.

 

[Thief]

Maybe, but I have to wonder: was it truly a free choice?

Perhaps if this morning I got out of bed on the other side, or perhaps if I'd had toast for breakfast instead of cereal then I'd never have chosen to make the post due to the day working out differently?

And I'm sure the factors at work in determining what side of bed I got out of and what I had for breakfast are complex and multiple although granted, much of this may have happened in my head so could be attributed to me

...I don't know!

over thinking a pending action could kill the motivation
or get it twisted so the result is something else

maybe what you are not sure of would be.....you're lack of self control

it's not that you don't have free will......you do

maybe you're just not good at it

 

[Fool]

It's funny, because the scenario I described would, to me, say I have no choice in the matter at all: it is randomly done and not at all by me!

are you speaking of the pre-conditioning, or propensity to turn right vs less likely left?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I assume you are at least familiar with motivational interviewing, one such technique to guide someone along a path without this person realizing they are being prompted and lead down a specific path (not often realizing it, anyways).

I'm familiar I know in the medical field especially dealing with patients that need be placed on holds we clinicians (and in the past have been guilty of this) tend to guide answers e.g. "You want to hurt yourself right?" So they can illicit a desired answer. Now you could argue that freewill is suspended based on this circumstance.