Free will deniers

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Free will is the English translation to liberum arbitrium, a concept that philosophers have never trivialized.
It's something very complex: it's the capability to do what you want to do, but in the context of an universal awareness.
Universal awareness is being aware that we, as human beings, have all legitimate desires and aspirations.

So, if my desire doesn't harm anyone, it's legitimate. Because it doesn't harm another's freedom to choose.

Sounds like you're getting into ethics, not the factual question of whether human beings have free will.

 

[Estro Felino]

If you don't believe in free will, then every choice is not freely made and therefore an example of unfree will.

So if you have sex with someone, it's not a reflection of your free will? Is it something you don't choose freely?

 

[Estro Felino]

Sounds like you're getting into ethics, not the factual question of whether human beings have free will.

It's an ethical concept. There is a branch of philosophy called Ethics and entirely revolves around free will.
I am not speaking of religion, because the greatest theorists of free will were all atheists or deists. Kant, Voltaire.
The worst were Christians, go figure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So if you have sex with someone, it's not a reflection of your free will? Is it something you don't choose freely?

What do you mean by "choose freely"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's an ethical concept.
I am not speaking of religion, because the greatest theorists of free will were all atheists or deists. Kant, Voltaire.
The worst were Christians, go figure.

Free will has ethical implications, but the question of whether free will is a capability that humans posess is not a matter of ethics.

 

[Estro Felino]

What do you mean by "choose freely"?

It is something that nobody imposes on you.

 

[Koldo]

I'll disagree here.

Ok.

My motivations are part of me. Part of who I am.

I agree with this part though.

It is a mistake to say my motivations are something I cannot change during the choice process. So everything being the same does not include my motivation having to be the same.

I can have several motivations that I can chose among to drive my ultimate choice. Maybe it's greed, maybe it's fairness, maybe it's fear. Until the point I have decided which of my motivations to go with, the possibility of what I choose remains open. You can't assume I have only one singular motivation. I can have many motivations to choose from to decide which action I finally choose.

You will always have some kind of "ultimate" motivation at any given moment that will reign supreme. Which is exactly why it is possible to say "why" you have chosen to do something in particular rather than something else.

 

[Koldo]

So if you have sex with someone, it's not a reflection of your free will?

No. It is a reflection of my will. Not free will.

Is it something you don't choose freely?

What do you mean by 'freely'? As in free from coercion? Then yes, but that is not free will (unless you are into compatibilism).

 

[osgart]

So, if my desire doesn't harm anyone, it's legitimate. Because it doesn't harm another's freedom to choose.

I would add that there are productive desires that have legitimate freedoms, and counterproductive desires that don't lead anywhere or worse.

 

[Estro Felino]

No. It is a reflection of my will. Not free will.



What do you mean by 'freely'? As in free from coercion? Then yes, but that is not free will (unless you are into compatibilism).

I swear it to God...I am not understanding what you're trying to convey, here.
When you have sex with someone, nobody is forcing you.
You can say no, thank you.

If it were something absolutely mandatory, then it would be unfree.
But since it's not mandatory to have sex, yes, it's something that happens freely. From coercions and impositions.

 

[Estro Felino]

I would add that there are productive desires that have legitimate freedoms, and counterproductive desires that don't lead anywhere or worse.

I am not getting it.
If you provide examples, that would be incredibly helpful.
What are productive desires?

 

[osgart]

I am not getting it.
If you provide examples, that would be incredibly helpful.
What are productive desires?

The desire to help, give, to care about someone or something. The desire to achieve something one small step at a time. The desire to relate to someone. The desire to do things that are good for you day by day.

 

[Estro Felino]

The desire to help, give, to care about someone or something. The desire to achieve something one small step at a time. The desire to relate to someone. The desire to do things that are good for you day by day.

That's what I meant by free will. Legitimate desires.

 

[Koldo]

I swear it to God...I am not understanding what you're trying to convey, here.
When you have sex with someone, nobody is forcing you.
You can say no, thank you.

If it were something absolutely mandatory, then it would be unfree.
But since it's not mandatory to have sex, yes, it's something that happens freely. From coercions and impositions.

That's because you are barely scratching the surface of the philosophical debate, and I am not saying this to offend you, I am saying this so you know you should read more about this topic.

Freedom from coercion and imposition is not equal to free will.

 

[Estro Felino]

Freedom from coercion and imposition is not equal to free will.

Define free will, then.

 

[Koldo]

Define free will, then.

I already have...in another post...

Let me quote myself:

It is the freedom to do otherwise. And this is what the freedom to do otherwise means:

"An agent S has the ability to choose or do otherwise than ϕ at time t if and only if it was possible, holding fixed everything up to t, that S choose or do otherwise than ϕ at t."

-source

 

[Estro Felino]

I already have...in another post...

Let me quote myself:

It is the freedom to do otherwise. And this is what the freedom to do otherwise means:

"An agent S has the ability to choose or do otherwise than ϕ at time t if and only if it was possible, holding fixed everything up to t, that S choose or do otherwise than ϕ at t."

-source

Okay. Nice definition.

So what you are trying to say is that the agent Smith doesn't have the ability to choose or do otherwise than to have sex with another agent at midnight?

 

[Koldo]

Okay. Nice definition.

So what you are trying to say is that the agent Smith doesn't have the ability to choose or do otherwise than to have sex with another agent at midnight?

He has the ability to choose, but he will inevitably choose one thing in specific, because there is an inescapable causal chain that that will lead to that choice.

If you could travel back in time a thousand times, only observing his choice, never interferring, you would always see Agent Smith making the same choice in the exact same way.

 

[Estro Felino]

He has the ability to choose, but he will inevitably choose one thing in specific, because there is an inescapable causal chain that that will lead to that choice.

If you could travel back in time a thousand times, only observing his choice, never interferring, you would always see Agent Smith making the same choice in the exact same way.

Absolutely not. If I travel back in time, I said no so many times to something to which I could have said yes.
I chose. I decided.

Do you really think that we have sex with anyone at any time, as animals do?

 

[Trailblazer]

I already have...in another post...

Let me quote myself:

It is the freedom to do otherwise. And this is what the freedom to do otherwise means:

"An agent S has the ability to choose or do otherwise than ϕ at time t if and only if it was possible, holding fixed everything up to t, that S choose or do otherwise than ϕ at t."

-source

You can never prove a person could not have chosen otherwise, so that is the flaw in your argument.