Should we believe in Free Will?

[shunyadragon]

I'm sorry, but you've been picking the wrong Google sites for your on-the-fly education, and I'm not up to putting you straight.

Have a good day.

.

I do not just rely on google.

Are you denying there is different variations in the philosophies of Determinism, and scientific determinism that does not make philosophical assumptions on the nature of human will and the existence of 'Free Will.'

Nonetheless;
From: http://people.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/96class4.html

This position is called Compatibilism or soft determinism because it (like hard determinism) acknowledges that all events, including human actions, have causes; but it allows for free actions when the actions are caused by one's choices rather than external forces.

 

[shunyadragon]

I rather think I am not misusing it.

As far as science goes the word is not even used. Facts may be referred to as true or false.

 

[`mud]

Boy...this free will and Determinism vs free choice and self error and all...
It gets my cranial vortex spinning. Is determination an attitude toward acheiving a goal ?
Is determinism a cause from some outside influence, to bind one to follow a choice ?
Are the choices controled by the cause, is there any other way to respond ?
Ahhh...ism vs ation...minism vs mination...damn, who really knows !
I think that some believers think their `gods` control these occurances, choice or will.
But maybe I'm not looking at the whole picture, what am I missing, what are the goals.
What effects the outcome of the randomicity that applies here, or is there any ?
Is the `will` free, is it controled by anyone, other than oneself, or are the choices erranious ?
We have a selection of results:Goditit, choices, error, randomicity. Any more to add ?
I'm sure I'm missing something, what have these conversations been about on this thread ?
Oh well...as usual...I remain confused
NuffStuff

 

[Willamena]

Yeah, I was taking a shot at the absolute. That we simply, from birth, do not possess all knowledge. Which would make free will not seem so free willed by our very nature.

But why?

Why would our nature limit something of our nature?

 

[Mock Turtle]

But why?

Why would are nature limit something of our nature?

Quite. We can still make choices from even a limited number of possibilities.

 

[Shadow Link]

But why?

Why would are nature limit something of our nature?

Good question

 

[Shadow Link]

But why?

Why would are nature limit something of our nature?

Maybe you should start a Thread based on that second question and see what others might suggest.

 

[shunyadragon]

But why?

Why would are nature limit something of our nature?

Natural Law

 

[Willamena]

Natural Law

Okay, bear with me. What do you mean? If our nature is natural law, why would natural law limit natural law?

 

[Skwim]

As far as science goes the word is not even used. Facts may be referred to as true or false.

Got an example of one of these false facts?

.

 

[shunyadragon]

Natural Law

Okay, bear with me. What do you mean? If our nature is natural law, why would natural law limit natural law?

Natural limits our nature. Our nature is not natural law

 

[shunyadragon]

Got an example of one of these false facts?

.

Unicorns have purple horns.

 

[`mud]

A good one !

 

[`mud]

What is Natural...my shoes, shorts, and a shirt. And I don't wear skiffies,
in camoflauge for years !
But what....ohhh my glasses...doesn't count...my gnosis....and cognizance.
Ohhhh...a beer....and then a......
NuffStuff

 

[Willamena]

Natural limits our nature. Our nature is not natural law

I meant that this thing we call "our nature" isn't distinct from natural law, but very much a part of it. Natural law is a description of the values inherent in nature, but also the movements inherent in nature because we value movement. Movement is life. 'Will' is one such movement, a choice made in the context of the personal narrative. Such a decision serves to advance the narrative. There is nothing unnatural or supernatural about it, and certainly nothing controversial. Our nature is 'natural law' in that via mental events like our will we are a participant, a character, in the movement of our narrative.

Our nature isn't "limited by our nature," it just is our nature. It's like saying the ocean is limited by the ocean, it makes little sense.

Our will is 'free' in that the narrative can literally go anywhere, it can go any which-way, the possibilities for how it is written flow. When I choose a particular (a thing, an event, a direction) in this world, it is in the context of writing the narrative of 'me.' I write the narrative every moment of every day, with each thought about me in the world.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Our nature isn't "limited by our nature," it just is our nature. It's like saying the ocean is limited by the ocean, it makes little sense.

The ocean is limited by gravity...If you feel you are unlimited jump off a 20 story building and try to fly. We are limited by nature. We are limited in our minds. We have a decree of mobility. What we do I believe is given to us by something..We make laws we obey them (or at least some of us) you see a red light you stop. We do not have freewill. Excuse me while on spring break I am somewhat intoxicated.

 

[Willamena]

The ocean is limited by gravity...If you feel you are unlimited jump off a 20 story building and try to fly. We are limited by nature. We are limited in our minds. We have a decree of mobility. What we do I believe is given to us by something..We make laws we obey them (or at least some of us) you see a red light you stop. We do not have freewill. Excuse me while on spring break I am somewhat intoxicated.

We are 'limited by nature' in that it's the nature of things that are not us that limits the nature of the thing that is us (in which case we could drop the term 'nature' all together). But that's not what I was objecting to. That we have a limited capacity of knowledge refers to a comparison between this mental database up here (*taps her skull*) and all the potential knowledge of the world. That's an entirely unfair comparison, to look at the whole pie and then say, "Oh, this poor limited little piece of pie! It doesn't even fill the pan." Well, it was never, ever going to fulfill a potential that was not in its nature.

Do you mean "degree" of mobility? Else, I would heartily agree that we have a "decree" of mobility.

If by "given to us by something" you mean a god or ultimate truth, then I believe there's no reason to go in that direction (a direction of essentially fantasy) to find sufficient explanation for will, free will, and compatibility with a general determinism.

 

[Skwim]

Unicorns have purple horns.

So, in what way would this be a fact?

.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, in what way would this be a fact?

.

Some people believe they have seen unicorns, and believe they do in fact exist. There is no objective evidence therefore it is not factual and false.

Some people believe that Noah's ark is a fact that existed, and attribute phony evidence they call facts, but of course the existence of Noah's Arc is not supported by factual evidence therefore the claim is false

 

[Skwim]

There is no objective evidence therefore it is not factual and false.

So you misspoke when I asked: "Got an example of one of these false facts?" and you said. "Unicorns have purple horns." Unicorns having purple horns is not an example of a false fact.

Okay, so what is a good example of a false fact?

.