we have no free will - prove me wrong!

[Polymath257]

But latitudes are parallels.

Unless Jimmy Buffet was wrong. *ponders*

But they are not technically the 'lines' on a sphere. They are actually circles. But then, so are the lines.

 

[GodInUs]

Been doing some thinking...

“Everything we do and everything that happens has a cause” is true

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

Therefore there is no free will as it is impossible to carry out any action that does not have a cause – all actions have and must have a cause

Free will would require being able to act without a cause, which I think would be impossible. No matter how complex the human mind is, its workings are still governed by cause and effect, by things both external and internal to it

Free will is therefore an illusion, as things that come about by “free will” are truly caused by the past

I still believe we have wills, just not free wills!

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

Interesting point to look at and ponder on, I guess just like 1 + 1 = 4

 

[Willamena]

.

When one gets down to the nitty-gritty of free will, no matter what is asserted its advocates are still stuck with the question of "why."
Why did you freely choose A rather than B?

If there is no reason then the choosing event is utterly random, which amounts to no choosing at all.

However, If C is the reason one chose A then C is the cause that also determined you would not choose B. But what if C never appeared on the scene, but rather D. Couldn't D then be responsible for you choosing B? Perhaps, but this hardly gets one out of the hole. No matter what caused you to "freely" choose either A or B at the choosing event, be it C or D, they only arose because they themselves would have been caused to appear. C was the reason A and not B was chosen. F was the reason C and not D appeared. J was the reason F and not G or H appeared. So it's turtles all the way down.
Cause 1 begets event 1 / event 1 causes event 2 / event 2 causes event 3 / event 3 causes event 4 / event 4 causes . . . . .you to chooses A.

In effect, there is no real free choice; no free will, just the illusion.
​

.

I don't think the "why" of choosing A rather than B is significant in the free will debate.

For most newcomers to the problem of free will, it will seem obvious that an action is up to an agent only if she had the freedom to do otherwise. But what does this freedom come to? The freedom to do otherwise is clearly a modal property of agents, but it is controversial just what species of modality is at stake. It must be more than mere possibility: to have the freedom to do otherwise consists in more than the mere possibility of something else’s happening. A more plausible and widely endorsed understanding claims the relevant modality is ability or power (Locke 1690 [1975], II.xx; Reid 1788 [1969], II.i–ii; D. Locke 1973; Clarke 2009; Vihvelin 2013). But abilities themselves seem to come in different varieties (Lewis 1976; Horgan 1979; van Inwagen 1983, ch. 1; Mele 2003; Clarke 2009; Vihvelin 2013, ch. 1; Franklin 2015), so any claim that an agent has ‘the ability to do otherwise’ is ambiguous or indeterminate unless the sense of ability appealed to is spelled out. A satisfactory account of the freedom to do otherwise owes us both an account of the kind of ability in terms of which the freedom to do otherwise is analyzed, and an argument for why this kind of ability (as opposed to some other species) is the one constitutive of the freedom to do otherwise. As we will see, philosophers sometimes leave this second debt unpaid...
Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Good reading.

 

[Skwim]

I don't think the "why" of choosing A rather than B is significant in the free will debate.

The subject of the debate here, the existence of free will, requires that we examine it. If we don't then all we're left with is thumbing our noses at one another and saying "I'm right and you're not." So, in examining free will, which asserts we can freely choose between options, it's essential to look at how this choosing operates. Hence the question: "Why is it A was chosen rather than B?" So this is why the "why" is significant in looking at free will. It gets us closer to understanding how the will works.

Good reading.

And interesting.

.

 

[We Never Know]

I believe it is given by God, the possibility to choose freely what I want.

If a dog chooses to chase a rabbit instead of a squirrel, did the dog use free will?

 

[tayla]

Therefore there is no free will as it is impossible to carry out any action that does not have a cause – all actions have and must have a cause

Quantum mechanics allows for the random appearance of an electron (for example) upon wavefunction collapse. If the soul were able to choose via free will specifically where the electron appears, this would be an example of free will not violating causality.

 

[tayla]

No matter how complex the human mind is, its workings are still governed by cause and effect, by things both external and internal to it

Just because the brain is material doesn't mean the soul is. There is no restriction of events in the spiritual realm needing to satisfy cause and effect.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Compatabalism.

 

[tayla]

No matter how complex the human mind is, its workings are still governed by cause and effect

The mind resides in the spiritual realm and interacts with the brain which is in the material realm. But eve the brain is not governed by cause and effect as quantum mechanics and quantum field theory demonstrates.

The law of cause and effect assumes things about the flow of time, things which may not be true based on modern physics. Plus, I suspect that time flows only in the spiritual realm, but that there is no such concept as time in the physical realm.

 

[Skwim]

If a dog chooses to chase a rabbit instead of a squirrel, did the dog use free will?

Nope. Actually, there's no such thing as true choosing. We do as we do because we can't do any differently.

/

 

[We Never Know]

Nope. Actually, there's no such thing as true choosing. We do as we do because we can't do any differently.

/

???

 

[1213]

If a dog chooses to chase a rabbit instead of a squirrel, did the dog use free will?

In this case I don’t see anyone else making the decision or interfering the will of the dog.

If the dog didn’t use free will, what prevented it?

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

Been doing some thinking...

“Everything we do and everything that happens has a cause” is true

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

Therefore there is no free will as it is impossible to carry out any action that does not have a cause – all actions have and must have a cause

Free will would require being able to act without a cause, which I think would be impossible. No matter how complex the human mind is, its workings are still governed by cause and effect, by things both external and internal to it

Free will is therefore an illusion, as things that come about by “free will” are truly caused by the past

I still believe we have wills, just not free wills!

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

That last part, sorry, can't help ya.

If we accept that God holds the Omni~powers, i.e. is Omnipotent, (eternally powerful, all powerful) , Omni~Present, (eternally/all present everywhere at all times), Omniscient (eternally/all knowing), and Omni~Genesis, (eternal/all source of all that is), and we recall the many scriptures that inform God predestines, predetermines, all things that occur according to his will, for his glory, and purpose, then no, we cannot have our own absolutely free will to do as we wish without God's foresight and pre~planning to accommodate those thoughts and actions.
Proverbs 16:9 A man’s heart plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

Psalms 37:23 The steps of a man are ordered by the LORD, and He delights in his way.


Remember also the words of God that call those who follow Christ, The Elect.
Article: Predestination & Free Will is Debatable – But Election is Clear



A 2005 non-Christian/Biblical source pertaining to this topic and a fascinating read imo, is entitle.
Biblical Christianity Denies Free Will
The author is, Vexen Crabtree. I didn't link it because I didn't know if articles by such a person were permitted.

 

[Willamena]

The subject of the debate here, the existence of free will, requires that we examine it. If we don't then all we're left with is thumbing our noses at one another and saying "I'm right and you're not." So, in examining free will, which asserts we can freely choose between options, it's essential to look at how this choosing operates. Hence the question: "Why is it A was chosen rather than B?" So this is why the "why" is significant in looking at free will. It gets us closer to understanding how the will works.


And interesting.

.

A fine narrative of a possible means to see free will is given here. Free Will: The Pothole and the Playwright

But the term arose in a world--at a time and place--where "how" wasn't a consideration. Hence, the "how" isn't a necessary part of the use of term. It arose for other reasons and to satisfy arguments that are not touched upon by the "how."

Do supernatural forces manipulate the world to the extent that our very thoughts are directed? Are we helpless observers in a world progressing despite us? Or are we able to think for ourselves, to take responsibility for our own behaviors and actions, and justify progress? Are we in the driver's seat?​

To look at the question in light of trying to define consciousness, or describe a series of cause-and-effect consequences that lead to any particular thought, misses the point. A free will, and whether or not we have it, is a moral and ethical issue that speaks to a person's core identity.

 

[Skwim]

A fine narrative of a possible means to see free will is given here. Free Will: The Pothole and the Playwright

Sorry, but overextended metaphors like this fail under their own weight.

But the term arose in a world--at a time and place--where "how" wasn't a consideration.

Undoubtedly, because like a lot of concepts their ramifications are overshadowed by their usefulness. "We don't question the concept of Christian salvation because it's too darn valuable to find defective." "We don't question god's acceptance of slavery because it's too damning to his love and goodness."

Hence, the "how" isn't a necessary part of the use of term. It arose for other reasons and to satisfy arguments that are not touched upon by the "how."

And this is exactly what I'm talking about; "Free will is just too darn useful to look at too closely. Just leave it alone and its truth will remain intact."
As I recall reading; although historically the concept of free will wasn't articulated, its validity had always been taken for granted. People did stuff because the freely chose to do so. Period! Free will was no less taken for granted than the was light from the Sun. However, when the Greeks philosophers began looking into the laws and rules of change (well before the birth of Jesus) they were hard pressed to find any event that could be said to be free of prior cause. But because this really robbed us of moral responsibility, determinism, as the concept would come to be known, was ardently opposed and argued against. For one thing, it completely upset our working relationship with the gods and our idea of moral responsibility.

The examination of the "why" and "how" of free will is an ancient one, and its workings, its "whys" and "hows," have continued to be a subject of investigation and debate up to today. So although you may not find the "why" and "how" of free will relevant, others do. Principally because, when looked at closely, it doesn't ring true, which I can see as reason enough for free willers to challenge the need to examine its operation---forget about god killing innocent children. Focus on the lilles of the field. They need free will to be true, if for no other reason than to make sense of their lives, and more specifically, make sense of their religious teachings. Sin and salvation absolutely require free will to work.

So, like it or not, free will will continue to be challenged by looking at its "whys" and "hows."

Do supernatural forces manipulate the world to the extent that our very thoughts are directed?

Not that I'm aware of.

Are we helpless observers in a world progressing despite us?

Not observers, but participants.

Or are we able to think for ourselves, to take responsibility for our own behaviors and actions, and justify progress?

You're able to think for yourself only to the extent your brain directs you to, which includes taking responsibility. As for justifying progress, I fail to see its relevance.

​

To look at the question in light of trying to define consciousness, or describe a series of cause-and-effect consequences that lead to any particular thought, misses the point. A free will, and whether or not we have it, is a moral and ethical issue that speaks to a person's core identity.

Well it certainly does impact morals, and may speak to "one's core identity," but this is certainly not the only relevant aspect of free will. A far greater one is its validity. Is there really such a thing or not? And while mere assertion may be sufficient for you, others require that such a belief be substantiated.

.

 

[Willamena]

Sorry, but overextended metaphors like this fail under their own weight.



Undoubtedly, because like a lot of concepts their ramifications are overshadowed by their usefulness. "We don't question the concept of Christian salvation because it's too darn valuable to find defective." "We don't question god's acceptance of slavery because it's too damning to his love and goodness."



And this is exactly what I'm talking about; "Free will is just too darn useful to look at too closely. Just leave it alone and its truth will remain intact."
As I recall reading; although historically the concept of free will wasn't articulated, its validity had always been taken for granted. People did stuff because the freely chose to do so. Period! Free will was no less taken for granted than the was light from the Sun. However, when the Greeks philosophers began looking into the laws and rules of change (well before the birth of Jesus) they were hard pressed to find any event that could be said to be free of prior cause. But because this really robbed us of moral responsibility, determinism, as the concept would come to be known, was ardently opposed and argued against. For one thing, it completely upset our working relationship with the gods and our idea of moral responsibility.

The examination of the "why" and "how" of free will is an ancient one, and its workings, its "whys" and "hows," have continued to be a subject of investigation and debate up to today. So although you may not find the "why" and "how" of free will relevant, others do. Principally because, when looked at closely, it doesn't ring true, which I can see as reason enough for free willers to challenge the need to examine its operation---forget about god killing innocent children. Focus on the lilles of the field. They need free will to be true, if for no other reason than to make sense of their lives, and more specifically, make sense of their religious teachings. Sin and salvation absolutely require free will to work.

So, like it or not, free will will continue to be challenged by looking at its "whys" and "hows."

It's not its shininess that I am talking about, nor am I suggesting that other arguments should not be built off of the salient arguments; nor do I make a religious free will argument, but a humanistic one.

Well it certainly does impact morals, and may speak to "one's core identity," but this is certainly not the only relevant aspect of free will. A far greater one is its validity. Is there really such a thing or not? And while mere assertion may be sufficient for you, others require that such a belief be substantiated.

.

We disagree.

 

[Skwim]

It's not its shininess that I am talking about, nor am I suggesting that other arguments should not be built off of the salient arguments; nor do I make a religious free will argument, but a humanistic one.

Then what is your point in saying " 'how' isn't a necessary part of the use of term." Particularly in light of your previous statement, "I don't think the "why" of choosing A rather than B is significant in the free will debate."

And "shininess" ---"the state or quality of being shiny; luster; polish" ???? " I don't understand.

 

[JChnsc19]

I agree there's no free will. My supporting evidence would be 1. schizophrenia, 2. traumatic brain injury and 3. Charles Whitman.

 

[aurisadhibeo]

and you chose every word you posted.....

no one twisted your arm....

Where to begin? You posted so few words yet you are revealing this odd trove of beliefs.

Who is you?

How do you chose?

No one twisted anyones arm... This implies you believe only people will choose things if someone else influences them which disregards all other forces. Upbringing, environment, education and such. You seem very confused.

 

[Thief]

You seem very confused.

not at all.....

but even someone who is confused.....
will come and go and seek whatever......as they see fit

let's not be confused....
having to breath entails rent, groceries, which in turn entails getting a job

but if I want to I can quit and do something else

if you respond to this post.....don't blame me that you did