A god can't logically judge you, not even if you have free will

[Just_me_Mike]

That's what I keep trying to say. If we have a choice, one of those choices can be "no".

To me the problem with this is, nothing can be offered to suggest we are ever truly free to make that choice, and are not heavily influenced by internal and more importantly external sources.

Every time I try to fathom freewill, this is where it falls apart for me.

 

[ChristineES]

To me the problem with this is, nothing can be offered to suggest we are ever truly free to make that choice, and are not heavily influenced by internal and more importantly external sources.

Every time I try to fathom freewill, this is where it falls apart for me.

I just don't try to worry about it. I have been having this same debate for almost 30 years: free will or no free will. Some people believe in destiny and some people don't. I am the opposite, when I try to think that every thing is laid out for me to follow and I truly don't have any choice at all- I just can't fathom it.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

I think the concept is often made over complicated. The basic idea behind it seems rather simple to me. A thing is by nature limited. To be a thing is to also to not be other things. Within our limited framework. A conscious being like a human has limited capacity to dictate it's existence. However, given that the number of influences and factors in any given life is so ridiculously hard to perceive and would require mathematical computations that even the best math minds in history would find practically impossible.

And it would do little to no good to attempt to put all the information in a computer and get some sort of coherent idea or realistic pattern as the people involved would never be able to agree on everything that should go into the computer or whether or not some important factors were missing or not.

 

[Skwim]

According to free will, the desire arises without cause.

Then it would be an utterly random event. That you sexually desire females is just as likely as sexually desiring males. It's just as likely that you desire a bowl of cornmeal mush as a fried steak. The desire to remain single is just as likely as the desire to marry---according to free will. To my way of thinking this isn't how the world works. For myself, I desire what I do be-cause ___________________________ .

 

[Zadok]

No, I assumed free will for my argument, and free will necessitates indeterminism.

Yeah, we learn and make different choices. I'm not disputing that.

You see? You're still picking based on what you want. Choice follows from desire. Desire must be uncaused for free will to be. If your choices follow from something you did not cause (and are therefore not responsible for) then you are not responsible for your choices.

In essence you are brushing up against what I have posted in the past. And that is that we really do not have free will. That is – we cannot select from what we want. If we do not understand the results of our choices it cannot be based on our want. For example if we are selecting what is behind one of three doors we make a choice – but it is not a choice of what we want because we do not know what is behind all the doors and therefore we cannot know which one we really want more than the others.

But when we do not know what is behind the doors it cannot be said that our choice is pre-determined nor is the choice really random because a choice will be made and in testing; it is shown that although choices may vary, individuals will follow patterns that can be mathematically demonstrated by fractals.

Thus it is an illusion to think we make choices based on desire because many choices are made not knowing the outcome. One may argue that we make choices based on what we think we want but that is really stretching the meaning of what we want.

In the most plan and straight forward analysis – we will only chose what we want when we can make a choice in full knowledge of the outcome, which is impossible. This gets back to what I posted earlier. We are a product of our choices and what we learn from our choices. We accumulate information and make a best guess based on what we think we are considering. We then consider if there was progress towards what we want or not and try to adjust to get closer to what we want.

There is one other dimension – We can make a choice based on what we think we want and be completely successful in obtaining what we thought we wanted only to find out that once obtained it is not desirable to us and not “really” what we want.

In short we do not make choices based on what we want – that is the false illusion that many seek in vein. The truth is that we really do not know enough to determine what we want.

The other illusion you seem to suffer from is your disconnect from being responsible for choices made that you did not desire to make. It does not matter what motivation you had for whatever choice – you will be affected by that choice and thus responsible whether you want the responsibility or not. The only thing you can argue is the justice of your responsibility. This all gets us back to the simple point. “If you know the truth and act upon it – then and only then are you free to pursue your desire.

Zadok

 

[Zadok]

I think the concept is often made over complicated. The basic idea behind it seems rather simple to me. A thing is by nature limited. To be a thing is to also to not be other things. Within our limited framework. A conscious being like a human has limited capacity to dictate it's existence. However, given that the number of influences and factors in any given life is so ridiculously hard to perceive and would require mathematical computations that even the best math minds in history would find practically impossible.

And it would do little to no good to attempt to put all the information in a computer and get some sort of coherent idea or realistic pattern as the people involved would never be able to agree on everything that should go into the computer or whether or not some important factors were missing or not.

The problem is not everybody else - the problem is you and your choices and how you go about making a choice.

Zadok

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

The problem is not everybody else - the problem is you and your choices and how you go about making a choice.

Zadok

What I was outlining really isn't an application to use for specific people. it's an assessment of the concept as a whole.

 

[PolyHedral]

But both exist at the same time!
Unless you're saying that a quadratic equation has only one root (place where f(x)=0). Then the fundamental theorem on Algebra would like to have a word with you. Or Gauss would...he proved that f(x) with degree n has n roots. (so a quadratic (degree two) has two roots). You only use one at a time, yes, but both exist.

Sorry for being a gigantic pedant, but is this over R or C? Because not all n-degree polynomials have n solutions in R, and some even have 0. (Such as f(x)=x^2+1)

...And I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with what you're actually trying to say, which is that two mutually exclusive ideas apply at the same time. This is quite obviously false.

EDIT: Oops, got ninja'd by a page. This is probably irrelavent by now.

 

[Midnight Pete]

I buy this to an extent. We are what our experience makes us. That being said, even though your experiences for the last 10 years lead you to lean certain ways during certain choices, nothing stops you from flipping a coin at random to choose an outcome.

But if I were to flip a coin at random to determine if I suddenly do something wildly against my moral code, I would not obey the coin. I could not.

 

[JustAsking]

But if I were to flip a coin at random to determine if I suddenly do something wildly against my moral code, I would not obey the coin. I could not.

So then don't flip it on occasions where you wouldn't want the outcome.

The point is, simple choices can be differed to a coin. Come to a fork in a road and flip to decide which way to go. The outcomes can be quite different and you aren't making the choice, at all. You have to pick one, the coin chooses.

 

[Midnight Pete]

So then don't flip it on occasions where you wouldn't want the outcome.

The point is, simple choices can be differed to a coin. Come to a fork in a road and flip to decide which way to go. The outcomes can be quite different and you aren't making the choice, at all. You have to pick one, the coin chooses.

What if I want to veto the coin? The coin is just a piece of metal. It doesn't know good from evil.

 

[JustAsking]

What if I want to veto the coin? The coin is just a piece of metal. It doesn't know good from evil.

What is your point now?

The idea was that our choices are influenced (if not partly dictated) by our experiences. I gave a quick example how choices we make can be made with no influence from our experiences (IE: Flip a coin).

That's it...

 

[CarlinKnew]

Well, that's why I said "free" instead. They're not totally random, they're determined by one's will.

You did say random at first, and what does "determined by one's will" mean? You're getting more ambiguous while I'm trying for clarity.

I think it might help to step back from the debate and look at the context. The concept of free will is rooted in a theology that's pretty alien to both of us. It's a choice between two opposing natures, the base animal and the pure soul. Want and should. You might think of it as the ability to override instinct with intellect.

Does that help?

Yes, that definition makes perfect sense, but it can still fall under determinism.

 

[Storm]

You did say random at first, and what does "determined by one's will" mean?

It means you choose.

You're getting more ambiguous while I'm trying for clarity.

Well, I'm sorry, but there are only so many ways to say that you either have a choice or you don't. If you don't have a choice, it's not free will.

Yes, that definition makes perfect sense, but it can still fall under determinism.

Gah.