A Show Of Hands To A Simple Question

[LuisDantas]

My comment here: There is no permanent self, But as human beings we do do actions out of free will, meaning when we deside what to do we can choose to do right or wrong action. we are not bound to only do one action, so as my understanding we do have free will to choose what to do

Yes, that is well-supported by the text, unrealistic as the concept still sounds to me.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Does free will exist or not?

I cannot respond to your poll as presented, because it does not reflect my worldview.

As I see it, free will is a condition of maya, our perceived empirical reality, which is ever-changing. So from the human perspective, yes, free will exists.

However, since maya is illusory so is free will. Free will does not exist in Absolute reality, which is unchanging, nor to one's true Self.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yes, that is well-supported by the text, unrealistic as the concept still sounds to me.

I have no doubt in Buddha sakyamunis teaching, so to me it does not sound unrealistic, But i can understand others may feel it sound unrealistic.

 

[JChnsc19]

I vote a hard no on this one because of things like Alzheimer’s, mentally handicapped, schizophrenia, brain tumors.

And those who believe their god has their whole life predetermined or laid out for them, how would free will even begin to be possible?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Free will does exist,you have the ability to choose or make a decision.

Then what do you call addiction? Biology demands that you satisfy cravings which affects the neurochemistry of the individual which for all intensive purposes would in fact be compulsory ergo determinism ergo not free will.

 

[Revoltingest]

How to define free will?
How to test for its existence?

I believe I have it, but I also might have no choice in the matter.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I don't understand why there would even be any need to question.

It was inevitable that he would post...and that you would reply...set in motion at the moment of the big bang...

 

[Earthling]

It was inevitable that he would post...and that you would reply...set in motion at the moment of the big bang...

Nonsense.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Nonsense.

just being ironic

 

[Polymath257]

.

Free will

"Tthe ability to choose between different possible courses of action."
Source: Wikipedia​

"The power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints."
Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica

"The ability to make your own decisions about what to do, rather than being controlled by God or Fate
Source: longman dictionary​

"The ability to have done differently"
Source: Skwim and others

​

.

1. Yes, I think we can choose between different possible courses of action. We do this all the time. The choices are made by us, even if they are pre-determined.

2. Do we do this independently of natural, social, or divine restraints? No, we do not. We are *always* subject to natural constraints as well as social. If I jump out of an airplane, I do not have the choice not to fall.

3. Since i don't believe in God or Fate, I think the choices we make are not subject to either of them.

4. This is a tricky one. For example, it implies that there is frequently more than one possible future. It also means there is something we do that determines which of the possible futures becomes reality. But is *we* are different, then the conditions are different, so it may well give a different future. But if we are the same, how is it *our* choice if there are different futures?

Ultimately, I think the notion of 'free will' is to ill-defined to be meaningful. it gets to questions of identity (what does it mean to say that *I* make a decision?) as well as physics and philosophy (what does it mean to say there is more than one possible future if the universe is both space and time?)

 

[Abdemem]

I see. But this is the major problem that I've found philosophically with the Ash'rite school of thought concerning predetermination and freewill. Accountability is measured on the day of judgment but freewill happens by the determination of God. The problem also lies is how much accountability do I truly have versus what I'm really not accountable for.

If someone is not enough mature to be responsable for his acts, if he looses his mind, if he never hear about God ...He can not be accountable the day of Judjement
S17

15. Whoever is guided—is guided for his own good. And whoever goes astray—goes astray to his detriment. No burdened soul carries the burdens of another, nor do We ever punish until We have sent a messenger.

 

[Skwim]

It depends what you are prepared to regard as "free will". The only kind that makes sense, as far as I can see, is compatibilism.

Compatabilism is not free will. Compatabilism is belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible. Just like 2+3 is not 2.

On the other hand, the fourth is problematic anyway. If you could literally rewind time and be faced with exactly the same situation in exactly the same state of mind and you could have chosen differently, then the reason you would/could have can be nothing to do with you - it can only be random.

It's not a matter of having the ability to go back in time and choose differently: "The ability to do differently," but "The ability to have done differently."

.

 

[osgart]

Free will exists, 1, 2,3, and 4. There are also forces that work against free will in nature, and in others. And the self can really damage their own freedom of will.

With habits and things people can very easily lose their free will muscles. Happy is the person who lives according to their conscience, if the conscience is upright.

 

[Skwim]

I cannot respond to your poll as presented, because it does not reflect my worldview.

As I see it, free will is a condition of maya, our perceived empirical reality, which is ever-changing. So from the human perspective, yes, free will exists.

However, since maya is illusory so is free will. Free will does not exist in Absolute reality, which is unchanging, nor to one's true Self.

So one doesn't take president over the other? From what you say it appears that free will doesn't exist.

.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So one doesn't take president over the other? From what you say it appears that free will doesn't exist.

.

In my view, one's true nature lies in Absolute reality, so I'll leave it to you to decide which takes precedence. And what I'm saying is that the truth of the existence of free will depends on one's perspective. From the perspective from a person on earth, the sun rises and sets. From the sun's perspective, there is no rise or set; all is light.

In ever-changing Vyavaharika, free will exists. In unchanging Paramarthika, it does not.

 

[Skwim]

Just a question or two to those who believe fee will exists.

In a particular instance of choosing, why do you think you chose to do what you did? After having answered that "because" question, Why do you think that particular reason arose? After having answered that "because" question, Why do you think that particular reason arose? Etc. Etc.

Is there any point in the regression of reasons at which there is no "because"?

.

 

[ratiocinator]

Compatabilism is not free will. Compatabilism is belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible. Just like 2+3 is not 2.

I said it depened on what you would accept as free will. Compatibilism would mean that you can do as you wish, without external constraints (other than practical ones). I don't see why that isn't free will. Other notions of free will tend to be incoherent.

It's no a matter of having the ability to go back in time and choose differently: "The ability to do differently," but "The ability to have done differently."

So, what does that mean (exactly)?

 

[Skwim]

In my view, one's true nature lies in Absolute reality, so I'll leave it to you to decide which takes precedence. And what I'm saying is that the truth of the existence of free will depends on one's perspective. From the perspective from a person on earth, the sun rises and sets. From the sun's perspective, there is no rise or set; all is light.

In ever-changing Vyavaharika, free will exists. In unchanging Paramarthika, it does not.

So the validity of free will only resides in one's perspective, and doesn't exist as an ability on its own. Interesting.

.

 

[Skwim]

I said it depened on what you would accept as free will. Compatibilism would mean that you can do as you wish, without external constraints (other than practical ones). I don't see why that isn't free will. Other notions of free will tend to be incoherent.

Consider the definition of determinism; this one from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Determinism,
in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes.​

If one believes that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing, how does free will fit into the equation?

So, what does that mean (exactly)?

It's just a way to express the assertion that true, unrestricted choosing exists. That faced with A or B one is equally able to select one or the other.

However, my question would be, if that's true, then what is behind the reason one chose A over B?

.

 

[England my lionheart]

Then what do you call addiction? Biology demands that you satisfy cravings which affects the neurochemistry of the individual which for all intensive purposes would in fact be compulsory ergo determinism ergo not free will.

Not everyone's an addict though,we all have a choice to start, for example,smoking or not.