A Show Of Hands To A Simple Question

[ratiocinator]

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?

The point is that something has to do the choosing and it has to make one choice rather than another for some reasons. Those reasons must be to do with the actual person (personality, experience, and so on), the person's current state of mind, and the circumstances of the choice. All those conditions are, in turn, due to reasons.

If all the reasons for a choice do not fully determine the outcome (determinism), then some aspect of the choice must not be due to the reasons that led to it, that is, for no reason - which means random. I don't see how randomness helps with freedom (although some have argued it does).

We are the people our nature, nurture, and experience has made us, and it makes no sense to be free from being oneself.

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

Indeed.

 

[Salvador]

I believe in limited free-will; how much free-will somebody has does well correlate with how affluent or healthy he is.

 

[Skwim]

The point is that something has to do the choosing and it has to make one choice rather than another for some reasons. Those reasons must be to do with the actual person (personality, experience, and so on), the person's current state of mind, and the circumstances of the choice. All those conditions are, in turn, due to reasons.

Yup. Although I don't see how this "choosing" can be done free of cause. And if this is the case then there's no sense in which something is freely chosen; the act of a free will.

If all the reasons for a choice do not fully determine the outcome (determinism), then some aspect of the choice must not be due to the reasons that led to it, that is, for no reason - which means random. I don't see how randomness helps with freedom (although some have argued it does).

And randomness doesn't, so one is left with a series of "becauses." Something unacceptable with free will.

.

 

[Willamena]

.

Does free will exist or not?

This isn't posted to start a discussion, but merely to get an idea of how popular the concept is among RF members. But if anyone does want to discuss the question, feel free.


If you're not sure what free will is these four definitions should help.

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

.​

.

One of these definitions (the last) is notably not the like the others, and even in opposition to them.

Three of these exist. The other doesn't.

 

[Willamena]

In a particular instance of choosing, why do you think you chose to do what you did?

You choose what you did because, consciously or unconsciously, you weighed all the factors.

After having answered that "because" question, Why do you think that particular reason arose?

That reason did not "arise," rather I developed it based on learning.

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"?

.

There is no "regression of reasons." The line of explanation is finished when the explanation is sufficient.

Unless you are of a type that just wants to make more work for yourself.

 

[Skwim]

You choose what you did because, consciously or unconsciously, you weighed all the factors.

And in weighing all the factors why did they come out as they did? "They came out as they did because . . . ."

That reason did not "arise," rather I developed it based on learning.

Pedantry over shades of meaning is not amusing.

There is no "regression of reasons." The line of explanation is finished when the explanation is sufficient.

So what was the reason you determine the explanation to be sufficient? "I determined it was sufficient because . . . ."

See, each reaction event has a cause that determined the event to be what it was and not something else. Freedom simply doesn't enter into the picture.

.

 

[Willamena]

Yup. Although I don't see how this "choosing" can be done free of cause. And if this is the case then there's no sense in which something is freely chosen; the act of a free will.

.

With free will, you are the cause. You are all the thoughts, feelings, learning, imaginings and experiences that you have had. That's you, and that's what chooses.

 

[Willamena]

And in weighing all the factors why did they come out as they did? "They came out as they did because . . . ."

...because they were weighed. You're creating a false regression.

Pedantry over shades of meaning is not amusing.

Yeah, it kinda is.

So what was the reason you determine the explanation to be sufficient? "I determined it was sufficient because . . . ."

See, each reaction event has a cause that determined the event to be what it was and not something else. Freedom simply doesn't enter into the picture.

The reasoning that made the explanation sufficient is an entirely separate issue (i.e. a different topic) from the reasoning that made a choice.

 

[Skwim]

With free will, you are the cause. You are all the thoughts, feelings, learning, imaginings and experiences that you have had. That's you, and that's what chooses.

No one denies that it isn't you who is the cause. Who has thoughts, feelings learning, imaginings and experiences. It's just that they don't come about by choice, but rather are determined by previously existing causes.

.

 

[Skwim]

...because they were weighed. You're creating a false regression.

Absolutely not. To save your sense of free will you're simply driven to stop prior cause at some random point. Unfortunately, you have to put something in its place. So, if prior cause didn't determine which factors took precedent, what did?

The reasoning that made the explanation sufficient is an entirely separate issue (i.e. a different topic) from the reasoning that made a choice.

So, what was this reasoning that brought about the choice, and why did it prevail over all other reasoning. If you say "it was simply right" then you're stuck with explaining how it was determined that it was right and not wrong. Then your stuck with explaining how this determination came about. and so on, and so on. Thing is, unless an event is utterly random, it has to be caused. And causes have causes, which in turn have causes, which have causes, which . . . .


.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

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.

Did you understand my post? I was referring to this:

"And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray [thereby] whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise."

Surah 14:4

If God guides me but can also lead me astray, then how do I have agency? By agency, I'm referring to the philosophical term that there is an intentionality of action based on my own independent mental state.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

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

True, but addiction indicates that freewill is limited and therefore I think it would raise a good argument for genetic/biological determinism. If I have a genetic predisposition to alcohol I'm already pre-determined (through the potentiality) to be an alcoholic based on my biology.

 

[Abdemem]

Did you understand my post? I was referring to this:

"And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray [thereby] whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise."

Surah 14:4

If God guides me but can also lead me astray, then how do I have agency? By agency, I'm referring to the philosophical term that there is an intentionality of action based on my own independent mental state.

It is simple, if you wish to be guided by God, if you are honest and really want to be guided then GOD guides you, if you play, you do not really want to be guided, the faith and spiritualism for you is a joke, you keep and maintain this position and never change it, you are comfortable in your unbelief, consequence:

Souarte 39

53. Say, “O My servants who have transgressed against themselves: do not despair of God’s mercy, for God forgives all sins. He is indeed the Forgiver, the Clement.”

54. And turn to your Lord, and submit to Him, before the retribution comes upon you. Then you will not be helped.

55. And follow the best of what was revealed to you from your Lord, before the punishment comes upon you suddenly, while you are unaware.

56. So that a soul may not say, “How sorry I am, for having neglected my duty to God, and for having been of the scoffers.”

57. Or say, “Had God guided me; I would have been of the pious.”

58. Or say, when it sees the penalty, “If only I had another chance, I would be of the virtuous.”

59. Yes indeed! My Verses did come to you, but you called them lies, turned arrogant, and were of the faithless.

60. On the Day of Resurrection, you will see those who told lies about God with their faces blackened. Is there not a place in Hell for the arrogant?

61. And God will save those who maintained righteousness to their place of salvation. No harm will touch them, nor will they grieve.

62. God is the Creator of all things, and He is in Charge of all things.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

It is simple, if you wish to be guided by God, if you are honest and really want to be guided then GOD guides you, if you play, you do not really want to be guided, the faith and spiritualism for you is a joke, you keep and maintain this position and never change it, you are comfortable in your unbelief, consequence:

Souarte 39

53. Say, “O My servants who have transgressed against themselves: do not despair of God’s mercy, for God forgives all sins. He is indeed the Forgiver, the Clement.”

54. And turn to your Lord, and submit to Him, before the retribution comes upon you. Then you will not be helped.

55. And follow the best of what was revealed to you from your Lord, before the punishment comes upon you suddenly, while you are unaware.

56. So that a soul may not say, “How sorry I am, for having neglected my duty to God, and for having been of the scoffers.”

57. Or say, “Had God guided me; I would have been of the pious.”

58. Or say, when it sees the penalty, “If only I had another chance, I would be of the virtuous.”

59. Yes indeed! My Verses did come to you, but you called them lies, turned arrogant, and were of the faithless.

60. On the Day of Resurrection, you will see those who told lies about God with their faces blackened. Is there not a place in Hell for the arrogant?

61. And God will save those who maintained righteousness to their place of salvation. No harm will touch them, nor will they grieve.

62. God is the Creator of all things, and He is in Charge of all things.

Ok. I see we cannot have that philosophical conversation. Peace be to you.

 

[Abdemem]

Ok. I see we cannot have that philosophical conversation. Peace be to you.

My opinion is only based on rational analisys and my faith based on what I learn from the holly coran and the sunnah.
In this forum I think I am in a religious space, not in a phiIosophical thoughts.

 

[England my lionheart]

True, but addiction indicates that freewill is limited and therefore I think it would raise a good argument for genetic/biological determinism. If I have a genetic predisposition to alcohol I'm already pre-determined (through the potentiality) to be an alcoholic based on my biology.

There's some truth in that but a lot of addiction comes from monkey see monkey do imo.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

My opinion is only based on rational analisys and my faith based on what I learn from the holly coran and the sunnah.
In this forum I think I am in a religious space, not in a phiIosophical thoughts.

Ok

 

[Epic Beard Man]

There's some truth in that but a lot of addiction comes from monkey see monkey do imo.

Or it could be that my pre-determined existence such as being born to an HIV infected mother to which I contracted HIV from, and knowing my fate has driven me to self medicate using alcohol. In addition, my mother and father were alcoholics which may have given me the genetic predisposition to be an alcoholic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have some issues with your definitions, @Skwim -

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

This obviously happens, so by that definition, yes.

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

Isn't thought a "natural constraint?" If not, this definition seems to suggest dualism.

I also think that free will is about the decision, not the action. This definition kind of muddies the distinction.

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

Well, we do make decisions, so I would think that anyone who doesn't believe in "God or Fate" would necessarily have to accept this definition as true.

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

I have issues with this one because it seems pretty useless. Is there any way to tell the difference between something that we didn't do but was impossible and didn't do but would have been possible? What does it even mean when we say that something "was possible?" As my grade 7 math teacher put it: "the probability of any event that happened is 100%."

And there's also the issue of decision vs. action.

 

[Willamena]

No one denies that it isn't you who is the cause. Who has thoughts, feelings learning, imaginings and experiences. It's just that they don't come about by choice, but rather are determined by previously existing causes.

.

They don't come about by choice, they (in sum) are what makes choices. Nothing else makes choices. The physical form isn't given to be able to make choices. This "you" makes choices and determines its course.

Free will as self-determination.