A Show Of Hands To A Simple Question

[Willamena]

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?

You don't have to invent something, just to create a regression of explanation. You really don't. One explanation can be sufficient.

And it's not a random point, but an arbitrary one. One determined by "you" to be sufficient. Sufficiency is where explanation should end.

For example, if I were to offer as explanation for "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action" the answer, "You have a brain," I would have passed the point (in regressing) of sufficient explanation. Having a brain is insufficient explanation.
​

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 . . . .


.

The reasoning that brought about the choice was the outcome of weighing the factors. It prevailed by virtue of its weight, that's all.

I can actually say that this determination came about because "you" (all the thoughts, feelings, learning, imaginings and experiences) have mental processes, without having to explain what mental processes are (requiring a knowledge of neuroscience) or how they came to be (requiring a knowledge of evolution). Realism doesn't require us to know everything, just to state what is sufficient explanation.

 

[Stevicus]

.

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

.​

.

I think humans have as much "free will" as rats inside a maze.

I've often wondered why the question is so important anyway. Much of it seems to revolve around religionists' attempt at justification over "eternal punishment." God is said to punish sinners because they chose to sin "of their own free will." That seems to be the only reason religionists fall all over each other to argue that "free will exists." If they didn't do that, then religion would lose a major source of its power over people - the threat of eternal punishment over "sin," as a way of controlling human thought and behavior.

 

[Skwim]

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%."

It's not a matter of being able to tell anything. And I never said "was possible.' I said free will is "The ability to have done differently." But here, let me use it in explanation. If at the time you did something it was equally possible to have done something else.

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

What issue is that? Both are acts of the will.

.

 

[Skwim]

You don't have to invent something, just to create a regression of explanation. You really don't. One explanation can be sufficient.

And it's not a random point, but an arbitrary one. One determined by "you" to be sufficient. Sufficiency is where explanation should end.

You're right, "arbitrary" is a much better word.

For example, if I were to offer as explanation for "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action" the answer, "You have a brain," I would have passed the point (in regressing) of sufficient explanation. Having a brain is insufficient explanation.

Indeed it is, but how does this fact validate free will?​

The reasoning that brought about the choice was the outcome of weighing the factors. It prevailed by virtue of its weight, that's all.

Fine, but in as much as its weight determined the outcome where does free will come into the picture?

I can actually say that this determination came about because "you" (all the thoughts, feelings, learning, imaginings and experiences) have mental processes, without having to explain what mental processes are (requiring a knowledge of neuroscience) or how they came to be (requiring a knowledge of evolution). Realism doesn't require us to know everything, just to state what is sufficient explanation.

Don't know what you mean by "realism," and knowing anything has no bearing on the issue. Whether or not you know why you do something is immaterial to why you did something. You're unnecessarily clouding the waters here.

.

 

[England my lionheart]

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.

Obviously there was no possible choice to the HIV part but there were choices available in the case of alcohol whether predisposed or not imo.

 

[Willamena]

Indeed it is, but how does this fact validate free will?

It doesn't. This discussion was about regression of reasons, specifically devising a wholly unnecessary regression of reasons just to emulate a chain of cause and effect.

Fine, but in as much as its weight determined the outcome where does free will come into the picture?

You asked how we decide things. Free will, though, is about that we decide things.

Don't know what you mean by "realism," and knowing anything has no bearing on the issue. Whether or not you know why you do something is immaterial to why you did something. You're unnecessarily clouding the waters here.

.

You started the discussion about how we decide things.

 

[Stevicus]

You asked how we decide things. Free will, though, is about that we decide things.

Although to suggest free will would be making an assertion about how we decide things.

For example, I can choose to have either chocolate or vanilla ice cream. I choose chocolate, because I like chocolate better. I may not know why I like chocolate better, as that's something that's outside of my conscious ability to choose. It's outside of "free will." Who can say why we like some things and dislike others? We don't have to have a reason, but it does indicate that the mechanisms and processes going into human choices is subconscious and outside of our conscious "will."

 

[Skwim]

It doesn't.

Good, then there's no reason to pursue the issue.

 

[Willamena]

Although to suggest free will would be making an assertion about how we decide things.

For example, I can choose to have either chocolate or vanilla ice cream. I choose chocolate, because I like chocolate better. I may not know why I like chocolate better, as that's something that's outside of my conscious ability to choose. It's outside of "free will." Who can say why we like some things and dislike others? We don't have to have a reason, but it does indicate that the mechanisms and processes going into human choices is subconscious and outside of our conscious "will."

Free will is the ability or power of acting or choosing. It is an act of individualism, free in the belief in yourself to be the agent of action, free of superstitious beliefs that fate, god, or pure randomness have influenced our actions. How we get there is overshadowed by the blatant empowerment that the idea lends for the individual to be.

But maybe that's just me.

 

[Thief]

.

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

.​

.

I have raised my hand to the positive

and no one twisted my arm

 

[Stevicus]

Free will is the ability or power of acting or choosing. It is an act of individualism, free in the belief in yourself to be the agent of action, free of superstitious beliefs that fate, god, or pure randomness have influenced our actions. How we get there is overshadowed by the blatant empowerment that the idea lends for the individual to be.

But maybe that's just me.

Sure, I can understand that. I certainly believe in freedom of choice, at least inasmuch as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights and freedoms.

But I see that more as a matter of human rights, but says nothing about why people make the choices they make. That seems more in the realm of psychology and behavioral health, although I'm not even sure if they have all the answers. Or it could be the realm of neurology - whatever neurons are firing up during the decision making process. What, exactly, is going on inside our brains at the moment we make a decision? Is it wholly voluntary and intentional, or do we only think it is?

I don't see it as a matter of superstitious beliefs or that it's fate or god that have influenced our actions. But I see the brain as a physical organ which can be affected in various ways, physiologically, environmentally. Our will is formulated within that organ, and just like any other organ, sometimes it doesn't always function right.