Determinism/Free Will

[Koldo]

I don't think that us knowing how God knows what we will freely choose, has anything to do with whether it is true or not.
How do you come to the conclusion that a a free willed choice is impossible to be known beforehand?
Is this a presupposition that you come to the discussion with or do you say that God is forcing us to do what we do? If so, how?

Free will is when we can freely choose between options, and of course, what we choose is going to be what we want at that particular instant after weighing up the options in whatever way we might do that.
Sometimes the choice is very plain to us and at other times we might fluctuate between a number of options and could have just as easily chosen something else. Sometimes we have a choice between things that we do not want and so choose the least bad option.
Whether the choice is easy or not is not a determining factor, the only determining factor is if we were free to choose between options, iow whether we are free to choose what we want or whether we were forced to choose what we did or not.
You have taken away any determining factor and said that it is not free will merely because we have made a choice.



For you, even if someone holds a knife to our throat and forces us to choose death or somethings else equally as repulsive to us, whatever we choose is what we wanted in your argument even if we may not really want what we chose.
In that respect you are making all choices into free choices and then denying that they are free choices because we have a mechanism by which we choose them. (which is probably a combination of feelings and thought, and in the end can be said to be what we want).
You describe free choice (choosing what we want) and then say it is not free choice because we choose what we want and so wanting something is forcing us to choose it.
But who cares what factors determine our choice as long as we get to do it without being forced by an outside agency.
The agency you have forcing us to do something is ourselves. But that is the whole thing about free will, it is us, our thoughts, feelings, wants etc that get to choose, not someone else, even if our options are limited at times.
In the end your argument is not really an argument, it is just a denial of what free will is, so you can deny that we have free will.

Imagine a dude called Jake. Jake chose to kill Jane and went through with it. Now imagine we have the power to turn back the tides of time, and we went back to the moment just before Jake chose to kill Jane. If you watch that moment again, and again, and again... in a manner that Jake will always have the choice, again and again and again, to kill Jane (without he himself knowing what we are doing with the time), will he always choose to kill Jane? If free will doesn't exist, Jake will always choose to kill Jane.

The concept of free will is strictly connected, to many, to the concept of moral responsability and sin. If there is no possibility to watch Jake choosing not to kill Jane, then his choice was determined beforehand, in which case... Is Jake truly moral responsible for his choice? To many people, if this choice was inescapable, Jake can't be morally responsible. For moral responsability requires that Jake could have truly chosen to do otherwise. And if Jake could not have chosen to refrain from killing Jane, did he sin? Can God or anyone else rightfully punish him if his choice was inescapable?

 

[Brian2]

Imagine a dude called Jake. Jake chose to kill Jane and went through with it. Now imagine we have the power to turn back the tides of time, and we went back to the moment just before Jake chose to kill Jane. If you watch that moment again, and again, and again... in a manner that Jake will always have the choice, again and again and again, to kill Jane (without he himself knowing what we are doing with the time), will he always choose to kill Jane? If free will doesn't exist, Jake will always choose to kill Jane.

The concept of free will is strictly connected, to many, to the concept of moral responsability and sin. If there is no possibility to watch Jake choosing not to kill Jane, then his choice was determined beforehand, in which case... Is Jake truly moral responsible for his choice? To many people, if this choice was inescapable, Jake can't be morally responsible. For moral responsability requires that Jake could have truly chosen to do otherwise. And if Jake could not have chosen to refrain from killing Jane, did he sin? Can God or anyone else rightfully punish him if his choice was inescapable?

If you are replaying what happened then the same thing will happen. That is what replay does, it replays.
How do you replay a time without replaying the same thoughts and feelings that Jake had the first time, the ones that led to the killing of Jane?
Basically, what I have to say about your post is

 

[Koldo]

If you are replaying what happened then the same thing will happen. That is what replay does, it replays.
How do you replay a time without replaying the same thoughts and feelings that Jake had the first time, the ones that led to the killing of Jane?
Basically, what I have to say about your post is

If we have free will, somehow, despite Jake experiencing the same feelings and thoughts, he could have chosen differently. We could have seen Jake making a different choice. This is what free will is, the ability to have chosen otherwise.

If we don't have the ability to have chosen otherwise then we are living in a deterministic universe of some kind and whatever we have done and will do is unavoidable. Our fate has been determined already.

 

[Willamena]

My position is that the notion of free will doesn't make sense to begin with. How would we be able to choose freely if our choices are the outcomes of our 'wants'?

This is the age-old argument: when choices are attributed to anything other than yourself, free will is denied (not asserted). Free will is you in action, you in control, not anything else (not any part of you, like wants, and not anything apart from you, like determined causes).

You are the freedom in free will.

 

[Willamena]

Imagine a dude called Jake. Jake chose to kill Jane and went through with it. Now imagine we have the power to turn back the tides of time, and we went back to the moment just before Jake chose to kill Jane. If you watch that moment again, and again, and again... in a manner that Jake will always have the choice, again and again and again, to kill Jane (without he himself knowing what we are doing with the time), will he always choose to kill Jane? If free will doesn't exist, Jake will always choose to kill Jane.

The concept of free will is strictly connected, to many, to the concept of moral responsability and sin. If there is no possibility to watch Jake choosing not to kill Jane, then his choice was determined beforehand, in which case... Is Jake truly moral responsible for his choice? To many people, if this choice was inescapable, Jake can't be morally responsible. For moral responsability requires that Jake could have truly chosen to do otherwise. And if Jake could not have chosen to refrain from killing Jane, did he sin? Can God or anyone else rightfully punish him if his choice was inescapable?

Each choice that Jake makes is made freely if, and only if, Jake makes it.

All the turning time back doesn't change that.

 

[Brian2]

If we have free will, somehow, despite Jake experiencing the same feelings and thoughts, he could have chosen differently. We could have seen Jake making a different choice. This is what free will is, the ability to have chosen otherwise.

If we don't have the ability to have chosen otherwise then we are living in a deterministic universe of some kind and whatever we have done and will do is unavoidable. Our fate has been determined already.

So making up the results of a hypothetical situation is your reasoning about whether someone has/had free will.
But why would you think that the person did not have free will on the first run through?

 

[Koldo]

This is the age-old argument: when choices are attributed to anything other than yourself, free will is denied (not asserted). Free will is you in action, you in control, not anything else (not any part of you, like wants, and not anything apart from you, like determined causes).

You are the freedom in free will.

I am afraid I might confuse people by saying this, but here is how I see it: I am my wants. I am every single part of me.

 

[Koldo]

So making up the results of a hypothetical situation is your reasoning about whether someone has/had free will.
But why would you think that the person did not have free will on the first run through?

Because he was fated to choose in a specific way. His mind, his brain, his body would act in a very specific way when placed within that circumstance. The causal chain that placed him there also set beforehand the exact outcome of that moment. He would feel and think one specific set of things and thus choose one specific alternative: killing.

 

[Balthazzar]

Imagine a dude called Jake. Jake chose to kill Jane and went through with it. Now imagine we have the power to turn back the tides of time, and we went back to the moment just before Jake chose to kill Jane. If you watch that moment again, and again, and again... in a manner that Jake will always have the choice, again and again and again, to kill Jane (without he himself knowing what we are doing with the time), will he always choose to kill Jane? If free will doesn't exist, Jake will always choose to kill Jane.

The concept of free will is strictly connected, to many, to the concept of moral responsability and sin. If there is no possibility to watch Jake choosing not to kill Jane, then his choice was determined beforehand, in which case... Is Jake truly moral responsible for his choice? To many people, if this choice was inescapable, Jake can't be morally responsible. For moral responsability requires that Jake could have truly chosen to do otherwise. And if Jake could not have chosen to refrain from killing Jane, did he sin? Can God or anyone else rightfully punish him if his choice was inescapable?

I've been called a strict determinist in the past, but I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. We have choices. This much is obvious. Our environments and conditioning play a huge role in our choices. I'm a determinist,, but leave a window for intervention. Yes, accountability is a part of life. Whether it's a moral thing is irrelevant. It's societal - whether societal justice is moral is likewise irrelevant. If you wipe your muddy shoes on grandma's prized hand sewn quilt, then there will likely be hell to pay. Morals have very little to do with it, if anything at all.

 

[Balthazzar]

Each choice that Jake makes is made freely if, and only if, Jake makes it.

All the turning time back doesn't change that.

Applied interventions to other persons actions isn't unheard of. Even Christians like using the whole Jesus take the wheel thing and others may blame the devil. Whiskey has a way of changing a man, as do other substances, but this doesn't relieve Jake of the consequences for an action that's deemed socially unacceptable.

 

[Balthazzar]

Because he was fated to choose in a specific way. His mind, his brain, his body would act in a very specific way when placed within that circumstance. The causal chain that placed him there also set beforehand the exact outcome of that moment. He would feel and think one specific set of things and thus choose one specific alternative: killing.

I agree - it's easy for someone to say they could or would have chosen differently, but then they weren't or arent wearing the same shoes as "Jake".

Jake might would make diffrent choices at different times in life. Timing and all attributing influences will determine the outcomes.

 

[Brian2]

Because he was fated to choose in a specific way. His mind, his brain, his body would act in a very specific way when placed within that circumstance. The causal chain that placed him there also set beforehand the exact outcome of that moment. He would feel and think one specific set of things and thus choose one specific alternative: killing.

That one doesn't seem to have much to do with the idea that a person is controlled by what he wants and so is determined by what he wants.
But I guess you could link the causal chains to what a person wants at a particular time, and even take into consideration that butterfly flapping it's wings in the Amazon as part of the causal chains that link together.
So our reasoning is no more than a justification for what we want, or is our reasoning and feelings the cause of what we want.
If reasoning is no more than justification for what we want then we cannot trust our reasoning ability.
If reasoning is a cause of what we want then it is no longer our wants but our reasoning (and of course our feelings) which cause us to do things.
Whichever it might be, this fate comes back to the cause/effect line that began with the big bang or before.
A tiny change there would change everything I guess. All very interesting to consider but of course the presumption is that humans are no more than the physical and that our reasoning and feelings and wants are all determined through the line of cause/effect in the material world.
If there is a spiritual soul involved which is not directly a part of that material chain of events then the whole thing falls apart.
So if there is any truth to your argument it is solely a materialist argument and presumes materialism imo.
The argument sort of boils down to, because all is material and material is governed by cause/effect chains then all that happens is pre set, determined in advance.
This presumption of materialism seems to be also in the idea that foreknowledge of what we will do and what will happen can only happen in a deterministic universe. It discards, at the start, the spiritual, God, and the possibilities that exist with that outside the cause/effect materialist possibilities.
To a materialist the only way God can know is if there is determinism and a materialistic cause /effect universe.
The argument usually works from God's foreknowledge to a conclusion that says we cannot do anything other than what God knows, so we are not free to choose. The thing that locks us in a prison in this argument is the foreknowledge of God, as if that foreknowledge is forcing us to act a certain way.
But of course someone knowing what we will choose is not a force that makes us act a certain way. This argument ignores the omnipotence of God and that He somehow actually can know what we will freely choose and can foreknow what will happen randomly.
I hope I am making some sense to you.

 

[Balthazzar]

That one doesn't seem to have much to do with the idea that a person is controlled by what he wants and so is determined by what he wants.
But I guess you could link the causal chains to what a person wants at a particular time, and even take into consideration that butterfly flapping it's wings in the Amazon as part of the causal chains that link together.
So our reasoning is no more than a justification for what we want, or is our reasoning and feelings the cause of what we want.
If reasoning is no more than justification for what we want then we cannot trust our reasoning ability.
If reasoning is a cause of what we want then it is no longer our wants but our reasoning (and of course our feelings) which cause us to do things.
Whichever it might be, this fate comes back to the cause/effect line that began with the big bang or before.
A tiny change there would change everything I guess. All very interesting to consider but of course the presumption is that humans are no more than the physical and that our reasoning and feelings and wants are all determined through the line of cause/effect in the material world.
If there is a spiritual soul involved which is not directly a part of that material chain of events then the whole thing falls apart.
So if there is any truth to your argument it is solely a materialist argument and presumes materialism imo.
The argument sort of boils down to, because all is material and material is governed by cause/effect chains then all that happens is pre set, determined in advance.
This presumption of materialism seems to be also in the idea that foreknowledge of what we will do and what will happen can only happen in a deterministic universe. It discards, at the start, the spiritual, God, and the possibilities that exist with that outside the cause/effect materialist possibilities.
To a materialist the only way God can know is if there is determinism and a materialistic cause /effect universe.
The argument usually works from God's foreknowledge to a conclusion that says we cannot do anything other than what God knows, so we are not free to choose. The thing that locks us in a prison in this argument is the foreknowledge of God, as if that foreknowledge is forcing us to act a certain way.
But of course someone knowing what we will choose is not a force that makes us act a certain way. This argument ignores the omnipotence of God and that He somehow actually can know what we will freely choose and can foreknow what will happen randomly.
I hope I am making some sense to you.

Wants/desires/needs/necessity - I think that is what it boils down to. Free will, determined by environment and conditioning, which seems balanced and appropriate to me. Controlled? Not so much, but sometimes - depending on contributing influences.

 

[Willamena]

I am afraid I might confuse people by saying this, but here is how I see it: I am my wants. I am every single part of me.

Is it your wants that are afraid that your wants might confuse people? The separation of the subject "I" from any other object is built into the English language, and the unique reference that that makes isn't "your wants." It has another referent.

 

[Koldo]

That one doesn't seem to have much to do with the idea that a person is controlled by what he wants and so is determined by what he wants.
But I guess you could link the causal chains to what a person wants at a particular time, and even take into consideration that butterfly flapping it's wings in the Amazon as part of the causal chains that link together.

Yup.

So our reasoning is no more than a justification for what we want, or is our reasoning and feelings the cause of what we want.
If reasoning is no more than justification for what we want then we cannot trust our reasoning ability.
If reasoning is a cause of what we want then it is no longer our wants but our reasoning (and of course our feelings) which cause us to do things.

Without reasoning you wouldn't have 'wants'. Reasoning is an essential part of the process, but here's the thing: Your reasoning doesn't, by itself, make choices, for it doesn't set the goals. In an analogy, your 'wants' are like a king that lives in an empty dark room. Your cognitive abilities are the only thing that can enter the room, thus feeding information to the king.

If I gave you a choice between eating a chocolate bar or drinking deadly poison, your reasoning wouldn't be able to reach any conclusion on what to do without you working under certain premises, like: "I don't want to die." or "I want to die right now.". Your king is the one that tells you what to do, and your reasoning is what brings up the choice to the king (and figures out what each alternative entails).

Whichever it might be, this fate comes back to the cause/effect line that began with the big bang or before.
A tiny change there would change everything I guess. All very interesting to consider but of course the presumption is that humans are no more than the physical and that our reasoning and feelings and wants are all determined through the line of cause/effect in the material world.
If there is a spiritual soul involved which is not directly a part of that material chain of events then the whole thing falls apart.
So if there is any truth to your argument it is solely a materialist argument and presumes materialism imo.
The argument sort of boils down to, because all is material and material is governed by cause/effect chains then all that happens is pre set, determined in advance.
This presumption of materialism seems to be also in the idea that foreknowledge of what we will do and what will happen can only happen in a deterministic universe. It discards, at the start, the spiritual, God, and the possibilities that exist with that outside the cause/effect materialist possibilities.
To a materialist the only way God can know is if there is determinism and a materialistic cause /effect universe.
The argument usually works from God's foreknowledge to a conclusion that says we cannot do anything other than what God knows, so we are not free to choose. The thing that locks us in a prison in this argument is the foreknowledge of God, as if that foreknowledge is forcing us to act a certain way.
But of course someone knowing what we will choose is not a force that makes us act a certain way. This argument ignores the omnipotence of God and that He somehow actually can know what we will freely choose and can foreknow what will happen randomly.
I hope I am making some sense to you.

Let's presume there is a spiritual soul involved, that it actually exists.
How does it solve the problem that we are stuck at choosing what we want to choose, and that we can't control what we want to choose?
As I see it, it would just involve another causal chain, a spiritual kind of causal chain.

 

[Koldo]

Is it your wants that are afraid that your wants might confuse people? The separation of the subject "I" from any other object is built into the English language, and the unique reference that that makes isn't "your wants." It has another referent.

To what extent I am I without my wants?

 

[Willamena]

To what extent I am I without my wants?

I suppose, to the extent that you assign them autonomous power over you.

 

[Koldo]

I suppose, to the extent that you assign them autonomous power over you.

They are me.
I am them.
Separateness is an illusion.

 

[dybmh]

They are me.
I am them.
Separateness is an illusion.

Aren't you choosing this for your self?

 

[Brian2]

Wants/desires/needs/necessity - I think that is what it boils down to. Free will, determined by environment and conditioning, which seems balanced and appropriate to me. Controlled? Not so much, but sometimes - depending on contributing influences.

Yes there are influences on what we end up doing. Sometimes we can choose to do one thing and end up doing something else. This control does not necessarily come from without, but from within us.