Do you Think we have Free Will

[leroy]

Well, if it's not fully determined by past events nor fully randam

Then humans have occasionally free will (those moments that are not determined by past events)

yes it is as simple as that

 

[Yerda]

Broadly, yes. We have free will in the sense Yerda can either eat the cake or not eat the cake and both are compatible with the laws of nature.

However, the more you scrutinise the concept the less sense it makes, in my experience.

 

[vulcanlogician]

From the first-person perspective, we have all kinds of evidence for free will. I mean, it really seems like we have it most of the time.

But such a cause can't be accounted for according to our current best assessment of the natural world. It's a fascinating debate. I tend toward the "no free will" side because I tend to weight procedural investigation over direct intuitions.

But the fact that these intuitions exist are strong enough (in my assessment) to say that the debate is still alive. While proponents of free will have yet to assuage the concerns of determinists, neither have the determinists present a compelling enough case that we should wholly ignore what appears to be a profoundly real and direct perception.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From the first-person perspective, we have all kinds of evidence for free will. I mean, it really seems like we have it most of the time.

The thing that hangs me up is the counter-factual element of free will: the whole idea (or I guess one idea) behind free will is "the freedom to do otherwise"... but how could we ever test this? How can we empirically distinguish between something that didn't happen but could have happened, and something that didn't happen and couldn't have happened?

 

[vulcanlogician]

The thing that hangs me up is the counter-factual element of free will: the whole idea (or I guess one idea) behind free will is "the freedom to do otherwise"... but how could we ever test this? How can we empirically distinguish between something that didn't happen but could have happened, and something that didn't happen and couldn't have happened?

That's a good question. That's why I tend toward determinism (or "hard incompatibilism" if I want to be pedantic).

I agree that it is difficult for empiricism to say one way or the other. So there goes our usual trump card, and we have to lower ourselves to Plato/Aristotle level of debate to proceed onward. And empiricism has spoilt us from having to have to do that! It's annoying when that's all we got.

Even at the Platonic level, some precise thinkers have done a lot of convincing work to show that free will is a vaporous concept that simply does not appear in our intuitive concept of causality. I think the arrows point to determinism, taking into account all I've read about it.

That being said, and notwithstanding the fact that I lean towards determinism, I think it is reasonable to entertain the idea of free will, solely based on the fact that our intuition of it is so strong. Not correct, mind you, but reasonable.

What is your opinion on the matter? (Both concerning the basic metaphysics of free will AND the reasonableness/unreasonableness of believing in free will?)

 

[danieldemol]

I am not trying top play semantics; I am using the standard definition of free will………… feel free to quote the actual definition and explain why is that definition different form mine

Well the definition of freewill that Oxford languages gives me seems a bit incoherent because it says;
'free will
/ˌfriː ˈwɪl/

noun

1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.'
   Source: define free will - Google Search
2. 
   
3. I would dare assert that one can act at their discretion with that discretion being constrained by fate, but regardless - a choice which is predetermined, a product of chance, or any mixture of the two is a matter of fate as I see it

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

* In this context Free Will is defined as the ability to make choices that are not fully determined by past events nor fully random

I know this is a hard question and that nobody claims to have 100% certanity..... but in your opinion what is more likely to be true?... do you think humans have the aility to make choices ?

I didn't vote because I disagree with how you defined it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Before voting in the poll, I have to choose; first, whether to vote at all, and second, which way to vote. These are clear, simple choices that I am free to make for myself. If my decision is already determined by past experiences, and the freedom to choose is an illusion, then what on earth is real?

 

[RestlessSoul]

The thing that hangs me up is the counter-factual element of free will: the whole idea (or I guess one idea) behind free will is "the freedom to do otherwise"... but how could we ever test this? How can we empirically distinguish between something that didn't happen but could have happened, and something that didn't happen and couldn't have happened?

You have just encountered one of the limits of empiricism.

 

[Brian2]

The truth will set you free.

 

[Secret Chief]

Before voting in the poll, I have to choose; first, whether to vote at all, and second, which way to vote. These are clear, simple choices that I am free to make for myself. If my decision is already determined by past experiences, and the freedom to choose is an illusion, then what on earth is real?

The poll, but you are not free to choose.

 

[Secret Chief]

You have just encountered one of the limits of empiricism.

We need sliding doors and Gwyneth Paltrow.

 

[Twilight Hue]

* In this context Free Will is defined as the ability to make choices that are not fully determined by past events nor fully random

I know this is a hard question and that nobody claims to have 100% certanity..... but in your opinion what is more likely to be true?... do you think humans have the aility to make choices ?

Well metaphorically , you can steer your own ship to an extent, but you certainly can't command the entire fleet. :0)

 

[RestlessSoul]

We need sliding doors and Gwyneth Paltrow.

Hands off Gwyneth, she’s mine

 

[LuisDantas]

Never met a definition of free will that seemed coherent with the reality of facts, so no.

Most aren't even internally consistent.

 

[Secret Chief]

Hands off Gwyneth, she’s mine

Feel free.

 

[leroy]

I didn't vote because I disagree with how you defined it.

how woudl you define it? and how would you vote under that definiton ?

 

[leroy]

Never met a definition of free will that seemed coherent with the reality of facts, so no.

Most aren't even internally consistent.

the same is true with almost any other word.......... can you define chair, dog, computer, car? any definition for any word wouldhave some problem...............but in the context of phylosophy it is easy to understand the concept of free will, it is just hard to expalin

 

[LuisDantas]

the same is true with almost any other word.......... can you define chair, dog, computer, car? any definition for any word wouldhave some problem...............but in the context of phylosophy it is easy to understand the concept of free will, it is just hard to expalin

I have to differ. Emphatically.

 

[leroy]

From the first-person perspective, we have all kinds of evidence for free will. I mean, it really seems like we have it most of the time.

The thing that hangs me up is the counter-factual element of free will: the whole idea (or I guess one idea) behind free will is "the freedom to do otherwise"... but how could we ever test this? How can we empirically distinguish between something that didn't happen but could have happened, and something that didn't happen and couldn't have happened?

It´s impossibel to test free will, that is correct……….. all we have is “personal experience” as evidence so ether

1 personal experience is a reliable source of knowledge

2 we should reject the idea that we have free will

Ether one has interesting implications



If you go for “1” you have to reject methodological naturalism, empiricism or any other view that states that “we can only know things that can be tested”

If you go for 2 you would have to reject free will, which implies that there is no reason, nor critical thinking nor morality etc. in this world.