To quote you "I wasn't replying to those posts." Of course you have not responded to any of these references. . . and you reject science.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you Think we have Free Will
- Thread starter leroy
- Start date
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
A blanket statement which is ALSO untrue.
I reject your "cranky science", that says you can predict what a person
will choose to do tomorrow.
That's not an argument. It's a claim. An argument begins with shared premises and/or evidence, and using valid reasoning, generates a conclusion. You've only provided what would be the conclusion to your argument if you had one. With no reasoning preceding it, it's just a bare claim.
That's self-contradictory. You'd need to explain how it's possible for free will to exist in a deterministic universe, and you haven't, because you can't. You're talking about mutually exclusive possibilities that cannot coexist in the same universe at the same time.
Just a sound counterargument. If you can produce one, I can understand it as could many others. You cannot change the mind of a critical thinker without one. If you want to be believed, you'll need to do that. What you do instead is pointless. You merely restate incoherent claims and disregard their rebuttals. It seems that you have no other option available to you, no other form of discourse when encountering contradictory positions.
I'm advocating for the possibility of that, not the fact of it.
You say that there is free will, which contradicts determinism, but have not tried to explain why you've ruled out the other possibility. You don't need to. I've explained it for you - why you hold the incoherent position that a deity knows the future of our universe perfectly yet free will exists in that universe - and you haven't commented much less attempted rebuttal. You do that because you MUST if you are to believe that a omniscient god will punish mankind for the choices it knew it would make before it created man and you still want to call that just and good.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
..and that is my opening statement, in trying to explain something to you.
..so a pointless remark from you, really.
..and what's that but a claim?
i.e. You'd need to explain how it's possible for free will to exist in a deterministic universe
..in other words you are claiming the opposite to me .. but you don't even ATTEMPT to explain why you think so.
You just continually criticize my claim WITHOUT PROPER EXPLANATION of why I'm wrong.
Not at all.
Why do you not answer my question .. and remember the answer??
Why can a person not FREELY CHOOSE something that is determined?
..just stating that it is obvious you cannot, is not a valid answer.
..and you have already agreed it is possible .. so..
..and the explanation is, that it is the choice that determines it, and not the fact that it is determined.
In other words DETERMINED BY WHAT???
The chance would be a fine thing!
That is false. I try to explain myself .. it is in fact YOU who make unsupported claims.
i.e. a determined universe excludes free-will
I'll say it again .. DETERMINED BY WHAT???
see above
Err .. I don't think so!
That is purely your assumption .. maybe that is why you refuse to properly reply to my explanations
i.e. you would rather stick to YOUR mistaken understanding
After all, you are not alone.
Ajax
Active Member
We do not have free will, neither from scriptures, nor scientifically.
Acts 13:48 "And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
Rom.8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
Eph.1:4-5 "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."
2 Th.2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."
2 Tim.1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
Jude 1:4 "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation."
Scientifically...
Our brains reveal our choices before we’re even aware of them: study
One of the few times science and religion agree.
Acts 13:48 "And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
Rom.8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
Eph.1:4-5 "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."
2 Th.2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."
2 Tim.1:9 "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
Jude 1:4 "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation."
Scientifically...
Our brains reveal our choices before we’re even aware of them: study
One of the few times science and religion agree.
Last edited:
It is true science is a coherent whole including the sciences of evolution. You cannot legitimately be selective of what science you agree with and what yo do not based on a religious agenda, especially since you have a limited knowledge of science.
The problem is your definition of cranky science is what you reject based on an cient religious agenda and a lick of knowledge of science.I reject your "cranky science", that says you can predict what a person
will choose to do tomorrow.
What is "cranky science?"
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
To the exclusion of our choices?
Naturally, I agree that not everything is determined by our choices.
For example, so-called 'acts of God' such as severe floods or earthquakes etc.
I don't think that anybody is saying that human beings are totally in control of their choices..
,,but excluding them from "the equation" .. claiming we have no free-will due to determinism?
Nonsense!
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Ha. Ha. You actually don't know how wrong you are about that. Language is quite literally word-guided mental telepathy. It's purpose is to communicate thoughts with the help of words. Providing references is ineffective, if you do little or nothing to connect them with the thoughts you are trying to communicate.
My view of your argument so far is that we are not that much in disagreement on the substantive issues regarding free will, but I get the impression that you don't really understand how the compatibilist position differs from that of a hard determinist. I can certainly agree that there are limitations on choice, but those limitations are not necessarily limitations on "free will" in the sense that people normally use that expression. I've seen nothing from you so far that contradicts what compatibilists normally say about how free will works in a deterministic reality, yet you keep insisting that it is "not compatibilism". You certainly aren't what I would call a hard determinist, but neither are compatibilists, generally speaking. We normally associate compatibilism with soft determinism, because compatibilists take free will to be a fully determined process. Hard determinists tend to be eliminativists--i.e. they claim that free will is incompatible with determinism. It doesn't really exist.
Aha! That's where you jumped to the false conclusion that Dennett had a theory about living "in the moment". You didn't pay attention to my parentheses, which enclosed a remark about the word "stance" and nothing more. Dennett uses that word a lot. However, you read the content of that parenthetical remark to then mean that the text following was based on something Dennett actually wrote. I think he might agree with the wording I used after that remark, but I didn't get it from anything Dennett said. He just uses "stance" as a technical term to refer to changing perspectives (as in "the intentional stance"), but he has no theory of "living in the moment" that I am aware of. You simply got confused by my parenthetical remark. Go back to #543, ignore the parenthetical remark, and then reread it.
Last edited:
We are very very different in our view of Free Will.
I understand the Compatibilist position very well as stated in the references. Yes there are many necessary limitations on Free Will.
Compatibilism and 'soft determinism as defined describes our belief we have freedom of choice is an illusion, and not enough difference from hard determinism, I did cite on section 4.1 from the reference that described something like 'Potential Limited Free Will'
The definition of 'Potential Limited Free Will is we actually do have that potential, but or Freedom of choice is dominantly Limited by the many factors of Determinism
I DID NOT say he had a theory. That statement could hardly be called a theory. I did not jump to any conclusion, and there is a problem you apparently did not remember what you previously stated. No confusion of a parenthetical remark, You stated was in some way reflecting Dennett's view and actually described it as reflecting his view: "To use Dennett's favorite terms."
Again . . .
My view, whi"h I have stated several times now, is that free will can be construed as an illusion or not, depending on what perspective (or "stance" to use one of Dennett's favorite terms) one takes. People do not live in the past or the future. They live in the moment.
It is not unusual thar Dennett and you would believe this, but I do not as previously described.
Last edited:
You asked, DETERMINED BY WHAT???
All of our Natural physical existence including humans and our nature are determined by Natural Laws. Yes our physical existence is deterministic, but within this deterministic existence that does not negated the possibility of a 'Potential Limited Free Will, acknowledging that there are many factors that limit our freedom to do otherwise.
The question here addresses what people believe concerning whether we have freedom of choice pr not have the freedom of choice, and if we have freedom of choice is or possible limited in some way. We are not addressing whether or how everything is determined though up fron Natural laws are the determining factors
Acts of God are a subjective belief. It is well documented that All floods and earthquakes have natural causes based on Natural Laws.
If one believes, as I do, God Created Natural Laws that govern the physical nature of our existence. Thus Creating a very natural consistent nature of our physical existence.
Well the common belief in Libertarian Free Will rejects causal determinism to limit humans to do otherwise. If you acknowledge "humans are not totally in control" than you acknowledge that there are factors of causal determinism that limit our freedom to choose.
I would not say these extreme views are "nonsense," but I do disagree with both the extremes of Hard Determinism and Libertarian Free Will.
If humans as you describe a not believing in complete control of their choices, Then you are describing my view of "Limited Potential Free Will."
I do consider you use of "whacky science as "nonsense!!!"
Last edited:
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
It all depends what you mean by "causal determinism"..
If you are referring to the common fallacy, that a "determined future" (aka. destiny) excludes
the possibility that our choices can be made without coercion, then YES .. it is to be rejected.
..but if you mean that there are more factors involved than just our choices in determining the future,
then I would have thought most people realize that.
It is not a common fallacy that the nature of the past and future that causal determinism determines the outcomes of all physical cause and effect events within a range of possible outcomes. determined by Natural Laws.
Included as above there are factors of causal determinism that limit our possible choices within a limited range of choices.
Well that is apparently not realised by those that believe in Libertarian Free Will and Hard Determinism.
☆Dreamwind☆
Active Member
I don't think we have free will, I know we do.
I want to add there are points of agreement that I have with Dennett concerning that our social behavior and the nature of choice is evolved behavior for the survival of the human species,
But, his belief his belief in Compatibilism does not reflect my view as in the following:
Freedom Evolves - Wikipedia
Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions might be determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved. Free will, seen this way, is about freedom to make decisions without duress (and so is a version of Kantian positive practical free will, i.e., Kantian autonomy), as opposed to an impossible and unnecessary freedom from causality itself. To clarify this distinction, he uses the term 'evitability' (the opposite of 'inevitability'), defining it as the ability of an agent to anticipate likely consequences and act to avoid undesirable ones. Evitability is entirely compatible with, and actually requires, human action being deterministic. Dennett moves on to altruism, denying that it requires acting to the benefit of others without gaining any benefit yourself. He argues that it should be understood in terms of helping yourself by helping others, expanding the self to be more inclusive as opposed to being selfless. To show this blend, he calls such actions 'benselfish', and finds the roots of our capacity for this in the evolutionary pressures that produced kin selection. In his treatment of both free will and altruism, he starts by showing why we should not accept the traditional definitions of either term.
The above clearly indicates that Dennett's view of Compatibilism fits the definition I previde. He may describe human actions as evitable they are ultimately deterministic.
I do not agree entirely with the following reference, because it represents hard determinism, but the objections to Dennett's compatibilism are legitimate.
Compatibilism | Issue 62 | Philosophy Now
Craig Ross on whether freedom is all it’s been made up to be.
As to Dennett’s claim that the planet has evolved ‘evitability’, it seems obvious that if strict determinism is true then human evolution is also one event after another, and the destruction of asteroids by humans follows inevitably from cause and effect, given the first composition of the universe. If we destroy an asteroid, for the strict determinist it was inevitable that we would. Indeed it is quite conceivable that humans are minor characters in a game played by the gods, involving striking planets with asteroids. Perhaps one of the moves in the game is to seed a target planet with humans to prevent your opponent successfully striking it with his asteroid. It is hard to think of an absolute reason why determinism might not be our lot. There seems to be no meaningful distinction to be drawn between what happens and what might have happened, on which we can hang some third theory of human existence to sit alongside determinism and libertarianism.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
What do you mean by "causal determinism" ?
How can "causal determinism" determine something? It's meaningless.
An excerpt from the wiki page:-
Determinism is about interactions which affect cognitive processes in people's lives. It is about the cause and the result of what people have done. Cause and result are always bound together in cognitive processes. It assumes that if an observer has sufficient information about an object or human being, that such an observer might be able to predict every consequent move of that object or human being.
Determinism
Why would you think that? Why would you think that we are mere automatons, and have no capacity to choose?
No .. something has to determine the future, and it INCLUDES the choices we make.
You don't have to understand philosophical jargon to realize that.
It's obvious that our choices are constrained by external factors.
eg. being imprisoned
No more than an assumption. I disagree.
See definitions provided below.
Determinism - Wikipedia
Causal determinists believe that there is nothing in the universe that has no cause or is self-caused. Causal determinism has also been considered more generally as the idea that everything that happens or exists is caused by antecedent conditions.
Causal determinism defines outcomes of events as occurring within a range of possible outcomes limited bu Natural Laws.
One selective reference from one source does not define the full meaning of determinism in nature. Your reference describes the philosophical belief in determinism where there is no free will. I made that clear in a previous post and you ignored it.
Scientific or Natural Determinism.
Definition Determinism
www.lse.ac.uk
A. The term determinism denotes a doctrine which claims that all objects or events, or all objects or events of some kind (for instance, falling within the range of some scientific discipline) are determined, that is to say must be as they are and as they will be, in virtue of some laws or forces which necessitate their being so.
B. Determinism is in fact the name of a whole class of theories which have the above feature in common. The term becomes the name of a specific doctrine when the kind of determinism is indicated, implicitly or explicitly. The specification may indicate either the class of things that are determined, or the type of thing that does the determining, or both. For instance, economic determinism tends to mean the doctrine that economic factors determine others, historical determinism tends to mean the theory that events in history are determined, sociological determinism is likely to mean the assertion that social facts are determined, and that they are determined by social factors.
C. An important characterization of determinism, cutting across the sub-division in terms of field, or subject, arises from describing it as causal determinism, which means the doctrine that events are determined causally. This idea can be opposed, for instance, to statistical or to theological determinism, i.e., to theories which claim that events are determined non-casually by statistical probabilities, or by the deity. It is arguable whether these types of determination should be seen as fundamentally non-causal, or whether ultimately they are but a special case of causation. It may be argued that statistical probabilities are to be interpreted as consequences of causes too complex or minute to be isolated in individual cases and that even transcendental determinants are to count as causes.
Taken from A Dictionary of the Social Sciences eds. J. Gould and W. Kolb, Free Press, 1964.
The issue is not being imprisoned, but the chain of decisions that lead to a person being imprisoned.
The above statement reflects the view that we have Limited Free Will constrained by internal and external causal deterministic factors.
Last edited:
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
The latter part of that is problematic.
It would imply that we have no part to play in what happens in the future .. which is demonstrably false.
Yes .. I understand that you believe we have free-will, although limited.
It is HOW you think it's limited that concerns me.
OK .. so how the future is determined is "causal" .. it's caused by something
..so where do you stand?
You say that the future "is caused" by evolutionary natural phenomena .. bit of a mouthful.
..so how would that affect our free-will, for example .. I mean, is the driver driving the car,
or is it just an illusion?
How so?
I was meaning that a person who wants to go to the club cannot choose to because they're imprisoned.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Nobody denies that. The question is not whether there are limitations on free will, but how to define the concept and what those limitations are. You always seem unable or unwilling to clarify how your stance differs from that of compatibilism. Vague and bald denials don't advance the discussion.
I see no definition here, just a vague claim that freedom of choice is limited, which nobody disputes. You refer to "compatibilism and soft determinism as defined", but I didn't define those terms. Nor did you. Neither compatibilism nor determinism are eliminativist positions on free will. So-called hard determinism is.
There are various ways to construe free will as illusory, but it can be defined as a fully determined process. I did this with my discussion of perspectives from limited knowledge versus omniscience. At the moment of choice, we have limited knowledge of future outcomes, so we choose the best option based on the information we have. An omniscient observer would have full knowledge of all factors determining choice, not to mention everything going on in our heads, and therefore see it as a fully determined process. Free will would seem an illusion from that perspective. I explained to you already why I thought your take on section 4.1 did not help explain what you mean by "potential limited free will"--at least in a way that would distinguish it from compatibilism.
Even after I explained your error, you still misconstrue and double down on your confusion. For example, you falsely claim I was reflecting Dennett's view and that I said "To use Dennett's favorite terms." Then you quote what I actually did say--"(or 'stance' to use one of Dennett's favorite terms)". Note the bolded part that you left out of your misquote. I told you the parenthetical was an insignificant passing remark and to go back and reread it without the parenthetical. You did not do that. Instead, you quoted the passage again here with the parenthetical in it. What more can I say?
I want to add there are points of agreement that I have with Dennett concerning that our social behavior and the nature of choice is evolved behavior for the survival of the human species,
But, his belief his belief in Compatibilism does not reflect my view as in the following:
Freedom Evolves - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions might be determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved. Free will, seen this way, is about freedom to make decisions without duress (and so is a version of Kantian positive practical free will, i.e., Kantian autonomy), as opposed to an impossible and unnecessary freedom from causality itself. To clarify this distinction, he uses the term 'evitability' (the opposite of 'inevitability'), defining it as the ability of an agent to anticipate likely consequences and act to avoid undesirable ones. Evitability is entirely compatible with, and actually requires, human action being deterministic. Dennett moves on to altruism, denying that it requires acting to the benefit of others without gaining any benefit yourself. He argues that it should be understood in terms of helping yourself by helping others, expanding the self to be more inclusive as opposed to being selfless. To show this blend, he calls such actions 'benselfish', and finds the roots of our capacity for this in the evolutionary pressures that produced kin selection. In his treatment of both free will and altruism, he starts by showing why we should not accept the traditional definitions of either term.
The above clearly indicates that Dennett's view of Compatibilism fits the definition I previde. He may describe human actions as evitable they are ultimately deterministic.
First of all, you should do more to distinguish quoted passages from your text--for example, putting the Wikipedia passage in a quote box. I have no problem with the concept of evitability as described in that passage. It merely reinforces my point that free will can be defined as a fully determined process. That is, it is fully compatible with determinism. You say it doesn't reflect your view, but do nothing to explain how your view differs from his or mine. I can't discuss your disagreement with compatibilism unless you do more to clarify what your disagreement is.
That said, I would suggest you read the section below that paragraph entitled "Libet's Experiments". It describes Dennett's dismissal of Libet in the free will debate and does a better job than my Scientific American reference of explaining what is wrong with seeing Libet's work as relevant.
I do not agree entirely with the following reference, because it represents hard determinism, but the objections to Dennett's compatibilism are legitimate.
Compatibilism | Issue 62 | Philosophy Now
Craig Ross on whether freedom is all it’s been made up to be.philosophynow.org
As to Dennett’s claim that the planet has evolved ‘evitability’, it seems obvious that if strict determinism is true then human evolution is also one event after another, and the destruction of asteroids by humans follows inevitably from cause and effect, given the first composition of the universe. If we destroy an asteroid, for the strict determinist it was inevitable that we would. Indeed it is quite conceivable that humans are minor characters in a game played by the gods, involving striking planets with asteroids. Perhaps one of the moves in the game is to seed a target planet with humans to prevent your opponent successfully striking it with his asteroid. It is hard to think of an absolute reason why determinism might not be our lot. There seems to be no meaningful distinction to be drawn between what happens and what might have happened, on which we can hang some third theory of human existence to sit alongside determinism and libertarianism.
Again, all of that is a quote from the web page you cite, but it is in the same font as your actual words. Please consider finding some way to distinguish quoted material visually from your words. That would make your posts a little easier to follow.
There is more to that article than the passage you quoted, but all the author does is say that we live in a deterministic universe. He doesn't actually discuss anything Dennett said about evitability being a factor in defining free will. If you see it as a legitimate criticism of compatibilism, I can only say that you see something there that I don't. It still doesn't clarify how your 'limited free will' concept differs from compatibilism.
Last edited:
My view 'Potential Limited Free Will considers humans do definitely have "Limited Free Will" independent of determinism and Compatibilism does not.
Bold reflects a difference in Compatibilism and Potential Free Will. Potential Limited Free Will does not support a fully determined process in any scenario.
Typos are not a significant error in the discussion. Please drop it and avoid splitting frog hairs. Absolutely no confusion on my part.
Acknowledge you denied saying it, and the fact you are trying to move the goal posts concerning the exact quote. It was NOT a parenthetical statement. You stated it as reflecting Dennett's view.For example, you falsely claim I was reflecting Dennett's view and that I said "To use Dennett's favorite terms." Then you quote what I actually did say--"(or 'stance' to use one of Dennett's favorite terms)". Note the bolded part that you left out of your misquote. I told you the parenthetical was an insignificant passing remark and to go back and reread it without the parenthetical. You did not do that. Instead, you quoted the passage again here with the parenthetical in it. What more can I say?
You ar continuing to play Duck, Dod and Weasel,
I fully realize that bothe Libt and I reject the conclusion of Libt;s experiments. It is your problem you do not follow my posts.
Definitions of Compatibilism provided from reliable sources. We disagree and likely can go not further with a back forth.
I also disagree with the awkward way Compatibilists justify their view to consider Moral Responsibility. Moral Responsibility is a matter of fact of the evolved nature of humanity regardless of whether we have Free Will or not.
Last edited: