Do you Think we have Free Will

[Copernicus]

Definitions of Compatibilism provided from to reliable sources. We disagree and likely can go not further with a back forth.

If you are going to assume definitions not actually mentioned and rendered explicit in our discussion, that is very unhelpful in advancing the discussion.

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.

OK, but that doesn't tell me what you consider awkward or what you actually disagree with. I am unaware of any compatibilist who denies the evolved nature of humanity. Dennett has written extensively on the subject, as evidenced by your citation in your earlier post. I assume that you read at least the Wikipedia article you cited on Freedom Evolves, but probably not the book itself.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

It is not demonstrably false. You of course disagree, but it works in science to predict the nature of our physical existence within a range of possible outcomes.

Yes .. I understand that you believe we have free-will, although limited.
It is HOW you think it's limited that concerns me.

It may concern you, bit that is not a good standard for a coherent argument since your view of science is highly biased,

OK .. so how the future is determined is "causal" .. it's caused by something
..so where do you stand?

The future is determined by Natural LAws to occur within a possible predictable range of outcomes

You say that the future "is caused" by evolutionary natural phenomena .. bit of a mouthful.

NO, I did not say that!!!! I said that: The future is determined by Natural Laws to occur within a possible predictable range of outcomes
Evolution is a natural predictable process based on sound science.

..so how would that affect our free-will, for example .. I mean, is the driver driving the car,
or is it just an illusion?

Very bizarre conclusion based on my previous posts. Our Free Will is causal determined that our choice are limited within a possible range of outcomes/ We would not have a car to drive if science could not predict the nature of our physical existence and use science and engineering to design and build a car.

How so?
I was meaning that a person who wants to go to the club cannot choose to because they're imprisoned.

So what? Physical restraints are not remotely related to our ability of choose otherwise. That does not chang my response. reread and respond.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

From the article - and as to still not knowing enough about the brain, the mind, or consciousness:

However, the researchers caution against assuming that all choices are by nature predetermined by pre-existing brain activity.

“Our results cannot guarantee that all choices are preceded by involuntary images, but it shows that this mechanism exists, and it potentially biases our everyday choices,” Professor Pearson says.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The future is determined by Natural LAws to occur within a possible predictable range of outcomes

NO, I did not say that!!!! I said that: The future is determined by Natural Laws to occur within a possible predictable range of outcomes

Just repeating your "mantra" does not explain what it means.

For example, WHAT "possible predictable outcomes" are you referring to?
What are IMPOSSIBLE predictable outcomes?

You are merely talking past me .. you don't address the issues I ask you to clarify.

Evolution is a natural predictable process based on sound science.

That is another meaningless statement. "evolution" could be referring to any of a number of things.
Do you purposely make vague statements? Why would you do that?

We would not have a car to drive if science could not predict the nature of our physical existence and use science and engineering to design and build a car..

Huh? What has the existence of cars got to do with predictions that scientists make?
Makes no sense.

So what? Physical restraints are not remotely related to our ability of choose otherwise.

That's absurd .. I have no idea what you are talking about.
It's pretty obvious to me, that a prisoner is constrained on the choices that they are able to make.

 

[Copernicus]

My view 'Potential Limited Free Will considers humans do definitely have "Limited Free Will" independent of determinism and Compatibilism does not.

If you ever attempt clarify what your view of "potential limited free will" is, I will thank you for it. No thanks for you today.

...There are various ways to construe free will as illusory, but it can be defined as a fully determined process...
Bold reflects a difference in Compatibilism and Potential Free Will. Potential Limited Free Will does not support a fully determined process in any scenario.

I went on to say exactly what I meant by that. Your response was a bald claim that Potential Limited Free Will, whatever that is, did not support a fully determined process. Explain what you meant by that.

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.

You ar continuing to play Duck, Dod and Weasel,

That is a truly ironic statement coming from you. Confused by my parenthetical remark, you thought I was attributing my discussion of how to define free will compatibilism with something Dennett said. I get that. Your misquote was more than a typo. It revealed your tendency to misconstrue what I actually wrote. But when I explained that to you, you just doubled (now tripled) down on your misconstrual. You simply misinterpreted what I wrote. Get over it.

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.

Fewer typos would make following your posts easier. You can read and edit your own posts, you know. I make an effort to clean up my typos. You were the one who brought up Libet, not me. If you reject the conclusion of Libet's experiments, then why did you bring them up as relevant to the discussion in the first place?

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.

Why are you just repeating text that I already answered? Refer to post #641.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you ever attempt clarify what your view of "potential limited free will" is, I will thank you for it. No thanks for you today.



I went on to say exactly what I meant by that. Your response was a bald claim that Potential Limited Free Will, whatever that is, did not support a fully determined process. Explain what you meant by that.



That is a truly ironic statement coming from you. Confused by my parenthetical remark, you thought I was attributing my discussion of how to define free will compatibilism with something Dennett said. I get that. Your misquote was more than a typo. It revealed your tendency to misconstrue what I actually wrote. But when I explained that to you, you just doubled (now tripled) down on your misconstrual. You simply misinterpreted what I wrote. Get over it.



Fewer typos would make following your posts easier. You can read and edit your own posts, you know. I make an effort to clean up my typos. You were the one who brought up Libet, not me. If you reject the conclusion of Libet's experiments, then why did you bring them up as relevant to the discussion in the first place?



Why are you just repeating text that I already answered? Refer to post #641.

. . . because you have difficulty understanding.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just repeating your "mantra" does not explain what it means.

It means exactly what I stated. The future of the cause and effect outcomes is determined by Natural Laws to occur within a possible predictable range of outcomes

NO, I did not say that!!!! I said that: The future is determined by Natural Laws to occur within a possible predictable range of outcomes

For example, WHAT "possible predictable outcomes" are you referring to?

ALL natural cause and effect out comes are predictable within the range constrained by Natural Laws.

What are IMPOSSIBLE predictable outcomes?

You are merely talking past me .. you don't address the issues I ask you to clarify.

In the nature of our physical existence there is no such thing as impossible predictable outcomes of cause and effect events within the tange constrained by NAtural Laws.

Though in the many conflicting subjective religious beliefs outcomes are likely not consistently predictable.

That is another meaningless statement. "evolution" could be referring to any of a number of things.

Evolution is a natural predictable process based on sound science.

Do you purposely make vague statements? Why would you do that?

No, my statements are based on objectively predictable nature of our knowledge of our physical existence.

Huh? What has the existence of cars got to do with predictions that scientists make?
Makes no sense.

We have cars, because of science and the predictable deterministic nature of our physical existence.

That's absurd .. I have no idea what you are talking about.

It's pretty obvious to me, that a prisoner is constrained on the choices that they are able to make.

It is not because of whether they have Free Will or not. It is because they are physically imprisoned.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It means exactly what I stated. The future of the cause and effect outcomes is determined by Natural Laws to occur within a possible predictable range of outcomes.

Hmm .. I don't think that you know what it means, either.
..because you just repeat phrases as if you are a parrot.

ALL natural cause and effect out comes are predictable within the range constrained by Natural Laws.

In the nature of our physical existence there is no such thing as impossible predictable outcomes..

Ha ha
Then your oft-repeated statement:-

"The future of the cause and effect outcomes is determined by Natural Laws to occur within a possible predictable range of outcomes"

is gibberish, if there is no such thing as "impossible predictable range of outcomes".

Evolution is a natural predictable process based on sound science.

Well, you carry on "predicting" , my friend.

 

[Copernicus]

...Why are you just repeating text that I already answered? Refer to post #641.

. . . because you have difficulty understanding.

You did not reply to my response in post #641. Stonewalling like this is a regrettable pattern that I have come to expect in your replies.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hmm .. I don't think that you know what it means, either.
..because you just repeat phrases as if you are a parrot.

I know, but your limited comprehension of English and science is a problem,

Ha ha
Then your oft-repeated statement:-

"The future of the cause and effect outcomes is determined by Natural Laws to occur within a possible predictable range of outcomes"

is gibberish, if there is no such thing as "impossible predictable range of outcomes".


Well, you carry on "predicting" , my friend.

"The future of the cause and effect outcomes is determined by Natural Laws to occur within a possible predictable range of outcomes"
All science are based on confirming the predictability of future events and properties of our physical existence.

Your rejection of science, and the intention ignorance of sviene is a barrier in communication

 

[shunyadragon]

You did not reply to my response in post #641. Stonewalling like this is a regrettable pattern that I have come to expect in your replies.

If you are going to assume definitions not actually mentioned and rendered explicit in our discussion, that is very unhelpful in advancing the discussion.



OK, but that doesn't tell me what you consider awkward or what you actually disagree with. I am unaware of any compatibilist who denies the evolved nature of humanity. Dennett has written extensively on the subject, as evidenced by your citation in your earlier post. I assume that you read at least the Wikipedia article you cited on Freedom Evolves, but probably not the book itself.

I NEVER stated Dennett or Compatibilism denied human evolution. Your English comprehension is deteriorating. In fact I stated that is one issue that Dennett and I agreed on. I consider the issue of Moral Responsibility to have no relationship with the issue of whether we have Free Will or not. Human Moral Responsibility evolved for the survival of the human species. The issue of the evpo;ution of Social behavior and Moral Responsibility is not controversial. The question of Free Will is not resolved or agreed on. The two issues are simply separate.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Human Moral Responsibility evolved for the survival of the human species..

You appear to be a philosophical naturalist.

The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) is a philosophical argument asserting a problem with believing both evolution and philosophical naturalism simultaneously.
- Wikipedia -

You seem confused. Perhaps it can be explained by the above quandary:-

..several thinkers, including C. S. Lewis, have seen that evolutionary naturalism seems to lead to a deep and pervasive skepticism and to the conclusion that our unreliable cognitive or belief-producing faculties cannot be trusted to produce more true beliefs than false beliefs. He claimed that "Darwin himself had worries along these lines" and quoted from an 1881 letter:

But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
— Charles Darwin, to William Graham 3 July 1881

 

[shunyadragon]

You appear to be a philosophical naturalist.

The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) is a philosophical argument asserting a problem with believing both evolution and philosophical naturalism simultaneously.
- Wikipedia -

No. I am scientist and Geologist with over 50 tears experience. I am actually a Theistic Evolutionist and believe in natural Evolution based on Natural Laws Created by God.

You seem confused.

Not confused at all.

Perhaps it can be explained by the above quandary:-

..several thinkers, including C. S. Lewis, have seen that evolutionary naturalism seems to lead to a deep and pervasive skepticism and to the conclusion that our unreliable cognitive or belief-producing faculties cannot be trusted to produce more true beliefs than false beliefs. He claimed that "Darwin himself had worries along these lines" and quoted from an 1881 letter:

Well ah . . . first it does not relate to what I believe. Actually in a previous post I said I believe God Created the Natural Laws. To certain extent it is self imposed quandary where CS is projecting what he believes is the rational of those that believe in Naturalism. It is a generalization of what other people believe and why and not valid.

People believe in Naturalism based on a positive logical view of the objective verifiable evidence that supports evolution and science. Yes, many people whi believe in the sciences and evolution have a justified skepticism of the ancient mythical accounts in the ancient tribal scriptures as being literally true.

Charles Darwin was justified in having conflicts and concern, because of the conflicts of ancient tribal views of scripture and the actual objective verifiable evidence that is in conflict with ancient accounts. Many early Naturalists of the time faced the same problems.

 

[Copernicus]

I NEVER stated Dennett or Compatibilism denied human evolution. Your English comprehension is deteriorating. In fact I stated that is one issue that Dennett and I agreed on. I consider the issue of Moral Responsibility to have no relationship with the issue of whether we have Free Will or not. Human Moral Responsibility evolved for the survival of the human species. The issue of the evpo;ution of Social behavior and Moral Responsibility is not controversial. The question of Free Will is not resolved or agreed on. The two issues are simply separate.

I do not care whether you agree with Dennett on the subject of human evolution, so I thought you only brought it up to help explain why your position differed from compatibilism. In fact, I agree with both of you about that, so why are we even discussing it? As for moral responsibility, that is the original issue that gave rise to the entire debate, because originally it was over whether an omniscient, omnipotent being could hold his creations responsible for their moral failures. So please stop raising these red herrings and just explain in simple, clear, easy to understand terms what the difference is between "potential limited free will" and compatibilism. If you cannot do that, then we're done here.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..please stop raising these red herrings and just explain in simple, clear, easy to understand terms what the difference is between "potential limited free will" and compatibilism..

Well I'm sorry, I don't know what "potential limited free-will" actually is.
Perhaps @shunyadragon can help..

 

[Unfettered]

* 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 know with 100% certainty that I am sovereign over my choices. Over conditions and outcomes, however, I have little, if any, control.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do not care whether you agree with Dennett on the subject of human evolution, so I thought you only brought it up to help explain why your position differed from compatibilism.

The problem is you misrepresented me, and my previous posts were clear.

In fact, I agree with both of you about that, so why are we even discussing it? As for moral responsibility, that is the original issue that gave rise to the entire debate, because originally it was over whether an omniscient, omnipotent being could hold his creations responsible for their moral failures. So please stop raising these red herrings and just explain in simple, clear, easy to understand terms what the difference is between "potential limited free will" and compatibilism. If you cannot do that, then we're done here.

That is part of the problem of Compatibilism the questions of Moral Responsibility and Free Will should be divorced from subjective Theological questions and problems. I do not raise red herrings.

My argument and descriptions of Potential Limited Free Will have been detailed and specific. (1) We disagree on the definition of Compatibilism, Potential Limited Free Will allows for the actual "Limited Free Will without question, Compatibilism DOES NOT. (2) I based my definition of Potential Limited Free Will on the scientific research cited. (3) I divorce my position from Theological considerations Compatibilism does not. The natural factors some cited in the research are priority and not philosophical or theological questions, (4) You either disagree or do not understand my view that the Chaos Theory that applies to ALL cause and effect event outcomes applies to the ranges of our possible freedom of choices as in nature where the outcomes of cause and event event outcomes fall within a range of outcomes limited by Natural Laws. Our choice are extremely limited by many factors cited, and determinism rules. As in nature our potential choices are extremely limited, but possibility of freedom of choice remains and it is not zero.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well I'm sorry, I don't know what "potential limited free-will" actually is.
Perhaps @shunyadragon can help..

I accept that based on your rejection of science, and limited comprehension beyond your religious agenda you would not understand the concept of "Potential Limited Free Will" and the many deterministic factors that limit our freedom of choice.

 

[shunyadragon]

I know with 100% certainty that I am sovereign over my choices. Over conditions and outcomes, however, I have little, if any, control.

Of course, this ia what you believe, but subjective claims of 100% is beyond fallible human capability. It is worse when you claim you do not have control.

 

[Unfettered]

Of course, this ia what you believe, but subjective claims of 100% is beyond fallible human capability. It is worse when you claim you do not have control.

This post is evidence both that I am sovereign over my choices, and that I know that I am. If you are confused about who is sovereign over your choices, I'm not sure what to tell you.