Do you Think we have Free Will

[Copernicus]

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

Sorry if you think I misrepresented you, but I have mostly been trying to find out what you actually believe. Your previous posts have been far from clear to me on that subject, and I'm afraid that you don't improve on it with what you said in this post either, although it looked at first blush that you were going to give it a shot.

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.

I was talking about your references to things you admitted to agreeing with Daniel Dennett about--for example, evolution. I don't care what you think you agree with Dennett about. What I really care about is what you think you disagree with compatibilism about. What makes your "potential limited free will" different from a compatibilist position? I cannot get a straight answer on that subject from you. I suspect that part of the problem is that you really don't know what compatibilism has to say about free will and determinism. Dennett had a nice discussion on the nature of compatibilist free will with such as concepts as control and evitability, but all you do is quote mine things other people have said in criticizing him and then say that you agree with the criticisms. That doesn't begin to explain your concept of "potential limited free will". I don't care to know what it is not. I care to know what you think it is and how it differs from compatibilism.

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.

This doesn't tell me what "potential limited free will" or "actual limited free" will is. So it is impossible to see how compatibilism does not allow for those concepts. You just state that it doesn't, without any explanation of why you believe that.

(2) I based my definition of Potential Limited Free Will on the scientific research cited.

What definition? Where did you define it?

(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,

Dennett is a well-known atheist who does not base his concept of compatibilism on "theological considerations". When you refer to "the research", what research are you referring to? If you are talking about something you referred to in some past post somewhere, the context is lost here. You seem to think that I will just know what you are thinking about, even after I have told you repeatedly that I don't.

(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.

Look, Shunya. I know what chaos theory is about, but what you say about it here is virtually incoherent. There are a number of ways to model them with cellular automata, which make deterministic chaos locally predictable in useful ways. Our choices are extremely limited because our chaotic environment is not fully predictable, and that is what makes agentive free will central to the survival of organisms such as ourselves that need to navigate the chaos. That's why motile organisms (for example, animals) have evolved ever more complex brains--to enhance their ability to survive. Sessile organisms such as plants have not evolved complex nervous systems with brains, because they don't move around. They adapt to conditions in a more predictable single space. All of this is well-known and non-controversial. What you fail to show here is how compatibilism is unable to account for the limitations on choice. You have not done that. Compatibilists do not have a problem with chaos theory.

When you talk about "potential choices", are you talking about a potential from the perspective of the agent facing an uncertain future or the perspective of an omniscient observer who does not face an uncertain future?

 

[Ajax]

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

Not knowing enough does not mean that the consensus of neuroscientists are not certain -through numerous tests - that all our decisions are taken by our brains.

 

[Ajax]

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.

Exactly. In the Abrahamic religions there can be no free will.
Firstly the definition of free will is the notional capacity or ability to choose between different possible courses of action, unimpeded.
Having the threat that one could up in hell eternally if is not a believer, automatically cancels free will.

Furthermore, the notion of an omniscient and omnipotent deity who is out of time and can see simultaneously past, present and future implies that what God knows about the future will inevitably happen, which means, consequently, that the future is already fixed.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not knowing enough does not mean that the consensus of neuroscientists are not certain -through numerous tests - that all our decisions are taken by our brains.

What, like all the neuroscientists are not settled on what consciousness is?

 

[Ajax]

What, like all the neuroscientists are not settled on what consciousness is?

No, there is no consensus at present about how consciousness is generated, but all investigations start with the incontrovertible premise that consciousness comes about from the action of the brain.
"The brain is the natural organ. The mind is the energy of the brain, that is how it works and when the brain stops working, the mind disappears. The term soul is useless. The vast majority of neuroscientists do not consider the term "soul" necessary. People should abandon the illusion that there is a soul, since everything comes from and is controlled by the brain". George Paxinos, the scientist behind the mapping of human brain.

​

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, there is no consensus at present about how consciousness is generated, but all investigations start with the incontrovertible premise that consciousness comes about from the action of the brain.
"The brain is the natural organ. The mind is the energy of the brain, that is how it works and when the brain stops working, the mind disappears. The term soul is useless. The vast majority of neuroscientists do not consider the term "soul" necessary. People should abandon the illusion that there is a soul, since everything comes from and is controlled by the brain". George Paxinos, the scientist behind the mapping of human brain.

​

No problem with this, but just one issue with what we have found as to what happens within the brain and what we perceive - as to one thing causing another. I still think we don't know enough about consciousness to make a decision as to determinism or not - as to when events happen within the brain and their significance.

 

[Brian2]

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.

That would have to be that God knows what we will freely choose to do.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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.

More ad-hominem, and avoiding to explain something that doesn't make sense.

I do NOT reject "science" .. that is no more than an excuse.
Do all scientists believe as you do? No.
Not all scientists are "fatalists", in that they believe that our free-will is limited by "evolutionary factors".

..it's like "the blind leading the blind" .. it makes no sense .. do you possess the free-will to ignore
my posts? Yes!
..nothing at all to do with how you "evolved" !

 

[muhammad_isa]

(3) I divorce my position from Theological considerations Compatibilism does not.

Religion is not necessarily involved.

"Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent."

Where is religion mentioned in the above???

(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.

I understand what you mean .. that you think that our free-will is limited by physical "cause and event",
and you believe that such defined determinism, "rules over" our ability to choose.

No .. it does NOT .. it's that common fallacy that I keep harping on about. Our choices are PART of that
determination .. it's as simple as that .. but many people just cannot get their head around it.
It doesn't matter whether you are a professor or a layman .. this fallacy is due to our PERCEPTION of time.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry if you think I misrepresented you,

You did just thar

but I have mostly been trying to find out what you actually believe.

Not an excuse of misrepresenting me.

Your previous posts have been far from clear to me on that subject, and I'm afraid that you don't improve on it with what you said in this post either, although it looked at first blush that you were going to give it a shot.



I was talking about your references to things you admitted to agreeing with Daniel Dennett about--for example, evolution. I don't care what you think you agree with Dennett about. What I really care about is what you think you disagree with compatibilism about. What makes your "potential limited free will" different from a compatibilist position? I cannot get a straight answer on that subject from you. I suspect that part of the problem is that you really don't know what compatibilism has to say about free will and determinism. Dennett had a nice discussion on the nature of compatibilist free will with such as concepts as control and evitability, but all you do is quote mine things other people have said in criticizing him and then say that you agree with the criticisms. That doesn't begin to explain your concept of "potential limited free will". I don't care to know what it is not. I care to know what you think it is and how it differs from compatibilism.

Compatibilism considers the appearance of freedom of choice from the human perspective is in reality an illusion, and our choices are in reality determined as defined by my previous references, The concept of Potential Free Will actually does acknowledge that humans do potentially have a limited freedom of choices, but in a limited constrained perspective.

In a previous post you askes how Limited Free Will is not fully determined. This is in reference to Potential Limited Free Will is not fully determined as in the extreme belief in Hard Determinism, which considers humans to have "No Free Will.".

This doesn't tell me what "potential limited free will" or "actual limited free" will is. So it is impossible to see how compatibilism does not allow for those concepts. You just state that it doesn't, without any explanation of why you believe that.



What definition? Where did you define it?



Dennett is a well-known atheist who does not base his concept of compatibilism on "theological considerations". When you refer to "the research", what research are you referring to? If you are talking about something you referred to in some past post somewhere, the context is lost here. You seem to think that I will just know what you are thinking about, even after I have told you repeatedly that I don't.

The basis for developing Compatibilism is to answer the question of Moral Responsibility. The problem of Moral responsibility is from the Theist and philosophical perspective. From the scientific perspective Moral Responsibility is not a problem

Free Will and Moral Responsibility

by John M. Frame There are two theories of free will that are often discussed in relation to ethical responsibility. The first is usually called “libertarianism,” and it is typic…

frame-poythress.org

There are two theories of free will that are often discussed in relation to ethical responsibility. The first is usually called “libertarianism,” and it is typical of Arminian theology. Many philosophers have also argued for it, from Epicurus in ancient times to C. A. Campbell, H. D. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga and many others recently. Indeed, it seems to be something of a consensus among Christian philosophers today that one cannot do justice to moral responsibility without presupposing a libertarian view of freedom.

The libertarian view states that some human decisions and actions, particularly moral and religious decisions, are strictly uncaused. In the most sophisticated forms of libertarianism, these decisions are not even caused by our desires or character. They are very insistent on this: a truly free act is not an act which carries out our strongest desire; it rather, typically, goes against our strongest desire. The libertarian is aware, of course, that our desires are largely a function of our heredity, environment, past decisions and so on. If free decisions are based on desires, he thinks, they are not fully free. They are not in this case wholly uncaused.

The libertarian argues that such a view is essential to moral responsibility. For no one is responsible for an act unless he “could have done otherwise.” If I am strapped to a robotic machine which, using my arms, robs a bank, I am not to blame for robbing the bank. I “could not have done otherwise.” Such is the libertarian argument."

Look, Shunya. I know what chaos theory is about, but what you say about it here is virtually incoherent. There are a number of ways to model them with cellular automata, which make deterministic chaos locally predictable in useful ways. Our choices are extremely limited because our chaotic environment is not fully predictable, and that is what makes agentive free will central to the survival of organisms such as ourselves that need to navigate the chaos. That's why motile organisms (for example, animals) have evolved ever more complex brains--to enhance their ability to survive. Sessile organisms such as plants have not evolved complex nervous systems with brains, because they don't move around. They adapt to conditions in a more predictable single space. All of this is well-known and non-controversial. What you fail to show here is how compatibilism is unable to account for the limitations on choice. You have not done that. Compatibilists do not have a problem with chaos theory.

Chaos Theory has nothing to do with the bold. Our world or environment is not as chaotic as you describe. You apparently do not understand Chaos Theory. No your virtually incoherent,

When you talk about "potential choices", are you talking about a potential from the perspective of the agent facing an uncertain future or the perspective of an omniscient observer who does not face an uncertain future?

Potential freedom of choice refers to the ability of humans to have freedom of choice given the limits of deterministic factors, but only some will make the choice,

 

[muhammad_isa]

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..

In philosophy, naturalism is the idea that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe. In its primary sense it is also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, pure naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism. "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. Philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism.
Naturalism_(philosophy)

Not confused at all..

Well, it seems like it.
You keep on harping on about "natural laws means that determinism rules", but then turn around and
say we do have free-will, but only limited.
Makes little sense .. which is it .. do we have capacity to choose or not??

 

[muhammad_isa]

Compatibilism considers the appearance of freedom of choice from the human perspective is in reality an illusion, and our choices are in reality determined..

No .. it does NOT !

"Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent."

The basis for developing Compatibilism is to answer the question of Moral Responsibility..

Not even close..

 

[shunyadragon]

More ad-hominem, and avoiding to explain something that doesn't make sense.

I do NOT reject "science" .. that is no more than an excuse.

Yes you do as you reject the sciences of evolution which is grounded and inseparable from ALL the basic science.

Do all scientists believe as you do? No.

Well 95%+ of all scientists in the fields related to evolution and ALL the major academic universities do support the sciences of evolution

Not all scientists are "fatalists", in that they believe that our free-will is limited by "evolutionary factors".

Fatalism is remotely related to the sciences of evolution. Evolutionary factors (?) do not limit Free Will. Simply human will evolved as humans evolved physically.

I have no idea where you get this nonsense.

..it's like "the blind leading the blind" .. it makes no sense .. do you possess the free-will to ignore
my posts? Yes!
..nothing at all to do with how you "evolved" !

Your rejection of the and intentional ignorance of science is reflected in the incoherent nonsense above.

Me? It is humanity that is the product of evolution of life.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your rejection of the and intentional ignorance of science is reflected in the incoherent nonsense above..

On the contrary. I might not be a professor in biology, but I know the basics.
In fact, I know the basics in the majority of scientific disciplines.

You, however, appear to be blindly following those that extend the basic concepts of evolution,
into a "one-size-fits-all" explanation of the cosmos.

Furthermore, you consider yourself a competent philosopher, yet can't even define what
compatibilism actually is.

 

[shunyadragon]

No .. it does NOT !

"Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent."


Not even close..

Incomplete:Free Will | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

In other words, the existence of free will in a possible world is compatible with that world being deterministic. For this reason, this position is known as “compatibilism,” and its proponents are called “compatibilists.” According to the compatibilist, it is possible for an agent to be determined in all her choices and actions and still make some of her choices freely.

The above is an unresolvable contradiction.

 

[shunyadragon]

On the contrary. I might not be a professor in biology, but I know the basics.
In fact, I know the basics in the majority of scientific disciplines.

That does not help your rejection of the sciences of evolution based on a religious agenda

You, however, appear to be blindly following those that extend the basic concepts of evolution,
into a "one-size-fits-all" explanation of the cosmos.

False. again your ancient religious agenda rears irs ugly head, None of your posts reflect a basic knowledge of science,
There is no such thing here as a one size fits all argument" it is simply your ejection of science,. Science is simply science amd based on the objective verifiable evidence. which you reject.

Furthermore, you consider yourself a competent philosopher, yet can't even define what
compatibilism actually is.

No I have cited several references as to what compatibilism actually is: Free Will | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

the existence of free will in a possible world is compatible with that world being deterministic. For this reason, this position is known as “compatibilism,” and its proponents are called “compatibilists.” According to the compatibilist, it is possible for an agent to be determined in all her choices and actions and still make some of her choices freely.

I see an unresolvable conflict here.

 

[shunyadragon]

That would have to be that God know what we will freely choose to do.

Then God knew everything Adam, Eve and Cain were going to do. In other words God is responsible for the Original Sin and the Fall of humanity and his Creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

A good reference that supports my view that Moral Responsibility is not a question concerning the issue of whether there is Free Will or not.

Free will and moral responsibility - Compatibilism, Determinism, Libertarianism

Free will and moral responsibility - Compatibilism, Determinism, Libertarianism: Compatibilism, as the name suggests, is the view that the existence of free will and moral responsibility is compatible with the truth of determinism. In most cases, compatibilists (also called “soft” determinists)...

www.britannica.com

Although the central issues involved in the problem of free will and moral responsibility have remained the same since ancient times, the emphasis of the debate has changed greatly. Contemporary compatibilists in the vein of Frankfurt and Strawson tend to argue that moral responsibility has little if anything to do with determinism, since it arises from people’s desires and attitudes rather than from the causal origins of their actions. Humans may not be free to as great an extent as the intuitive notion of free will suggests, but there is no other freedom to be had. Addressing the problem of free will and moral responsibility requires establishing guidelines for holding people accountable, not lunging after some impossible notion of free will.

Also . . .

How much of human behaviour is determined by past events, and how much does this matter—if it does matter—for free will and moral responsibility? In the end, the important question may be not whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic but whether one is willing to accept a definition of free will that is much weaker than intuition demands.

compatibilism​

philosophical concept
Print Cite Share Feedback

Written and fact-checked by



The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Article History
Category: History & Society
Related Topics: free will and moral responsibility free will determinism
See all related content →
Compatibilism, Thesis that free will, in the sense required for moral responsibility, is consistent with universal causal determinism. It is important to distinguish the question of the logical consistency of belief in universal causal determinism with belief in free will from the question whether the thesis of free will (or that of causal determinism) is true. Compatibilists need not assert (though many have) the reality both of free will and of causal determinism. Among incompatibilists, some maintain the existence of free will and accordingly deny universal causal determinism, while others uphold universal causal determinism and deny the existence of free will.

Though the above contains some inconsistencies in Compatibilism

 

[Ajax]

That would have to be that God know what we will freely choose to do.

What you just wrote is totally absurd and creates havoc in the Bible...

 

[muhammad_isa]

In other words, the existence of free will in a possible world is compatible with that world being deterministic. For this reason, this position is known as “compatibilism,” and its proponents are called “compatibilists.” According to the compatibilist, it is possible for an agent to be determined in all her choices and actions and still make some of her choices freely..

Yes, that's more like it.

The above is an unresolvable contradiction.

Mmm .. and that is what I have been trying to explain in this thread. It is NOT "unresolvable".
It is a common fallacy that people from all walks of life, experts included, have trouble with.
..which presumably is why this never-ending debate continues to this day.

As I keep saying, it is "resolved" when one considers what exactly is DETERMINING the future.
It's easy to just keep repeating that a so-called "fixed future" must be what determines it, but
on closer examination, this is NOT NECESSARILY the case.

2 simple questions ..
What stops a person's CHOICE being what determines/fixes the future?
Why is it that "we don't have a choice"?