Do you Think we have Free Will

[Koldo]

I mean Erasmus' notion of free will, as it is defined in his De libero arbitrio.

That's problematic because Erasmus died before Newton was born. Before Newton was born, the debate concerning free will was about predestination, rather than determinism. Although similar, it means that Erasmus' debate with Luther was centered around theology, as you can see from how he refers to free will.

 

[MikeF]

I see choice as fettered or encumbered. There are many factors outside of our control that have strong influence upon the choices we make, starting with the basic hardwiring of our CNS, and following with all the socialization, education, and unique experiences to each individual. I think we can all imagine scenarios in which our being born into different circumstances and conditions could significantly change the type of person we would be and consequently the choices we might make.

Given this, I also believe there is the capacity for serendipitous choice, choice out of character, experimental choice, creative choice, as well as a capacity for random choice (when it is perceived the consequence or weight of choice is low). For me, these types of choices argue against a strict deterministic view regarding our capacity to exercise choice.

So, no Free Will, simply non-deterministic, yet encumbered will.

 

[leroy]

Then it's a false dichotomy.

The assumption is that it is impossible to test the claim “we have free will”

This leads to a dichotomy

1 ether accept free will (and accept that sometimes you accept untestable claims as part of your reality)

Or

2 reject free will (and accept all the implications of rejecting free will, including in my opinion reazon, critical thinking, morality etc)

what is false in this dichtonomy?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The assumption is that it is impossible to test the claim “we have free will”

This leads to a dichotomy

1 ether accept free will (and accept that sometimes you accept untestable claims as part of your reality)

Or

2 reject free will (and accept all the implications of rejecting free will, including in my opinion reazon, critical thinking, morality etc)

what is false in this dichtonomy?

First of all, you just changed point 1.

Here is your original 2-point statement (post #40):

1 personal experience is a reliable source of knowledge
2 we should reject the idea that we have free will


There is no reason at all why we should accept 2 if we don't accept 1.
Neither are mutually exclusive.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I think we can all imagine scenarios in which our being born into different circumstances and conditions could significantly change the type of person we would be and consequently the choices we might make..

..but that does not mean that we should not be responsible for our decisions.
..not unless we are certified by a medical practioner, that is.

So, no Free Will, simply non-deterministic, yet encumbered will.

..so who is driving the cars down the highway?
Is it only an illusion that the driver is making choices?
eg. pressing the brake or steering

 

[gnostic]

* 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 ?

That’s not how I would define free will.

yes, free will is about making decision, as in your choice.

it has nothing to do with randomness. And as to “not fully determined by past events”, that don’t make any sense.

if you had no free will, then it would mean you have no choice. so for example. If you are forced to do something that you don’t want to do, then the decision is taken from you…hence no free will.

 

[Koldo]

That’s not how I would define free will.

yes, free will is about making decision, as in your choice.

it has nothing to do with randomness. And as to “not fully determined by past events”, that don’t make any sense.

if you had no free will, then it would mean you have no choice. so for example. If you are forced to do something that you don’t want to do, then the decision is taken from you…hence no free will.

The problem is that equating free will to making uncoerced decisions makes free will compatible with determinism. Generally speaking, the proponents of libertarian free will want to state that determinism, on regards to decision making, is false.

 

[MikeF]

..but that does not mean that we should not be responsible for our decisions.
..not unless we are certified by a medical practioner, that is.

This seems a different matter in my opinion. I was thinking in terms of the choices generally, choices we make every day that are within social norms or within legal bounds. Whether a choice or action is deemed illegal or immoral would be a subjective standard either dictated to a society or formed by the consensus of that society. Even then, there are often caveats and exceptions that apply. Regardless, consequences are after-the-fact of a choice made, however freely, although potential consequences can certainly influence choices.

..so who is driving the cars down the highway?
Is it only an illusion that the driver is making choices?
eg. pressing the brake or steering

This comment does not make sense to me in reference to my comments.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This comment does not make sense to me in reference to my comments.

Well, all you had to do was to say "yes, the driver of a car is making choices of his own free-will,
when he steers or presses the brake".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, all you had to do was to say "yes, the driver of a car is making choices of his own free-will,
when he steers or presses the brake".

I think you just took a bad, yet interesting, example.

As an experienced driver, many times when I steer or hit the breaks, it's not so much a conscious decision as it is a reflex.

Like when I jump up when a loud bang happens close to me. I don't "decide" to jump up. I just do as a reflex.
When I drive on the road and someone suddenly cuts me off... I hit the breaks and / or steer away well before I actually realize it.

Are reflex behaviors examples of free will decisions? I don't think so.

 

[bobhikes]

* 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 ?

Other, We have choice for certain things but not all. Patterns or short cuts like reflex's make living easier so where they are possible, they took. We also have limitations; you cannot choose to overcome your limitations. Certain things you have the ability to choose and other things you absolutely have to choose.

 

[leroy]

First of all, you just changed point 1.

Here is your original 2-point statement (post #40):

1 personal experience is a reliable source of knowledge
2 we should reject the idea that we have free will


There is no reason at all why we should accept 2 if we don't accept 1.
Neither are mutually exclusive.

You are not following the conversation, it was stated before that the only “evidence” for free will is personal experience……. So in this context accepting free will and accepting experience as “evidence” is the same thing

There is no reason at all why we should accept 2 if we don't accept 1.
Neither are mutually exclusive.

If you accept the assumption (experience is the only evidence for free will) then yes 1 and 2 exclude each other

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are not following the conversation, it was stated before that the only “evidence” for free will is personal experience…….

I tend to disagree that that is the case also, but let's run with it.

So in this context accepting free will and accepting experience as “evidence” is the same thing

That still doesn't mean that not accepting experience as evidence therefor requires one to reject free will.

If you accept the assumption (experience is the only evidence for free will) then yes 1 and 2 exclude each other

No, they don't.
Once again, you are seeing things only in black and white.

If we say experience is not proper evidence and if we assume following that that there is no evidence for free will, then that doesn't mean that one therefor must accept that free will doesn't exist.

You can say you believe free will exists on no evidence.
You can say you don't know if free will exists since you have no evidence
You can say you believe free will does not exist on no evidence.

None of these options are excluded in any way, shape or form following the assumption that there is no evidence for free will.

 

[Koldo]

You are not following the conversation, it was stated before that the only “evidence” for free will is personal experience……. So in this context accepting free will and accepting experience as “evidence” is the same thing


If you accept the assumption (experience is the only evidence for free will) then yes 1 and 2 exclude each other

My criticism here stems from saying that we do have a personal experience of free will. But do we? What would the personal experience of not having free will look like?

 

[leroy]

That’s not how I would define free will.

yes, free will is about making decision, as in your choice.

it has nothing to do with randomness. And as to “not fully determined by past events”, that don’t make any sense.

if you had no free will, then it would mean you have no choice. so for example. If you are forced to do something that you don’t want to do, then the decision is taken from you…hence no free will.

If you ordered a chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla ice-cream there are 3 possibilities

1 you were fully determined to do so

2 it was a random choice, (perhaps you toasted a coin, iperhaps a “quantum coin ”

3 you made a conscious description (this is what I mean by free will)

Some people believe that only 1 is possible, others grant 1 and 2, others grant 1 2 and 3 others 1 and 3 etc.

Do you grant that all tree are possibilities, if not which one would you exclude?

 

[leroy]

I tend to disagree that that is the case also, but let's run with it.



That still doesn't mean that not accepting experience as evidence therefor requires one to reject free will.


No, they don't.
Once again, you are seeing things only in black and white.

If we say experience is not proper evidence and if we assume following that that there is no evidence for free will, then that doesn't mean that one therefor must accept that free will doesn't exist.

You can say you believe free will exists on no evidence.
You can say you don't know if free will exists since you have no evidence
You can say you believe free will does not exist on no evidence.

None of these options are excluded in any way, shape or form following the assumption that there is no evidence for free will.

ok granted, srtickly speacking they dont follow logically.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ok granted, srtickly speacking they dont follow logically.

Cool.

btw: not just "strictly speaking". They simply don't follow logically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personal experience = it really feels at though we have free will……. This is what I mean with personal expereicne.

What does free will "feel like"?

1 If you grant free will, then you are tacitly accepting that experiences are (or could be) a good source of knowledge

2 If you reject experience as a valid source of knowledge, then you have to reject free will

You which one do you pick? 1 or 2 ]?

It's a false dichotomy. Hand-waving to distract from your question-begging.

 

[wellwisher]

* 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 think we all have free will to a degree, but not always 100 percent, all the time, for everything. For example, if you are law abiding you will not use your free will to break the law, but rather will try to go along with the program. But in cases where there is no hard rules, such as Coke or Pepsi, free will would allow us to choose either or neither.

I like free will, as opposed to just will power, to mean willful choices without any cost or price; free will. To willfully choose to break the law may have the cost or price of feeling guilty or inducing fear. I can willfully do this in some cases; speeding, but that willful choice is not free emotionally. The price and cost may be anxiety excitement. On the other hand, if there was an apple and orange on a table, and I liked both, then either choice will be free of emotional or psychological cost. Liking all things; moderation, bring us closer to free will.

A college fraternity may dare the pledges to eat gross things. This can be done willfully. One may weight the costs of two choices; eat it or do not get in the fraternity. However, as you eat you will feel the grossness, so it is not free will, even if you willfully meet the challenge. One would need to enjoy gross things as much as delicious things, and give or take the fraternity, to have free will in this situation; joyful flexibility.

Paul in the Bible, said I became all things to all men, so I could save some; cultural free will apart from cultural clique laws. He also said all things are lawful but not all things edify. All things are lawful but I will not be master by anything. He was setting the stage for free will among all humans; share their ways.

 

[leroy]

It's a false dichotomy.

Ok what other alternative do you propose? And which one would you pick?

Hand-waving to distract from your question-begging.

Hand waving from what? According to you what is the issue that I am avoiding