Do you Think we have Free Will

[shunyadragon]

Great. Now quote the specific part of that source that cites that the main argument is between libertarian free will vs. "limited potential free will", rather than between libertarian free will and determinism.

'Limited Potential Free Will' is self descriptive as worded and is a maybe a version of the Philosophy of Compatibility, I prefer this wording, because it is more open and not specifically defined. I do not fully agree with Compatibility as described. in the reference. Compatibility as described comes close to Hard Determinism, and some of the advocates describe "Free Will" as an illusion. This proposal may be considered middle ground between Libertarian Free Will and Hard Determinism without some of the assumptions of Compatibilism.

Simply in my view our "Free Will" is limited, possibly very limited, by many factors based on the evidence. Yes humans can make some decisions from a limited choices. In some cases they may have only one choice. I leave my view open to further information.

What I consider a severe illusion is any form of "Libertarian Free Will."

 

[muhammad_isa]

Here it appears that you didn't understand the concept of the illusion of free will and the intractable problem of demonstrating that one could have made another choice. All you have here is what it feels like to you..

That is total nonsense, imo.

The cars driven down the highway are all driven by "programmed" individuals, who have no
free-will to make decisions .. is that what you believe??

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The cars driven down the highway are all driven by "programmed" individuals, who have no free-will to make decisions .. is that what you believe??

I've already explained what I believe, which is that free will may be an illusion, that there is good reason to believe that it is, that even if free will exists there is no way to demonstrate that fact even with a time machine although it may be possible to demonstrate that it doesn't exist if it doesn't, that we may indeed be what the Abrahamists call robots and that if so that's fine with me. I am perfectly at peace with the idea that my life is unfolding according to the laws of physics and that it only feels like I am making choices that could have been made otherwise.

If you still don't understand that, then you likely never will. I can't say it any more clearly. The ideas are elemental, atomic. Every idea there is simple.

Did you want to let me know that you understood it by identifying any parts you agree with, and if there are any you think are incorrect, why you think it's incorrect beyond gut feeling and an incredulity fallacy?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I am perfectly at peace with the idea that my life is unfolding according to the laws of physics and that it only feels like I am making choices that could have been made otherwise..

That's just mumbo-jumbo..

It implies that courts of law "have got it wrong".

Did you want to let me know that you understood it by identifying any parts you agree with, and if there are any you think are incorrect, why you think it's incorrect beyond gut feeling and an incredulity fallacy?

I think you need to explain why people should be held responsible for their actions,
if we do not make decisions of our own free-will.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's just mumbo-jumbo

I was afraid that you wouldn't understand.

It implies that courts of law "have got it wrong".

I don't know what that means. Are you referring to having courtroom trials? Are you referring to deciding a defendant's guilt? Are you talking about fining or incarcerating them following guilty verdicts?

I think you need to explain why people should be held responsible for their actions,
if we do not make decisions of our own free-will.

Why wouldn't we do those things I just named even is free will were just an illusion (it's not like we would have a choice if it weren't)? Criminals need to be taken off of the street. They and others need to see the possible results of engaging in criminal activity. And maybe they'll repent* and be rehabilitated.

* Interesting trivia: the word penitentiary "is derived from the Latin term paenitentia, meaning repentance. A penitentiary refers to a prison or place of confinement used to hold and correct criminals who have been convicted of felonies."

It sounds like you think that if they don't have free will, we shouldn't deal with criminals at all. Do you believe tigers have free will? If not, when one escapes the zoo and begins terrorizing a neighborhood, should we allow it to continue doing so (it's not like we would have a choice if we also lacked free will).

It's really not difficult to adapt to this way of thinking. Nothing need change in our behavior once we know (it's not like we would have a choice if we lacked free will). My thinking hasn't changed at all. I continue to think and live as I did before I came to realize all of this. I live as if my ideas come from me and not my brain even though I know better, but that doesn't make a difference (it's not like it could if we don't have free will).

It's exactly the same regarding the question of whether all of experience is an illusion, not just free will. Suppose you somehow learned for an undeniable, iron-clad fact that there was no world outside of your consciousness corresponding to what you experience, that perhaps you are a brain in a vat after all or in some kind of matrix. OK, now that you've had a chance to get over the shock and assimilate and accept the truth of the idea, what are you going to do differently?

You now know that what looks like your finger isn't real, and neither is that burning candle, so you will the finger into the flame knowing that no such thing actually exists or is happening, and you feel the pain of fire anyway. Are you going to do that again? No. It's not like you would have a choice if you also lacked free will. NOTHING CHANGES, and this free will matter is the same. Realizing that free will is or might be an illusion changes nothing about how I go on living my life, because as with fingers and flames, what worked before still works following these kinds of revelations.

 

[Koldo]

'Limited Potential Free Will' is self descriptive as worded and is a maybe a version of the Philosophy of Compatibility, I prefer this wording, because it is more open and not specifically defined. I do not fully agree with Compatibility as described. in the reference. Compatibility as described comes close to Hard Determinism, and some of the advocates describe "Free Will" as an illusion.

Simply in my view our "Free Will" is limited, possibly very limited, by many factors based on the evidence. Yes humans can make some decisions from a limited choices. In some cases they may have only one choice. I leave my view open to further information.

What I consider a severe illusion is any form of "Libertarian Free Will."

You are still not addressing what I am talking about...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why wouldn't we do those things I just named even is free will were just an illusion (it's not like we would have a choice if it weren't)?

You mean, why shouldn't we hold people responsible for their actions, even if they aren't?
..more gobbldigook..

Do you believe tigers have free will? If not, when one escapes the zoo and begins terrorizing a neighborhood, should we allow it to continue doing so (it's not like we would have a choice if we also lacked free will).

No, they are not responsible for their actions .. they can kill one another, and it is
acceptable. Are you suggesting that we should behave in the same way?

I live as if my ideas come from me and not my brain even though I know better, but that doesn't make a difference (it's not like it could if we don't have free will).

You THINK you know better .. it looks more like some kind of "academic game" to me.

It's exactly the same regarding the question of whether all of experience is an illusion, not just free will.

Oh yeah?
I don't intend to test that out by scalding myself with boiling tar.

..It's not like you would have a choice if you also lacked free will. NOTHING CHANGES, and this free will matter is the same. Realizing that free will is or might be an illusion changes nothing about how I go on living my life, because as with fingers and flames, what worked before still works following these kinds of revelations.

More mumbo-jumbo .. if you don't believe that you are responsible for the decisions you make,
then it DOES make a difference .. why make them at all??
It's like you are saying there is "no you" inside that makes them, or something else is responsible.
Airy-fairy, quite contrary

 

[Revoltingest]

Time for a re-run of some old doggerel...

I think that my will's unconstrained,
a feeling which is quite ingrained.
And though I've volition
I've still a suspicion
my choices are all preordained.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are still not addressing what I am talking about...

I believe I did. I did but will add: Limited Potential Free Will may be considered middle ground between Libertarian Free Will and Hard Determinism without the assumptions of Compatibilism. I consider it "Potential Free Will, because by far most people will not go beyond the paradigm they belong to make choices outside their 'comfort zone' of their beliefs.

 

[Koldo]

I believe I did. I did but will add: Limited Potential Free Will may be considered middle ground between Libertarian Free Will and Hard Determinism without the assumptions of Compatibilism. I consider it "Potential Free Will, because by far most people will not go beyond the paradigm they belong to make choices outside their 'comfort zone' of their paradigm.will

Ok. But this 'limited potential free will' has never been in the center of the debate. The central debate has always been libertarian free will vs. determinism.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok. But this 'limited potential free will' has never been in the center of the debate. The central debate has always been libertarian free will vs. determinism.

I believe it should be an important consideration, because "Libertarian Free Will," and "Hard determinism" are untenable alternatives. The determinism of nature is not "Hard Determinism."

 

[Koldo]

I believe it should be an important consideration, because "Libertarian Free Will," and "Hard determinism" are untenable alternatives.

Why?

 

[shunyadragon]

Why?

Explained in the reference i provided.

An added problem, which I believe I previously mention is our behavior and nature is natural and nature is not Hard
deterministic. The determinism of nature os that the outcomes of cause and effect events is fractal and is limited in range of possible choices. This is reflected in the human decision making process.

Libertarian Free Will is just unbelievably unrealistic that human choices are not effected by external forces: Libertarianism vs. Determinism vs. Compatibilism | Listenable

Libertarianism holds that humans make choices freely, as independent, autonomous beings, unaffected by external forces. Some people, when they hear this, find themselves a bit puzzled: they feel free – we all feel free – but concerns arise when it is asserted that we must then be completely unaffected by external forces. This latter notion seems unlikely, no? After all, most would concede that we are at least a little affected by our environment: that is, our surroundings, the people around us, the country we live in. Do you behave differently around different people? In different places? Most significant, though, in the context of this debate, is the libertarian argument that prior causes do not affect our current actions. Essentially, they reject the 'Principle of Causation' in the context of human behaviour. So, what does that mean? Well, the principle of causation is the widely applied scientific notion that for every event, there must be a cause. This seems to be the case throughout nature – a plant grows if it is watered, a tree falls over because of the strong wind. The only thing it doesn't apply to, according to libertarianism, is human action. Which may seem unlikely…or not – it's up to you to decide!

 

[RestlessSoul]

I've already explained what I believe, which is that free will may be an illusion, that there is good reason to believe that it is, that even if free will exists there is no way to demonstrate that fact even with a time machine although it may be possible to demonstrate that it doesn't exist if it doesn't, that we may indeed be what the Abrahamists call robots and that if so that's fine with me. I am perfectly at peace with the idea that my life is unfolding according to the laws of physics and that it only feels like I am making choices that could have been made otherwise.

If you still don't understand that, then you likely never will. I can't say it any more clearly. The ideas are elemental, atomic. Every idea there is simple.

Did you want to let me know that you understood it by identifying any parts you agree with, and if there are any you think are incorrect, why you think it's incorrect beyond gut feeling and an incredulity fallacy?

If free will is an illusion, so is your much trumpeted capacity for critical thinking. Without agency, you are not arriving at reasoned conclusions based on analysis of empirical evidence, since your conclusions were always predetermined by the laws of physics (which ones support your assertion, I wonder? Do tell).

Philosophically, your position appears incoherent and you may want to rethink it before deciding for yourself how this contradiction can be resolved; but if you’re right about determinism, you can’t.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If free will is an illusion, so is your much trumpeted capacity for critical thinking.

Disagree. What is illusion is that the critical thinker could have thought any other way, not that what he's doing isn't the useful process that critical thinking is touted to be.

Without agency, you are not arriving at reasoned conclusions based on analysis of empirical evidence, since your conclusions were always predetermined by the laws of physics (which ones support your assertion, I wonder

Disagree again for the same reason. One can do exactly that even it is foreordained.

Philosophically, your position appears incoherent and you may want to rethink it before deciding for yourself how this contradiction can be resolved; but if you’re right about determinism, you can’t.

Agreed this time. Whether the position is coherent or not, if free will is an illusion, then arriving at that was foreordained.

 

[crossbody]

* 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 would say that we do not have freewill. If we had freewill almost everyone would harm, rob, rape, kill, and violate one another. People would unleash an animalistic and violent will if given freewill.

Also I think that we are bound by so many rules. I'm a Christian and we have Bible rules also known as God's will, God's righteousness, God's mandate, and obedience unto God. Then there are societal rules at every restaurant, stadium, social media site, library, movie theater, mall, schools, universities, etc... The rules of driving on city, county, and federal streets and areas. Let's not forget the airline and airplane rules.

Those often overlooked rules of living in a neighborhood, apartment, etc.. We are like inmates in a so-called free world where we have to indirectly trade in our civil rights for survival.

 

[YoursTrue]

I would say that we do not have freewill. If we had freewill almost everyone would harm, rob, rape, kill, and violate one another. People would unleash an animalistic and violent will if given freewill.

Also I think that we are bound by so many rules. I'm a Christian and we have Bible rules also known as God's will, God's righteousness, God's mandate, and obedience unto God. Then there are societal rules at every restaurant, stadium, social media site, library, movie theater, mall, schools, universities, etc... The rules of driving on city, county, and federal streets and areas. Let's not forget the airline and airplane rules.

Those often overlooked rules of living in a neighborhood, apartment, etc.. We are like inmates in a so-called free world where we have to indirectly trade in our civil rights for survival.

In your first point, you are saying, if I understand you correctly, that there are laws against rape, murder and the like and so some are afraid to do such things because they're afraid of the consequences? I'm not sure what you mean, but I will say this: among Adam and Eve's children, Cain killed Abel. So right away murder was an issue.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Disagree. What is illusion is that the critical thinker could have thought any other way, not that what he's doing isn't the useful process that critical thinking is touted to be.

Disagree again for the same reason. One can do exactly that even it is foreordained.

Agreed this time. Whether the position is coherent or not, if free will is an illusion, then arriving at that was foreordained.

I think you’re missing something here; if decisions, evaluations, actions and outcomes are predetermined, then processes cease to have any meaning, as do methodologies like critical thinking, and concepts like “useful”. Indeed, if the future is already written, then even the flow of time is an illusion, and cause and effect becomes mere correlation.

Either way, you’ve surprised me as I didn’t have you down for an anti-realist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you’re missing something here; if decisions, evaluations, actions and outcomes are predetermined, then processes cease to have any meaning, as do methodologies like critical thinking, and concepts like “useful”. Indeed, if the future is already written, then even the flow of time is an illusion, and cause and effect becomes mere correlation.

Either way, you’ve surprised me as I didn’t have you down for an anti-realist.

At this point, I'ld like to point out that theists who believe in prophecy actually believe that the future is already written.

And that also goes for everybody else who believes the future (as a result of human behavior and decisions) can be known one way or the other.

 

[RestlessSoul]

At this point, I'ld like to point out that theists who believe in prophecy actually believe that the future is already written.

And that also goes for everybody else who believes the future (as a result of human behavior and decisions) can be known one way or the other.

Which is precisely why I’m not a Calvinist. Well, that’s not the only reason, but as good a one as any.

As far as the future is concerned, the closest we can come to knowing it, is to assess as accurately as possible, the probability of this or that outcome or eventuality.