Free will deniers

[Trailblazer]

But how can we be free to choose if we can see such trends?

Everyone is not always free to choose anything they want. I never said that.
Here is my definition of free will:

Free will is simply the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these can be considered causes or reasons why we choose one thing or another.

How free our choices are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints such as ability and opportunity but we have volition and we can choose between available options.

 

[Estro Felino]

No I didn't. I saw some images in something I was reading one night and learned then and there ropes, chains and handcuffs turn me on. I don't know how it happened for my siblings, but I know at least a few of my nieces amd nephews are also into it.

Alone? Or with a man?
Each of us is attracted to a specific type of person. We don't pick any random person.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Alone? Or with a man?
Each of us is attracted to a specific type of person. We don't pick any random person.

These were pictures of people tied up and restrained, and the thought of that being me drove me wild. There was no foreknowledge of this, I made no choices or decisions, I just happened to stumble upon some self discovery.

You do choose your sexual preferences.

We don't pick any random person.

So, do we choose or is it we don't pick? Surely if our will is free we can pick, chose and change those things.

 

[Estro Felino]

These were pictures of people tied up and restrained, and the thought of that being me drove me wild. There was no foreknowledge of this, I made no choices or decisions, I just happened to stumble upon some self discovery.


So, do we choose or is it we don't pick? Surely if our will is free we can pick, chose and change those things.

Let's say you're attracted to women. It's your free will that makes you pick women.,

I am attracted to men. But not any man. Those chubby, nice ones.

Each of us chooses people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let's say you're attracted to women. It's your free will that makes you pick women.,

I am attracted to men. But not any man. Those chubby, nice ones.

Each of us chooses people.

I didn't chose who or what I'm attracted to. No one I know did.

 

[Revoltingest]

Get your jaundiced rear into the kitchen and make me a sandwich, manservant!

 

[shunyadragon]

I had a mentor in the past whom I met again after 10 years. A philosophy professor. He told me something about free will: there are several kinds of people. Those with enormous volition that use their willpower to do either good things or bad things; and there are people with scarce volition who are too scared to use their own free will, for they don't want to commit mistakes. There are so many shades of individualistic cases inbetween.
He also told me that free will deniers are usually people with a big volition who use their prepotency to destroy other people's lives.
They deny free will exists because admitting it does exist would make them feel guilty of all that they have done unto others.
It's a self-defense mechanism not to feel guilty.
What do you think, guys?

I believe the question of human will is more in the natural nature of being human than any particular philosophical or religious assertion based on belief or individual perspective on the diverse conflicting views of what people call 'Free Will.' variations

From the objective natural perspective our 'will' is limited by many factors, but dominantly from the imperative of survival goals of human survival on the individual and group perspective. There is possible variations in our decision making process, but out choices are constrained by necessity of the nature of being human nature of a sense of belonging and surviving. Our genetics and the nature of gender also restrain our choices. Other issues constraint the choices of individual such as mental illness.

Nonetheless I do consider human nature has the limited potential of 'Free Will, but it is limited and rare for people to actually make free will choices. Also we live in a fundamentally natural deterministic world with out true randomness, and the natural variation in all cause and effect events vary in fractal manner, but still with a limited number of outcomes in all cause an effect events.

From my perspective the first realization of freedom from the constraints if our deterministic nature is that nothing is permanent or necessary. The second realization is that 'Everything I could possible believe is likely wrong in one way or another.

If true 'Free Will' exists we could make decisions freely outside the limitation of constrained possible choices.

 

[Estro Felino]

I believe the question of human will is more in the natural nature of being human than any particular philosophical or religious assertion based on belief or individual perspective on the diverse conflicting views of what people call 'Free Will.' variations

From the objective natural perspective our 'will' is limited by many factors, but dominantly from the imperative of survival goals of human survival on the individual and group perspective. There is possible variations in our decision making process, but out choices are constrained by necessity of the nature of being human nature of a sense of belonging and surviving. Our genetics and the nature of gender also restrain our choices. Other issues constraint the choices of individual such as mental illness.

Nonetheless I do consider human nature has the limited potential of 'Free Will, but it is limited and rare for people to actually make free will choices. Also we live in a fundamentally natural deterministic world with out true randomness, and the natural variation in all cause and effect events vary in fractal manner, but still with a limited number of outcomes in all cause an effect events.

From my perspective the first realization of freedom from the constraints if our deterministic nature is that nothing is permanent or necessary. The second realization is that 'Everything I could possible believe is likely wrong in one way or another.

If true 'Free Will' exists we could make decisions freely outside the limitation of constrained possible choices.

Hypothetical situation: you live on a desert island. There's plenty of food and you can do whatever you like on an island that is practically filled with nature and fun things: rivers, mountains, springs of clear water, nice animals (no dangerous ones).

So...do you have free will or not on a desert island?
Or is there anyone who prevents you from doing what you like to do?

 

[shunyadragon]

Hypothetical situation: you live on a desert island. There's plenty of food and you can do whatever you like on an island that is practically filled with nature and fun things: rivers, mountains, springs of clear water, nice animals (no dangerous ones).

So...do you have free will or not on a desert island?
Or is there anyone who prevents you from doing what you like to do?

The real world is not a hypothetical situation, First, terrible example, because the real world is not an isolated island. The real world of human will is a dynamic relationship with the chain of cause and effect decisions our family, peer group, society even for generations, culture. genetic programed to survive, and good old limits of nature.

Actually no, in the example you would not likely do anything you wanted to do as in the real world. You will still make decisions on this island based on your cause and effect chain of events in your previous life. Example if you were an observant Jew you make decisions based on being an. observant Jew.

Also in many ways our world in the USA is not much different from your island in many ways, and people do not do anything they want. An observant Jew remains an observant Jew for generations regardless.

 

[Estro Felino]

The real world is not a hypothetical situation, First, terrible example, because the real world is not an isolated island. The real world of human will is a dynamic relationship with the chain of cause and effect decisions our family, peer group, society even for generations, culture. genetic programed to survive, and good old limits of nature.

Actually no, in the example you would not likely do anything you wanted to do as in the real world. You will still make decisions on this island based on your cause and effect chain of events in your previous life. Example if you were an observant Jew you make decisions based on being an. observant Jew.

Also in many ways our world in the USA is not much different from your island in many ways, and people do not do anything they want. An observant Jew remains an observant Jew for generations regardless.

I demonstrated free will exists,
yet you want to deny its existence,
It's okay.

 

[shunyadragon]

I demonstrated free will exists,
yet you want to deny its existence,
It's okay.

So far all you have done is demonstrate your personal view of why you believe 'free will exists.

I do not completely negate the possibility of limited free will, but the actual evidence overwhelmingly concludes that 'libertarian Free Will is an illusion.

No your hypothetical unrealistic example does not demonstrate anything concerning the nature of human will.

The 'Compatibilist' view of human will does offer a reasonable explanation, but I do not except that explanation as is.

 

[Estro Felino]

So far all you have done is demonstrate your personal view of why you believe 'free will exists.

I do not completely negate the possibility of limited free will, but the actual evidence overwhelmingly concludes that 'libertarian Free Will is an illusion.

No your hypothetical unrealistic example does not demonstrate anything concerning the nature of human will.

The 'Compatibilist' view of human will does offer a reasonable explanation, but I do not except that explanation as is.

Rapists all say the same things.
That they couldn't help it, ...that they had to rape that woman they raped.

Hence they don't believe in free will.

But I believe people do have free will.

 

[shunyadragon]

Rapists all say the same things.
That they couldn't help it, ...that they had to rape that woman they raped.

Hence they don't believe in free will.

But I believe people do have free will.

It is a matter of fact that rapists do not make any claim concerning 'Free Will.' This is an an intresting subject for a thread, but you effectively played 'Duck, Bob and Weasel; and did not respond to the substance of my post,

Again I do not completely reject the possibility of limited 'Free Will.'

You have overwhelmingly failed to provide objective evidence for ;Libertarian Free Will.

 

[Estro Felino]

It is a matter of fact that rapists do not make any claim concerning 'Free Will.' This is an an intresting subject for a thread, but you effectively played 'Duck, Bob and Weasel; and did not respond to the substance of my post,

Again I do not completely reject the possibility of limited 'Free Will.'

You have overwhelmingly failed to provide objective evidence for ;Libertarian Free Will.

I rely on my definition of free will:

it's free will the capability of doing whatever you like, unless your actions limit other people's freedom (and free will) or worse, harm them.

According to this definition, we all have free will...in abstract. Because nobody will limit my free will and I will limit nobody's free will.

There...easy as pie. Without bringing up libertarian or limited.

 

[danieldemol]

I rely on my definition of free will:

it's free will the capability of doing whatever you like, unless your actions limit other people's freedom (and free will) or worse, harm them.

According to this definition, we all have free will...in abstract. Because nobody will limit my free will and I will limit nobody's free will.

There...easy as pie. Without bringing up libertarian or limited.

Your definition of free will is irrelevant to whether or not people can be considered blameworthy for acting on their wants in my view.

As I believe wants are determined by brain wiring/chemistry and environmental inputs such as nurture, it logically follows we don't choose freely what our wants are or whether we should act on them.

Essentially I consider humans along with other animals to be biological automatons and according to this view it makes no more sense to blame a human than it does to blame a robot for acting on its programming.

 

[Trailblazer]

Essentially I consider humans along with other animals to be biological automatons and according to this view it makes no more sense to blame a human than it does to blame a robot for acting on its programming.

Tell this to the judge and jury in a court of law and see how far it gets you.

 

[danieldemol]

Tell this to the judge and jury in a court of law and see how far it gets you.

Their job should not be to assign blame to robots for acting in accordance with their nature, it should be to pass judgement on which of the (biological) robots are safe to be free in society without reprogramming and/or modification in my view.

If there job is to blame things for their nature then there job description contains an injustice which is worthy of rectification in my opinion.

I also note that your statement lacks an argument for why we are not biological automatons, instead it contains what i believe to be a misplaced warning of the consequences of accepting a fact about our selves.

But something that is true is true regardless of the consequences of it's truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

Their job should not be to assign blame to robots for acting in accordance with their nature, it should be to pass judgement on which of the (biological) robots are safe to be free in society without reprogramming and/or modification in my view.

(a) Humans are not biological robots. Humans are sentient beings who have free will to choose.
(b) Humans have two natures, a lower material nature and a higher spiritual nature, and since they have free will they can choose to act according to either one of those natures.

THAT is why people are punished for crimes.

If there job is to blame things for their nature then there job description contains an injustice which is worthy of rectification in my opinion.

It is justice to blame people for making the choice to act on their lower nature. No rectification is necessary.

I also note that your statement lacks an argument for why we are not biological automatons, instead it contains what i believe to be a misplaced warning of the consequences of accepting a fact about our selves.

We are not biological automatons because we have free will.

But something that is true is true regardless of the consequences of it's truth.

That is correct. Humans have free will even though some people don't like to be held responsible for using it.

 

[danieldemol]

(a) Humans are not biological robots. Humans are sentient beings who have free will to choose.

Baseless assertion. You are not able to demonstrate free-will exists, you are simply assuming your conclusion.

(b) Humans have two natures, a lower material nature and a higher spiritual nature, and since they have free will they can choose to act according to either one of those natures.

THAT is why people are punished for crimes.

Find me a law book which says humans are punished because they have a spirit capable of overriding their brain wiring/chemistry and environmental inputs in any secular society.

Only theocracies enact laws based on superstition in my view.

 

[shunyadragon]

Rapists all say the same things.
That they couldn't help it, ...that they had to rape that woman they raped.

Hence they don't believe in free will.

But I believe people do have free will.

I want to add and emphasize: First I did say 'Free Will' does not exist. Second, the criminal justice system does not necessarily need the necessity of 'Libertarian Free Will' to punish some one of a crime.