Free Will Vs Determinism

[Willamena]

Then how are they manifested?

.

Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
The medicine go down, medicine go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
In the most delightful way

 

[Skwim]

I understand but its just speculation. There is no way to prove that every choice you made is because of an influence and not of your own will.

As I've said before, I don't entertain the notion of choosing, a purely free will concept. However, I do recognize the will, the capacity to act decisively on one's desires.

.

 

[Skwim]

Ugh. Ow.. Skwim painful. Your Post is so PAINFUL. You are on a religion forum using words made by religious people. And if you were on a philosophy forum people would take you a fool. And when you use religion words as philosophy words on a religious forum people have to slow down like you are talking about something. People Like John Calvin, or my video is Martin Luther, FLASH, MADE something, they RESPONDED to one thing and they MADE something else, and every day we flip a light switch in catholocism, God is going to send you to hell, priest-reponse-firstresponder brigade, pulls up with lights, PULL OVER, sins forgiven, flip the switch you're going to heaven soon. Oh you saw a butt today, or tomorrow, al your work in the Lord is Forfeit, its Nothing, you're lightswitch flipped back to hell, paying the church, begging some guy in a building on these steps. John Calvin wrote PREDESTINATION, it must have been the blessed work of a GOD that people responded to, not what you're trying to put in a decrepit library.

Let me know when you sober up. Maybe then we can talk.

.


.

 

[Shadow Link]

And I still hold argument that we don't, at first,
naturally have a *free will, but what we have is more
similar to free agency.

Again, freedom is less important(secondary) than
the will because the will must be first. It is the will
that brings about freedom. It(the will) must be
understood.

Freedom before the will(free will) is ridiculous
unless we're talking in terms of money.
Man is not first born into wisdom.

Which came first for man, the will or freedom?

I hear someone say, "Well, man was first free before the
serpent beguiled the woman!" But this is not deeply so.
They were yet forbidden not to eat of the tree.

 

[shunyadragon]

But the previous chain of cause and effect events would include any natural law, thereby determining that B rather than A occurred.

It doesn't matter because all we're interested is the moment of "either A or B."
So there is no uncertainty. Just as 7 +18 - 22 + 1345 - 6 + 8 + 76 can only equal 1,426,(and not 1,425 or 1,427) all the cause/effect events that led up to the point of either A or B can only lead to B. There is no other possible outcome at the moment of "either A or B."

Not in situations where A, B, C, D and E are possible outcomes.

. . .Just like some number(s) in the chain of 7 +18 - 22 + 1345 - 6 + 8 + 76 would have to be different in order to get the sum of 1,425 or 1,427, some cause/effect event(s) would have to be different so that A rather than B occurred. BUT B did occur which means that A was excluded as a possibility.

.

Not in nonlinear math where there are many variables, and there are many possible fractal outcomes.

The reality of our physical existence including the human rational process is not described by rigid linear math.

 

[shunyadragon]

Rationally, actions are not caused, . .

The limits of the possible range of outcomes are naturally caused. There is the possibility of rational causes within the range of possible outcomes

 

[Skwim]

Not in situations where A, B, C, D and E are possible outcomes.

Not in nonlinear math where there are many variables, and there are many possible fractal outcomes.

So what? I'm not using nonlinear math.

The reality of our physical existence including the human rational process is not described by rigid linear math.

.

 

[ratiocinator]

This, then, is my argument---a bit shortened to keep it brief---against free will as it stands in opposition to determinism.

Thoughts?

I suggest (seriously) that if you haven't, you should read Elbow Room or Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett. He argues (very well IMO) for compatibilism.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no way to prove that every choice you made is because of an influence and not of your own will.

Why can't your own will be the result of influences? In fact, how could it be anything else?

 

[Bird123]

Several years ago, eight to be exact, I posted my reason for dismissing the idea of free will and adopting hard determinism. Because the topic of free will vs determinism hasn't been discussed in some time and a lot of newcomers have come on board RF I thought I'd bring it up again. The following is taken from my original post.



Discussions about free will usually center around an affirmation and/or a denunciation of it. Very interesting thoughts on both sides have come out of such conversations, many well thought out, others not so much. Whatever the case, there's frequently been a problem with what is meant by "will" and "free will," so much so that the issue can quickly become mired in misunderstanding. To avoid this I've found the following definitions to be on point and helpful.

Will is the capacity to act decisively on one's desires.

Free will is to do so undirected by controlling influences.


The notion of free will is important to many because without it would mean each of us is nothing more than an automaton, a machine that performs a function according to a predetermined set of instructions, which is anathema to the notion personal freedom. If people lack freedom of choice how can they be blamed for what they do, or be deserving of any praise laid on them? For Christians this has the added consequence of robbing the concept of sin/salvation of any meaning. So most people are loath to even entertain the idea of no free will. Free will is almost always regarded as a given.

Any exception to free will is regarded as temporary constraint. "I am free to to do this or that unless someone/thing comes and prevents it. Of course this isn't what the free will issue is about at all. Free will is about the idea that, aside from any external constraints, "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." So I think another valid way way of looking at free will is just that: the ability to do differently if one wished. "I got a haircut yesterday, but I could just as well have had a hot dog instead."

Those who most ardently disagree with this are the hard determinists, people claiming that everything we do has a cause. And because everything we do is caused we could not have done differently---no, you could not have chosen to have a hot dog--- therefore it's absurd to place blame or praise. A pretty drastic notion, and one rejected by almost everyone. So whatever else is said about the issue of free will ultimately it must come down to this very basic question: Are we free to do other than what we chose or not? I say, No you are not. Free will is an illusion. But before going into why, we first need to get rid of the term "choice" because it assumes to be true the condition under consideration, freedom to do what we want. So no use of "choice" or any of its cognates.


Here's how I see it.

There are only two ways actions can take place; completely randomly, or caused. By "completely randomly" I mean absolutely and utterly random, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land, it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused. This is the most common notion of "random" events: those we are unable to predict and appear to come about by pure chance. The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, has been suggested to occur is at the subatomic level, which has no effect on super-atomic events, those at which we operate. And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate anyway, completely randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So that leaves non-randomness as the operative agent of our actions. We do this or that because. . . . And the "cause" in "because" is telling. It signals a deterministic operation at work. What we do is determined by something. Were it not, what we do would be absolutely random in nature: for absolutely no reason at all. But as all of us claim from time to time, we do have reasons for what we do. And these reasons are the causes that easily negate randomness.

So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless at least one of the causal determinants leading up to the event in question had been different. If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home. The previous chain of cause/effects inexorably determined where I ended up. So to is it with our decisions. We do what we do because all the relevant preceding cause/effect events inexorably led up to that very act and no other. We HAD to do what we did. There was no freedom to do any differently.

What does this all mean then? It means that we can never do any any differently other than what we are caused to do. Our actions are caused (determined) by previous events and intervening outside events (also causes) and nothing else. Even our wishing to think we could have done otherwise is a mental event that was determined by all the cause/effect events that led to it. We think as we do because. . . . And that "because" can never be any different than what it is. We have no will to do anything other than what we're caused to do. In effect then, free will does not exist, nor does choice, etc..

This means that blame and praise come out as pretty hollow concepts. As I mentioned, if you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them? To do so is like blaming or praising a rock for where it lies. It had no "choice" in the matter. Of course, we can still claim to have free will if we define the term as being free of external constraints,but that's not really addressing free will, and why free will exists as an issue. The free will issue exists because people claim "I could have done differently if I had wished." Problem is, of course, they didn't wish differently because . . . .

This, then, is my argument---a bit shortened to keep it brief---against free will as it stands in opposition to determinism.

Thoughts?

Everything is free will. In a world of so many free wills, people will influence each other. This will cause people to change and change choices, however your key word is controlling. Your quote:Free will is to do so undirected by CONTROLLING influences. Not influences

God is also not controlling your choices, however God has free will just like we do so God makes choices as well.

As I see it, one of the reasons God doesn't show up out of the blue is because God does not want to influence your choices. Lessons are best learned through free choice.

If wanting everything to be determined is a way to get rid of blame, you might have a good idea but the wrong path. Blame is petty and really serves no purpose but hate.

Through free will one can choose not to value blame. After all, when a problem shows up, isn't the important thing solving the problem? Solving the problem can be done without the judging, hating, condemning and blaming. It has always been a matter of free will and free choice.

AS I see it, in God's system, our free will choices return to us to teach us what our choices really mean. When we understand all sides, intelligence chooses the best choices. Intelligence has free will to choose the bad choices, however who with intelligence really chooses bad results. Free to choose bad,but not going to happen.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But the previous chain of cause and effect events would include any natural law,

That goes back to my point that natural law doesn't need a cause for there to be an effect.

 

[Enoch07]

Why can't your own will be the result of influences? In fact, how could it be anything else?

Because there would be no differences in people with the same experiences then. An example. If will was a result of influences exclusively. Every child abuse victim would become an abuser themselves. While some abuse victims become victimizers not all do.

 

[Skwim]

I suggest (seriously) that if you haven't, you should read Elbow Room or Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett. He argues (very well IMO) for compatibilism.

From a Wikipedia article on Freedom Evolves, which says "Dennett describes the book as an installment of a lifelong philosophical project, earlier parts of which were The Intentional Stance, Consciousness Explained and Elbow Room.

"Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions might be pre-determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved. Free will, seen this way, is about freedom to make decisions without duress (and so is a version of Kantian positive practical free will, i.e., Kantian autonomy), as opposed to an impossible and unnecessary freedom from causality itself. "
​

All of which implies Dennett recognizes the truth of determinism and the folly of free will as commonly perceived. If he needs to redefine "free will" fine, but then he's no longer playing in the same ballpark.

.

​

 

[Skwim]

That goes back to my point that natural law doesn't need a cause for there to be an effect.

Laws of nature are descriptions of necessary actions, not the actions themselves. So it's meaningless to say "natural law doesn't need a cause for there to be an effect.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

So what? I'm not using nonlinear math.






.

If you want to face the reality of our physical existence including the rational human decision making process you have to deal with a fractal world with many variables. The world we live in is not a linear world unless you are buying groceries.

It is best that you take you hands from over your eyes and respond coherently.

 

[shunyadragon]

Laws of nature are descriptions of necessary actions, not the actions themselves. So it's meaningless to say "natural law doesn't need a cause for there to be an effect.

.

Actually the Laws of Nature have no known cause. They are only known cause for all cause and effect event outcomes in our physical existence. Science, theories, hypothesis, and our laws of science are descriptive of these Laws of Nature.

 

[Skwim]

If you want to face the reality of our physical existence including the rational human decision making process you have to deal with a fractal world with many variables. The world we live in is not a linear world unless you are buying groceries.

It is best that you take you hands from over your eyes and respond coherently.

And I suggest you learn to take an analogy for what it is and not pretend it's something else.

Analogy
noun,
plural a·nal·o·gies.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based.

.​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Laws of nature are descriptions of necessary actions, not the actions themselves. So it's meaningless to say "natural law doesn't need a cause for there to be an effect.

.

It's not meaningless as many falsely assume there must be a cause behind a given event. Natural law is not restricted to causality.

 

[Skwim]

It's not meaningless as many falsely assume there must be a cause behind a given event.

Well, so far every given event we've come across has not been shown to be without cause, even those dealing with quantum mechanics, so I have no idea of what you're talking about.

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, so far every given event we've come across has not been shown to be without cause, even those dealing with quantum mechanics, so I have no idea of what you're talking about.

.

Bell test experiments - Wikipedia