How do you exactly define 'free will'?

[LuisDantas]

I never think of you as less honorable, you are a Human as I am, But maybe God thinks of you as less honorable, that is not for me to answer.

Really?

It seems to me that everyone should know how to answer that. I know I do.

I always see Atheists debating about freewill that way, I didn't make things up.

If you say so.

 

[Nakosis]

That is a straw man.

What we are saying is that what you want to do is, in turn, chosen by "not you". Either the conditions of the universe (your brain mostly), or randomness, or both.

In that case: there's a good analogy that a Calculator "wants" to give the correct answer and chooses to do so.

So then my brain makes a choice, not me?

A calculator? Really? A calculator doesn't make choices. It performs arithmetic. A computer can be programed to and does make choices.

So I program the computer. I don't make the choice for the computer. The computer does that. The computer meaning the hardware and software working together.

The computer will take input weigh whatever information available in its memory regarding the decision against the desired outcome and make a choice.

Just because I coded what was desirable into the program doesn't mean it didn't make a choice. I choice was made and it wasn't made by me.

 

[RAYYAN]

Really?

It seems to me that everyone should know how to answer that. I know I do.

Very nice, Good for you

 

[Nakosis]

I agree, particularly in view of the "law" that says everything that happens arises either randomly (utterly randomly) or is caused.

Oh boy, you almost got it right. Here's the definition I prefer. Freewill, The ability to have done differently." Nothing at all about choosing to do something one didn't want to do. In essence it means that one has the true ability to go against those determining cause/effects events that led up to the point of action, and do otherwise. But because this is impossible I can see why the definition of freewill is unworkable; one can't work around it. It fails in the face of reason. Of course, if you have some other definition of freewill as it stands in opposition to determinism I'm all ears.

That's what I am saying. Determinism defines an unworkable definition for freewill then claims because of this unworkable definition determinism is true.

But the thing is, there is no true choosing, as in doing something other than what one is caused to do. If there is an apple and an orange sitting in front of you and you're told to to pick up one of them, the one you pick up is dictated by all the preconditions of cause/effect events that have led up to the moment of your response. It is the "why" you picked the orange instead of the apple. The "because" of your actions. Sure, thoughts probably ran through your mind weighing the two alternatives, but these thoughts weren't random occurrences that materialized out of nowhere, but considerations that had reasons--causes behind them. "Choosing" and "choice" are actually illusions that have no basis in reality.

I makes choices all the time, everyday and act upon those choices. Just because I have reasons and desires behind those choices makes them anything less then a choice. In if there were no desire are reasons for my choices then they wouldn't be a choice. You want to define a choice as a "random occurrence that is materialized out of no where?" How is that in any possible sense a choice?

Some random synapse fires and I scratch my nose. That's not a choice. You want to say it's not a "true choice" unless you take away everything that makes it an actual choice?

In reality it can't, but this is essentially what the freewill position is. "I, as a person who has freewill, can choose to do whatever I want---with in the scope of my ability." But, as I pointed out, there is no such thing as choosing. You will do what you've been determined to do.

If you define choosing as something which doesn't exist, what do you expect.

If we are going to rationalize what actually happens, shouldn't what we define in that rationalization have actual existence?

Just me personally, I don't see accepting the truth of determinism based on the definitions of things which don't exist.

 

[Nakosis]

I never think of you as less honorable, you are a Human as I am, But maybe God thinks of you as less honorable, that is not for me to answer.

Seems a bit rude. I could not imagine ever saying something like this to anyone.

However, getting back to the thread, according to determinists, you didn't have a choice in the matter.

 

[RAYYAN]

Seems a bit rude. I could not imagine ever saying something like this to anyone.

Sorry, that was not my intent, and I don't see it as rude

according to determinists, you didn't have a choice in the matter.

do tell more info

 

[LuisDantas]

Seems a bit rude. I could not imagine ever saying something like this to anyone.

However, getting back to the thread, according to determinists, you didn't have a choice in the matter.

That may actually be within the subject.

Islamic doctrine seems to at least accept if not state outright the idea that atheism is in some sense the unwise use of free will to rebel against God.

I suppose that would make sense if we took as a premise that Ibrahim's God existed as described in the Quran (or perhaps the Bible).

So in that sense, too, it is possible for at least some believers in the Abrahamic conception of free will to have no choice but to see us kafir atheists as risking God's disapproval.

Come to think of it, it is blatantly obvious that the Quran is not a good source of knowledge about atheism.

 

[JerryL]

So then my brain makes a choice, not me?

My personal belief is that your brain operates exactly like the biological machine it is. It's actions are determined by input and programming.

A calculator? Really? A calculator doesn't make choices. It performs arithmetic. A computer can be programed to and does make choices.

Why do you think a calculator isn't a computer?

So I program the computer. I don't make the choice for the computer. The computer does that. The computer meaning the hardware and software working together.

Like your brain.

The computer will take input weigh whatever information available in its memory regarding the decision against the desired outcome and make a choice.

That's not really how it works. That's rather a meta-view at best of how a electrical transistor functions.

But it's neither here nor there. You are supporting me with this example. You can have choice or freedom, but not both at the same time. Computers are an example where we can see that in action (choice but no freedom).

 

[Willamena]

Usually, when Atheists and believers talk about freewill, they are talking about 2 different things

Atheists - Having a choice with out baring the consequence
they say, if God gave us freewill, He should not take us into account for what We choose

Bearing.

And no. Atheists don't believe in god.

 

[Skwim]

That's what I am saying. Determinism defines an unworkable definition for freewill then claims because of this unworkable definition determinism is true.

First of all, it's not determinism's definition, but mine and that of others.
And as I said, "if you have some other definition of freewill as it stands in opposition to determinism I'm all ears."

I makes choices all the time, everyday and act upon those choices. Just because I have reasons and desires behind those choices makes them anything less then a choice. In if there were no desire are reasons for my choices then they wouldn't be a choice.

You might want to rephrase this. As written it's too confusing to make sense of.

You want to define a choice as a "random occurrence that is materialized out of no where?" How is that in any possible sense a choice?

Please re-read what I wrote. For one thing, I said " but these thoughts weren't random occurrences that materialized out of nowhere," "THOUGHTS" not "choices. For another thing, I said they "weren't."

Some random synapse fires and I scratch my nose. That's not a choice. You want to say it's not a "true choice" unless you take away everything that makes it an actual choice?

I'm saying there's no such a thing as choice or choosing.
What you perceive as choosing is nothing more than the end result of a series of cause/effect events that inexorably lead you to a specific thought, "I will do X," and none other, which in turn determines what you will do.

If you define choosing as something which doesn't exist, what do you expect.

I expect one will do what they're destined to do.

If we are going to rationalize what actually happens, shouldn't what we define in that rationalization have actual existence?

What do you see as not having existance?

 

[Willamena]

First of all, it's not determinism's definition, but mine and that of others.
And as I said, "if you have some other definition of freewill as it stands in opposition to determinism I'm all ears."

In other words, you turn a blind ear to compatibilism.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Except:

Your notation is off. A transformation T defined as above is supposed to map functions from one space to another (i.e., Rn to Rm). Also, while I can understand the reluctance to use Dirac notation, I don't understand the idiomatic use of defining a family of mappings by a variable (particularly given that quantum systems are represented in Hilbert space, a functional space (complex, infinite dimensional)

So random. Either works.

Not random.

 

[DawudTalut]

And do you think that we're entitled for such privilege (whatever)?

Peace be on you.
You have placed one question in Heading and second in post.

The first question is:
How do you exactly define 'free will'?
1- You are born to certain parents, at certain place at certain time.......It is not free Will.
2- Do good or bad, it is free Will.
3- But what will come after doing bad in this physical world and in the life to come [accountability] it will not be freeWill.
4- Raise one leg is free Will, raising two legs simultaneously [without technique] is not freeWill.

Definition of FreeWill: Limited choice given by God to use His bounties with related Accountability to come.

More aspects @ PREDESTINY

The second Question:
And do you think that we're entitled for such privilege (whatever)?
The Holy Quran begins with the

ch1:v1

The third word from right to left is 'al rahman'. It means Gracious and The One Who Grants without even anyone asks.

Thus God has provided many bounties to human which they did not even ask. He gave faculties to use these things with as we like. Then He expects these things should be used good.
We are His creation [technically He made us with creation+guide-evolution] and He loves us, that much is we are entitled. Then we are expected to follow His directives too.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Freewill is a... a will that is free, perhaps?!?!?!

Aren't you guys making a big deal out of it?

Religious people

 

[DawudTalut]

Plz add in cart: free 'will', free 'is' and free 'was' too.

 

[Skwim]

In other words, you turn a blind ear to compatibilism.

I think compatabilism is a wieners way out of the dilemma. It takes one concept at one level of understanding while looking at the other at another level.

_________________________________________

Peace be on you.
You have placed one question in Heading and second in post.

The first question is:
How do you exactly define 'free will'?
1- You are born to certain parents, at certain place at certain time.......It is not free Will.
2- Do good or bad, it is free Will.
3- But what will come after doing bad in this physical world and in the life to come [accountability] it will not be freeWill.
4- Raise one leg is free Will, raising two legs simultaneously [without technique] is not freeWill.

Just a reminder, examples are not definitions.

 

[DawudTalut]

Thanks for reminder, adding an EDIT above.

 

[Willamena]

I think compatabilism is a wieners way out of the dilemma.

Which confirms what I said.

It takes one concept at one level of understanding while looking at the other at another level.

Wha--? Levels?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think compatabilism is a wieners way out of the dilemma. It takes one concept at one level of understanding while looking at the other at another level.

_________________________________________


Just a reminder, examples are not definitions.

I sure get this feeling on that "free will" matter.

Freewill is a... a will that is free, perhaps?!?!?!

Aren't you guys making a big deal out of it?

Religious people

That is very nearly a given, S.G.

Which does not mean it is not a significant matter to discuss. After all, "free will" is often invoked as a justification to disregard other people's rights.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Plz add in cart: free 'will', free 'is' and free 'was' too.

We have a saying here that roughly translates to "what's free, take as much as you can of it"