If you can't clearly and comprehensively define "free will", why do you use the phrase?

[Plato]

Hi all,
A funny thing happened when I was replying to this thread I had just completed a rather long reply to the original post, spell checked same, went to submit it and it said I wasn't logged in (although I was) when I pushed 'log in' it erased the post, when I back arrowed the reply box was erased too. So, now quickly no spell check.........
Carlinknew......
Interesting question, here's what I think the answer would be from Abrahamic (and other) religions. They see humans as being immortal souls in animal bodies. That the immortal souls are the only important part and are 'above' and out of nature, that they 'transcend' nature (and for that matter time and space). That in 'this' way we are 'made in the image of God'. (I don't think any serious ones think God looks like our earthly bodies that evolved here on earth).
'Free will' is part of this immortal soul that is above and outside of nature that is unlimited and transcends nature. Therefore whether free will is 'compatible' with 'human interest' doesn't matter because that's just a thing of the animal body. Whether it's against 'human nature' doesn't matter either because that too is just part of the animal body. Free will is seen as unlimited just as the immortal soul is unlimited.
It can be defined by religion then as....a complete freedom to choose, a part of the immortal soul, not part of animal human nature or interest. That like the soul is unlimited by nature, time, interest, written rule, even the direct orders of God. In this way it is God like in it's scope and power but also God like in it's responsibility.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Art, God are other examples of words that cannot be completely confined or comprehended in any given moment. They are more poetic and subjective in many regards to most people.

I use free will with two pillars of salt. I mostly belivein determinism, but can understand "limited" free will (with ends up being a relative position). It´s like saying something is not moving. It may not be moving from Earth´s perspective, but when you take on account that the earth itself is moving, then this thing is moving. Actually, nothing completely "static" exists, yet we talk about something not moving as if that was posible. It is merely a way of expressing relative realities.

Free Will is just that. Outside things can influence our Will but ultimately any choice we make is our own. There are some things that we do not freely choose, such as getting murdered or raped, but this does not threaten the theory of Free Will. Also, one may say that since we do not have wings, we are not free to fly. Also not threatening, just plain silly. Free Will applies only to what we can do. Naturally, we cannot fly.

Our choices do not directly cause anything, but they can severely influence other things. Any decision one makes is their own choice, not the cause off someone else's actions. Obviously there are exceptions to that, but remaining logical we find these criticisms are no problem.

I believe that free will is our ability to will what we want, independent of any outside force, even God. God did not give us our will, but it is something that is inherently ours. We can develop a new will, if we will to do so. When we yield our will to God, unlike any other thing we may give to God, we are giving something that was truly ours in the first place. Everything else we give to God, is a give back.

In our church we talk about agency. I used to see agency and free will as the same thing. I now see agency as the ability to act according to our will. God grants us the ability to act according to our will. He grants us agency.

Hi all,
A funny thing happened when I was replying to this thread I had just completed a rather long reply to the original post, spell checked same, went to submit it and it said I wasn't logged in (although I was) when I pushed 'log in' it erased the post, when I back arrowed the reply box was erased too. So, now quickly no spell check.........
Carlinknew......
Interesting question, here's what I think the answer would be from Abrahamic (and other) religions. They see humans as being immortal souls in animal bodies. That the immortal souls are the only important part and are 'above' and out of nature, that they 'transcend' nature (and for that matter time and space). That in 'this' way we are 'made in the image of God'. (I don't think any serious ones think God looks like our earthly bodies that evolved here on earth).
'Free will' is part of this immortal soul that is above and outside of nature that is unlimited and transcends nature. Therefore whether free will is 'compatible' with 'human interest' doesn't matter because that's just a thing of the animal body. Whether it's against 'human nature' doesn't matter either because that too is just part of the animal body. Free will is seen as unlimited just as the immortal soul is unlimited.
It can be defined by religion then as....a complete freedom to choose, a part of the immortal soul, not part of animal human nature or interest. That like the soul is unlimited by nature, time, interest, written rule, even the direct orders of God. In this way it is God like in it's scope and power but also God like in it's responsibility.

Thank you for the replies. Are any of you able to respond to the objections in the original post?

 

[Nakosis]

The objections are:
\2) Responsibility —Rather than salvage human responsibility, some maintain that libertarian freedom destroys it. If our choices have no causes, in what sense are they our choices? Is it any more agreeable to reason to hold humans responsible for choices they didn’t cause than to hold them responsible for choices that were caused and thus determined?

That's interesting. Never thought of LFT destroying responsibility. Suppose I was never persuaded by the argument for LFW to move past it.

If we make a choice that didn't have a cause, reason. If this free agent causes uncaused action. Does that make us any more free? Like being subject to a random number generator?

People identify with this agent that makes random decisions? To act without reason is insanity isn't it. Do we hold the insane responsible?

If a person "knows better" that is part of what caused the decision made. I think the idea is a person "knows better", knows what is morally right but decides to do the immoral act. However there were other causes that caused them to act immoral.

Actually it is necessary to hold humans responsible for their actions because of determinism. Not because they could have acted differently but because they will be influenced to act differently in the future. You punish people not because of what they've done. That's kind of immoral. But because of what they will do, or avoid doing in the future.

In fact LFW makes it useless to hold them responsible as there's no reason to think this will alter their behavior.

 

[9Westy9]

because it sounds better to say "I chose to do this" rather than "This happened because of who I am and was always going to happen anyway"

 

[apophenia]

So where does this will reside ? The notion implies a soul , atma or permanent ego, yet I note that the phrase is often used by philosophers who also claim that enlightened mind is beyond individuality.
So who is exercising this free will ?

 

[Nakosis]

So where does this will reside ? The notion implies a soul , atma or permanent ego, yet I note that the phrase is often used by philosophers who also claim that enlightened mind is beyond individuality.
So who is exercising this free will ?

The will reside in a virtual reality created by the brain. So I suppose this means the brain creates and exercises the existence of freewill in it's virtual universe.

Funny thing is since the brain seems to have trouble differentiating reality from this virtual reality we act as if the virtual reality was real. So this actually affects reality.

One creates a virtual God, they act as if God existed. We create a virtual self. We act as if this self existed and had free will. Doesn't mean we do only that it affects what we end up doing.

 

[bobhikes]

About a year ago I made this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-you-cant-clearly-comprehensively-define.html
.

Before I joined the RF I thought I could define words. Now I realize defining words is just an illusion. I have learned I can't clearly define any words much less charged ones like free will. If I want to speak I have to use words and hope your definition is similar to mine.

So my answer is that I like to talk about things and Free will is interesting to talk about.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Before I joined the RF I thought I could define words. Now I realize defining words is just an illusion. I have learned I can't clearly define any words much less charged ones like free will. If I want to speak I have to use words and hope your definition is similar to mine.

So my answer is that I like to talk about things and Free will is interesting to talk about.

It is the sort of resigned ambiguity that you describe, accompanied by wishful thinking, that allows contradictory and outright nonsensical concepts like Libertarian free will to plague the minds of otherwise intelligent people.

The objections in the original post remain as open challenges.

 

[apophenia]

The will reside in a virtual reality created by the brain. So I suppose this means the brain creates and exercises the existence of freewill in it's virtual universe.

Funny thing is since the brain seems to have trouble differentiating reality from this virtual reality we act as if the virtual reality was real. So this actually affects reality.

One creates a virtual God, they act as if God existed. We create a virtual self. We act as if this self existed and had free will. Doesn't mean we do only that it affects what we end up doing.

"We create a virtual self "

Who creates a virtual self ?

 

[apophenia]

You are simultaneously saying "we have a brain" and "a brain has us".

 

[Willamena]

What I mean is that perhaps there are urges, wants, needs, beliefs, etc etc that we are not consciously aware of, and maybe they interfere with our will.

It's my understanding that "will" is us, consicously doing things. If we do something unconsciously, like tap our toes to music while we're reading, then "will" is simply not involved.

 

[Nakosis]

You are simultaneously saying "we have a brain" and "a brain has us".

Sorry, bad habit. The brain would be creating the virtual self. The I/self would be the virtual being who thinks they possess the brain.

 

[Nakosis]

It's my understanding that "will" is us, consicously doing things. If we do something unconsciously, like tap our toes to music while we're reading, then "will" is simply not involved.

But it's assumed that our unconscious urges cause our desires. Conscious too, but sometimes we aren't aware of why we desire something.

What do we mean by "will"? Desire. "I have the will (desire) to win." "I will choose according to my will (desires). My conscious/unconscious urges cause my desires which constitutes my will.

My body sends a message to the brain that it's hungry so I "choose" to eat. Free will means I can act as my desires (will) dictates.

 

[Willamena]

But it's assumed that our unconscious urges cause our desires. Conscious too, but sometimes we aren't aware of why we desire something.

What do we mean by "will"? Desire. "I have the will (desire) to win." "I will choose according to my will (desires). My conscious/unconscious urges cause my desires which constitutes my will.

My body sends a message to the brain that it's hungry so I "choose" to eat. Free will means I can act as my desires (will) dictates.

A good rule of thumb is if you can hold yourself responsible for something done, said or thought, then it's willful. If you find your fist flying out and hitting that person in the face before your brain can kick in and stop it, and if you then decide that it's something you wanted to do and will take responsiblity for, then I'd say that was an act of will.

 

[Nakosis]

A good rule of thumb is if you can hold yourself responsible for something done, said or thought, then it's willful. If you find your fist flying out and hitting that person in the face before your brain can kick in and stop it, and if you then decide that it's something you wanted to do and will take responsiblity for, then I'd say that was an act of will.

Yes, but what cause the desire to hit someone in the first place? And, what caused the conflicting desire to stop it?

Kind of obvious we judge which desire to fulfill. We weigh the outcomes of an action which gets fed back into the decision. Then our desire for a particular outcome causes us to act. One is willing to/not willing to face punishment to fulfilled the desire to punch face. Why might one not be willing to risk the punishment, because they have no desire to pay the possible costs involved. So did they really make a choice or is making a choice a resultant product of our desires.

There are to parts of "control" in our brain. One is emotional based the other is "reason" based. I suspect people tend to develop one or the other really just depending on the circumstances of their life. A person who emotional control I suspect would be more likely to act on the desire to punch someone in the face.

Reason based would likely find other ways to deal with the situation. Their "choice" may be nothing but a matter of brain development.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, but what cause the desire to hit someone in the first place? And, what caused the conflicting desire to stop it?

Does it matter? We assign causes after the fact, quite arbitrarily sometimes.

Kind of obvious we judge which desire to fulfill. We weigh the outcomes of an action which gets fed back into the decision. Then our desire for a particular outcome causes us to act. One is willing to/not willing to face punishment to fulfilled the desire to punch face. Why might one not be willing to risk the punishment, because they have no desire to pay the possible costs involved. So did they really make a choice or is making a choice a resultant product of our desires.

Can't it be both? It doesn't have to be an either-or situation. He made a choice, and then assigned blame--err, causes.

 

[connermt]

To me, the christian concept of "free will" is nothing more than an excuse to allow their magic god to do what he wants, while we (his creation) reaps the consequences of his actions and to allow for "the unknown" and challenges of this god and his authority and responsibility.
Free will, fundamentally, means being able to make our own decisions at our whim. But that definition throws a wrench into the christian concept of "why an all knowing god would allow his creation to sin and get upset acting like it was a 'surprise to him'" as the bible indicates in Genesis.
"How can an all knowing god not know this would happen?!?!" <thinking...>
"O...we'll invent the concept of FREE WILL, give it our own definition, and call it a day! Done."
Logically, it makes no sense. But since when has logic been involved with anything christian....?:cover:

 

[Friend of Bill W]

I always think the simple act of breathing displays how much 'free will' we have. Yeh, sure we can control our breathing to some extent, but we also can't control our breathing. If we held our breath for long enough, we'd pass out and then start breathing again.

So we have some degree of free will, but it's not totally 'free'.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Is anyone able to respond to the objections in the original post? Has anyone realized that free will is nonsense after reading those simple objections?

 

[Skwim]

Is anyone able to respond to the objections in the original post? Has anyone realized that free will is nonsense after reading those simple objections?

Through other discussions of freewill and determinism I've found the very same thing. While there were several stabs at describing "will," no one cared to address what the will is actually free from, at least not past a few queries for further explanation. Usually the breakdown came when the "cause/effect" issue was brought into play. So, I would be surprised if anyone took you up on your challenge, most tend to just circle the subject with side issues. Or, as has happened here, they reformulate your question into one they can address.