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

[Nakosis]

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


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.

I suspect the brain imagines a virtual self and imagines the virtual self having made choices. The brain justifies the actions taken after making an automatic response to complex stimulus.

Our consciousness is the brains awareness of the virtual self it created and imagines I suppose in control and at cause in life. The virtual self has choices and "freewill" to act. The brain identifies with the virtual self. The brain says this is who I am. But the self has no real existence. The brain exists. The brain reacts to stimuli.

 

[CarlinKnew]

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.

That's been my experience as well. If I understood human nature any less than I do, I would be absolutely amazed at how many people live by this belief and are satisfied to not investigate it and see it for the nonsense that it is.

The objections in the original post are still untouched.

 

[lunamoth]

Apologies for not reading all of the posts, but has anyone pointed out that we don't really have much firmer definitions of 'love' or 'liberty,' yet somehow we still have no trouble using these in conversation.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Apologies for not reading all of the posts, but has anyone pointed out that we don't really have much firmer definitions of 'love' or 'liberty,' yet somehow we still have no trouble using these in conversation.

Sure we do. For instance, love is an emotion. It is a feeling of strong affection, fondness, liking. The point is that after some examination, it doesn't turn out to be a hollow, contradictory concept like free will. If you'd like to start a thread on love and liberty I'd be happy to contribute.

In the meantime, I challenge anyone to respond meaningfully to the objections in the original post.

 

[lunamoth]

Sure we do. For instance, love is an emotion. It is a feeling of strong affection, fondness, liking. The point is that after some examination, it doesn't turn out to be a hollow, contradictory concept like free will. If you'd like to start a thread on love and liberty I'd be happy to contribute.

In the meantime, I challenge anyone to respond meaningfully to the objections in the original post.

Love is also a commitment, a choice, a value. Not dictated by only by emotion, or how we might feel.

 

[Tom Terrific]

And so now that I've found a source that defined my same argument more clearly, perhaps the proponents of Libertarian free will (the only type of free will that is controversial) can coherently defend their position here.

It's a false dilemma. Free will is off the causal-acausal continuum.

As in many other disputes between religious and non-religious folk, the problem comes from trying to force a non-rational, or actually meta-rational, reality into a merely rational frame.

For the religious person, free will is a spiritual quality. As such, it is not constrained by the parameters of determinism.

You either accept it or you don't.

 

[JeshuaJohn]

free will was given but it is non existent I vouch for substantiation-a set up by God for the sole purpose of gathering evidence concerning our individual conducts. Life on earth is about testimonials.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Love is also a commitment, a choice, a value. Not dictated by only by emotion, or how we might feel.

Any emotion can be a commitment, a choice, and a value; love is not special in that regard. However, this is off topic. Do you have a response to the objections in the original post?

 

[lunamoth]

Any emotion can be a commitment, a choice, and a value; love is not special in that regard. However, this is off topic. Do you have a response to the objections in the original post?

It is not off-topic. It is demonstrating that the OP has unreasonable expectations and your subsequent posts confirm this.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Free will is off the causal-acausal continuum.

What exactly does that mean?

As in many other disputes between religious and non-religious folk, the problem comes from trying to force a non-rational, or actually meta-rational, reality into a merely rational frame.

So it's not rational to believe in free will? Why should anyone believe in it then?

For the religious person, free will is a spiritual quality. As such, it is not constrained by the parameters of determinism.

Oh, spiritual qualities are not constrained by the parameters of determinism? I wasn't familiar with this law of the universe. Please, tell me more.

You either accept it or you don't.

Finally, something I can agree with, albeit a truism.

 

[CarlinKnew]

It is not off-topic. It is demonstrating that the OP has unreasonable expectations and your subsequent posts confirm this.

Please explain, because I do not see any such demonstration.

 

[Tom Terrific]

What exactly does that mean?

It means that free will is neither causal nor acausal. Asking whether free will is causal or acausal is like asking someone if he is still beating his wife. The question is based on a false assumption. In the case of free will, it is the assumption that it must be one or the other.

This is the problem with trying to explain spiritual realities to people who profess to believe only in "facts," i.e. rational structures. Spiritual realities are not bound by the limits of reason. Rationalists think this makes spirituality nonsense; spiritual people think this makes rationalists blind. Myself, I think "blind" is generous; it's one thing to lack the capacity to see, but another to go through life with your eyes intentionally clamped shut. Pride is a harsh master.

So it's not rational to believe in free will?

Not if by "rational" you mean "provable," as that concept is usually employed here.

Why should anyone believe in it then?

Because they want to?

Oh, spiritual qualities are not constrained by the parameters of determinism? I wasn't familiar with this law of the universe. Please, tell me more.

Sorry; I don't respond substantively to sarcasm.

 

[Sheila]

I believe that we have the ability to choose God's will or not, but in no way do I think that our will is free. We pay for our sins. We can be willfully disobedient.

 

[CarlinKnew]

It means that free will is neither causal nor acausal. Asking whether free will is causal or acausal is like asking someone if he is still beating his wife. The question is based on a false assumption. In the case of free will, it is the assumption that it must be one or the other.

Do you mean that choices are neither caused nor uncaused? Does that really make sense to you? Please explain.

This is the problem with trying to explain spiritual realities to people who profess tobelieve only in "facts," i.e. rational structures. Spiritual realities are not bound by the limits of reason. Rationalists think this makes spirituality nonsense; spiritual people think this makes rationalists blind. Myself, I think "blind" is generous; it's one thing to lack the capacity to see, but another to go through life with your eyes intentionally clamped shut. Pride is a harsh master.

Not if by "rational" you mean "provable," as that concept is usually employed here.

So is it impossible to define free will using facts and reason? How shall we describe it in a way that we understand each other then?

Because they want to?

Is that the only reason someone should believe in free will? That is wishful thinking by definition.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I believe that we have the ability to choose God's will or not, but in no way do I think that our will is free. We pay for our sins. We can be willfully disobedient.

Have you considered the objections in the original post?

 

[CarlinKnew]

free will was given but it is non existent I vouch for substantiation-a set up by God for the sole purpose of gathering evidence concerning our individual conducts. Life on earth is about testimonials.

Free will was given, but it is nonexistent? I don't understand your post.