is it free will or consequential will?

[Jeremiah]

You're the one saying there could be another way for events to happen besides cause-and-effect and randomness. There is no other logical possibility.

Free will is impossible in either case, so it doesn't matter.

We have a very good understanding of how brains work, and minds are functions of brains so we have a very good understanding of minds.

A cause precedes an effect by definition. You'll need to come up with another word for your mysticism. What you're describing sounds more like a random event.

"You're the one saying there could be another way for events to happen besides cause-and-effect and randomness."

I claim a possibly of unknown factors, but I am not asserting it as the truth. Although, considering the problem of infinite regression, and the fact that freewill, is, in appearance, self-evident, I think it has some validity to it.

Even random events can still be caused events; randomness does not, necessarily, negate cause and effect. It says cause and effect behaves differently then what is suggested in a deterministic philosophy. The reason I say it is unfalsifiable, is because what may appear to be deterministic could be just intricate random patterns. And vice versa; what appears to be random could just be unperceived, deterministic cause and effect.

Either way though, with cause and effect, we still have the dilemma of the infinite regression. I personally don't know if an infinite regression is even possible. And this is why I suggest the possibility of a self-starting cause. A spontaneous event where an agent goes from no motion, to motion, with out any prior provocation. Of course that is just a wild shot in the dark. I really have no clue how to solve the infinite regression. Perhaps there really is an infinite regression; I really don't know and that is one of the reasons I say it is unknowable, and why I leave the door open for a black swan.


"Free will is impossible in either case, so it doesn't matter. "

Determinism says there is no freewill because everything is determine by a preceding chain of cause and effect, that there is no choice because everything is etched in stone. The presence of randomness, in this superficially deterministic reality, does not validate freewill, but it does invalidate the deterministic argument against freewill.


"We have a very good understanding of how brains work, and minds are functions of brains so we have a very good understanding of minds."

Simply because someone can wired a motherboard that does not mean they can program an OS as complex as Windows. It is the same way with the human brain, simply because we are starting to get a firm grasp on the mechanic of it, that still does not mean we know how the "software" works.

You know some people argue, that freewill is a result of the complexity of the human mind. That would be cause and effect right? Complexity being the cause and freewill being the effect.


"You'll need to come up with another word for your mysticism. What you're describing sounds more like a random event."

To be honest, I think some of you actually need to spend some time to understand the philosophies you promote.

 

[Jeremiah]

Right. The word "randomness" in this thread is being used to refer to the idea of the uncaused cause. The challenge, though, was to present alternatives to determinism vs. the uncaused cause, and chaos is one. It's not intended that chaos explain "free will" or deny determinism.

"The word "randomness" in this thread is being used to refer to the idea of the uncaused cause."

Well, that is not how I was initially using it; people just perceived it that way and I just went with the flow of the conversation. But it could also, very well, be a combination; spontaneous motion, random cause and effect, and deterministic cause and effect. I think we can say, to some degree, deterministic cause and effect exist, as it is apparent; of course that could also be said about random cause and effect. But the philosophy that everything is deterministic cause and effect, is problematic, which is why I am skeptical of it.

 

[Copernicus]

a choice made by free will is a choice made without knowing the outcome, sort of like gambling.
isn't life full of these types of choices?
committing to someone is a gamble ...right?

OK. That sounds like every choice we make, since we never know the future with absolute certainty. Every choice we make is therefore a "free choice", is it not? Now, how is "consequential will" different from "free will"? That is the original question I asked. Any takers?

in the case of john 3:16 if jesus were to say, believe in me (have faith in me) and left it at that then the choice is free to make. but since the outcome for both choices are laid out then the choice is coerced/manipulated...
does that help?

Afraid not. My original request was to make a clear distinction between free will and consequential will. So far, nobody seems to be able to say what that difference is.

 

[stillsearching]

I was taught that nothing in life is FREE. And we do not have FREE will. We have agency, not FREE agency. God gave man the agency to choose for themselves. Agency implies that there will be a consequence for choices which is in line with the scripture from the original post.

 

[Skwim]

I was taught that nothing in life is FREE. And we do not have FREE will. We have agency, not FREE agency. God gave man the agency to choose for themselves. Agency implies that there will be a consequence for choices which is in line with the scripture from the original post.

While I second your notion that we do not have FREE will, what's this agency thing?

 

[stillsearching]

Agency is the power of personal choice. Since it isn't free agency then there will be a consequence (be it good or bad) from the choice that you made.

Huh, I kind of thought that it was common phrase, but perhaps not.

 

[CarlinKnew]

"You're the one saying there could be another way for events to happen besides cause-and-effect and randomness."

I claim a possibly of unknown factors, but I am not asserting it as the truth.

What other logical possibility is there besides caused and uncaused?

Although, considering the problem of infinite regression, and the fact that freewill, is, in appearance, self-evident, I think it has some validity to it.

Free will is certainly not self evident to me.

Even random events can still be caused events; randomness does not, necessarily, negate cause and effect. It says cause and effect behaves differently then what is suggested in a deterministic philosophy. The reason I say it is unfalsifiable, is because what may appear to be deterministic could be just intricate random patterns. And vice versa; what appears to be random could just be unperceived, deterministic cause and effect.

Not true, but it doesn't matter anyway. No combination of randomness and cause-and-effect allows for free will to exist.

Either way though, with cause and effect, we still have the dilemma of the infinite regression. I personally don't know if an infinite regression is even possible. And this is why I suggest the possibility of a self-starting cause. A spontaneous event where an agent goes from no motion, to motion, with out any prior provocation. Of course that is just a wild shot in the dark. I really have no clue how to solve the infinite regression. Perhaps there really is an infinite regression; I really don't know and that is one of the reasons I say it is unknowable, and why I leave the door open for a black swan.

You're basically describing a random event.

Determinism says there is no freewill because everything is determine by a preceding chain of cause and effect, that there is no choice because everything is etched in stone. The presence of randomness, in this superficially deterministic reality, does not validate freewill, but it does invalidate the deterministic argument against freewill.

No, because a random event could not be willed. A chain of cause and effect with some random events does not allow for free will.

Simply because someone can wired a motherboard that does not mean they can program an OS as complex as Windows. It is the same way with the human brain, simply because we are starting to get a firm grasp on the mechanic of it, that still does not mean we know how the "software" works.

We do have a good understanding of the hardware and the software; that's what the field of neuropsychology is for, and there are other fields as well with similar areas of study.

You know some people argue, that freewill is a result of the complexity of the human mind. That would be cause and effect right? Complexity being the cause and freewill being the effect.

More like: firing neurons being the cause and thoughts being the effect as part of a much longer chain of cause-and-effect.

To be honest, I think some of you actually need to spend some time to understand the philosophies you promote.

Yeah, some of you need to do that.

 

[waitasec]

OK. That sounds like every choice we make, since we never know the future with absolute certainty. Every choice we make is therefore a "free choice", is it not? Now, how is "consequential will" different from "free will"? That is the original question I asked. Any takers?
.

i don't think every choice is a free choice?
think of credit card debt...
it was your free will to decide to use it, however...if one lost their income then using it was a choice of consequence because of fear of going hungry or being evicted...

 

[Copernicus]

i don't think every choice is a free choice?

I'm not trying to tell you what you think. I'm trying to get you to tell me that. If you believe that every choice is a free choice, then consequential choice is always a type of free choice. I would still like to know what the difference is between free will and consequential will. Nobody seems able to explain it. (And you could clarify one other point: are you using "free choice" as a synonym for "free will"? You seem to be, but some people don't treat those two expressions as synonymous.

think of credit card debt...

OK. You are talking about the choice to borrow money with a credit card. That is a "free choice", is it not? Is it also a "consequential choice"? I'm really not sure what the difference is, or even if there is a difference.

it was your free will to decide to use it, however...if one lost their income then using it was a choice of consequence because of fear of going hungry or being evicted...

I find your language a bit difficult to parse, but I think that I get the gist of what you are trying to say. There are consequences to our choices, and sometimes those consequences are unpleasant. But how does that distinguish free choice from consequential choice (or will)? There are consequences to all our choices. The expressions "free will" and "consequential will" still seem to refer to the same thing.

 

[waitasec]

I'm not trying to tell you what you think. I'm trying to get you to tell me that. If you believe that every choice is a free choice, then consequential choice is always a type of free choice. I would still like to know what the difference is between free will and consequential will. Nobody seems able to explain it. (And you could clarify one other point: are you using "free choice" as a synonym for "free will"? You seem to be, but some people don't treat those two expressions as synonymous.

you are right, i am using will and choice synonymously



but is will without a choice?

 

[Copernicus]

I don't think that it is wrong to treat "will" as a synonym for "choice", but people sometimes make a distinction in order to avoid the problem that choice is inherently deterministic. It is not random behavior. It is goal-driven.

If a gunslinger shouts "Dance!" and starts shooting at your feet, you do have the choice of just standing there or dancing. If you dance, are you making a "free choice" to dance? Most people do not consider a choice made under that kind of circumstance to be "free", but it is in the pure abstract sense of free will. That is, you can choose to let your feet get shot off, if that is your ultimate will.

In religious discussions about God and free will, we always come down to the conundrum that God determines our circumstances, yet we are supposed to be free to "dance" or "stand still", so to speak. Metaphorically speaking, God is the gunslinger here. We are supposed to be grateful that he has given us free choice and not turned us into that horrible "robot" thingy that people are always going on about. But it is hard to be grateful for the choice he has presented us with, and most religious folks also seem to think that God-the-gunslinger knows whether we will choose to dance or stand still. And he judges our character on that basis. Don't blame the gunslinger. He just calls the shots. :areyoucra

 

[PolyHedral]

Don't blame the gunslinger. He just calls the shots. :areyoucra

*groans* Have some frubals.

 

[waitasec]

I don't think that it is wrong to treat "will" as a synonym for "choice", but people sometimes make a distinction in order to avoid the problem that choice is inherently deterministic. It is not random behavior. It is goal-driven.

If a gunslinger shouts "Dance!" and starts shooting at your feet, you do have the choice of just standing there or dancing. If you dance, are you making a "free choice" to dance? Most people do not consider a choice made under that kind of circumstance to be "free", but it is in the pure abstract sense of free will. That is, you can choose to let your feet get shot off, if that is your ultimate will.

In religious discussions about God and free will, we always come down to the conundrum that God determines our circumstances, yet we are supposed to be free to "dance" or "stand still", so to speak. Metaphorically speaking, God is the gunslinger here. We are supposed to be grateful that he has given us free choice and not turned us into that horrible "robot" thingy that people are always going on about. But it is hard to be grateful for the choice he has presented us with, and most religious folks also seem to think that God-the-gunslinger knows whether we will choose to dance or stand still. And he judges our character on that basis. Don't blame the gunslinger. He just calls the shots. :areyoucra

:bow:
thank you...you are brilliant