Simplified argument vs free will

[Koldo]

Sometimes people do things that they don't really want to do.

I disagree.
However, this doesn't mean that we are always happy with the choices we make.

We are able to choose against the strongest influences, which is what makes us highly illogical creatures to say the least.

We are able to think that we are choosing against the strongest influences.
But this only remains true until we realize we are our own strongest influence.

That's rationalization, though: you are introducing "want" to satisfy the picture you paint.

I prefer to think of it as a jigsaw puzzle where there is a spot where only a piece called 'want' fits.

 

[idav]

But this only remains true until we realize we are our own strongest influence.

That is the very nature of volition. We being our own influence is what makes the difference and is what allows us to overcome our very nature.

 

[Koldo]

That is the very nature of volition. We being our own influence is what makes the difference and is what allows us to overcome our very nature.

Our very nature?
What should be understood by 'our nature'?

 

[idav]

Our very nature?
What should be understood by 'our nature'?

For the most part we are bound to doing certain things as most things are beyond our control. Volition is about using what little control we do have to fight against nature and it's various influences.

 

[Koldo]

Volition is about using what little control we do have to fight against nature and it's various influences.

Once again i ask: what should be understood by the term 'our nature'?

Isn't part of 'our nature' to feel compelled to want to supress another part of 'our nature'?

 

[idav]

Once again i ask: what should be understood by the term 'our nature'?

Isn't part of 'our nature' to feel compelled to want to supress another part of 'our nature'?

It is in our nature to need things and it is counter intuitive to go against it but we do it anyway. In one example i have given we can use logic and reason to go against a want which would mean that we are not going by the biggest influence. In that scenario logic and reason isn't the biggest influence, it is a choice we are making against a greater influence.

 

[Koldo]

It is in our nature to need things and it is counter intuitive to go against it but we do it anyway.

It is counter intuitive to go against it unless you also want something else that is in direct conflict. That is why my hyphotetical desire to acquire a ferrari is restricted by my fear of being caught on the act of robbery. My desire to remain out of jail is bigger than my desire to have a ferrari. This is the very nature of making choices. And as such, we can estabilish there is some sort of hierarchy of 'wants'.

Could you show me any seemingly counter intuitive choice that can't be explained by an hierarchy of 'wants'?

In one example i have given we can use logic and reason to go against a want which would mean that we are not going by the biggest influence. In that scenario logic and reason isn't the biggest influence, it is a choice we are making against a greater influence.

It would be easier for me to reply to this part of your post if you tell me what example you are talking about.

 

[idav]

It is counter intuitive to go against it unless you also want something else that is in direct conflict. That is why my hyphotetical desire to acquire a ferrari is restricted by my fear of being caught on the act of robbery. My desire to remain out of jail is bigger than my desire to have a ferrari. This is the very nature of making choices. And as such, we can estabilish there is some sort of hierarchy of 'wants'.

Could you show me any seemingly counter intuitive choice that can't be explained by an hierarchy of 'wants'?



It would be easier for me to reply to this part of your post if you tell me what example you are talking about.

I guess an actual example would be helpful. Lets hash out the philosophy of AA. AA says we are powerless so we have no free will except that what god gives us. Now I'm not really fond of that philosophy but I do believe the choice within us is possible even against our greatest desires. You would be saying that the desire to stop drinking was greater than the desire to continue drinking but I'm not sure it is so simple. Clearly the desire to continue drinking is greater and we have to psych ourselves out somehow. Logic isn't enough to counter our emotional wants and needs but it can be done because of volition.

 

[Nakosis]

I guess an actual example would be helpful. Lets hash out the philosophy of AA. AA says we are powerless so we have no free will except that what god gives us. Now I'm not really fond of that philosophy but I do believe the choice within us is possible even against our greatest desires. You would be saying that the desire to stop drinking was greater than the desire to continue drinking but I'm not sure it is so simple. Clearly the desire to continue drinking is greater and we have to psych ourselves out somehow. Logic isn't enough to counter our emotional wants and needs but it can be done because of volition.

Actually it depends on the individual brain. Sorry, I forget specifically the names for the areas, however one part of the brain deals with emotions, the other reason. Some people, because of the circumstances of their life develop the reasoning/analytical portion of their brain to a greater degree then others. Like having the opportunity of higher education. So a brain that has greater development in the analytical area of the brain will be more able to counter the emotional wants and desires with reason.

IOW their wants come from reason instead of emotions. A person who has less development of the analytical area will be subject to the emotional wants. Not really a choice there. Just which portion of the brain has greater development/control and can fulfill it's wants and desires.

 

[Koldo]

You would be saying that the desire to stop drinking was greater than the desire to continue drinking but I'm not sure it is so simple.

Yes, that is indeed what i would say.
It doesn't mean the process of changing the hierarchy of 'wants' is simple though.

Clearly the desire to continue drinking is greater and we have to psych ourselves out somehow.

By making our desire to don't continue driking greater.
How could anything else make you choose according to your desired goal If a desired goal can only be achieved by the presence of a 'want'?

Logic isn't enough to counter our emotional wants and needs but it can be done because of volition.

Do you consider the desire to continue drinking to be an emotinal want/need?
And on the hand, you consider the desire to stop drinking to be a logic matter?

Why and how do you make this distinction?

 

[Falvlun]

We are able to think that we are choosing against the strongest influences.
But this only remains true until we realize we are our own strongest influence.

And how is that not free will?

The argument against freewill basically crumbles to this:
I am the cause of my decisions. I force myself to do this.

Which, of course, is basically what freewill is: To be the cause of your actions.

 

[Skwim]

Self-determination doesn't deny reasons. We do things for reasons. The important part is that we do them, not some exterior causal agent.

Not saying some exterior causal agent must necessarily be involved, only that what we do has a cause, and because that particular cause is the operative agent we can do no differently than what it directs.

As I see the free will position (and have stated in other threads) it essentially claims that "I could have done differently if I had wanted to." The deterministic position is, "No you couldn't have."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Argument against arguing against free-will: Nobody ever lives like they don't have free-will.

 

[Skwim]

Argument against arguing against free-will: Nobody ever lives like they don't have free-will.

They have no choice but to.

 

[Koldo]

And how is that not free will?

Blame on me for leaving that sentence so wide open for different interpretations.

The intended meaning of that sentence was to say that , after we are born, external factors don't have direct control over our actions. In the same manner a human (which in this analogy stands for external factors) doesn't have direct control over the wires of a car while driving.

Also, libertarian free will requires the extra of an agency out of determinism and indeterminism in any given individual.

The argument against freewill basically crumbles to this:
I am the cause of my decisions. I force myself to do this.

Which, of course, is basically what freewill is: To be the cause of your actions.

The argument against free will take some steps further.
Read premises 4 and 5.

 

[9Westy9]

Do we have a definition of free will that we're all working from here?

 

[OMEGA777]

I want a Grill Cheese Sandwich !!

We are Responsible for what led to all of our choices.

That is the main precept of all our problems .
This is the same Rebellious and Selfish attitude
that Adam and Eve got from Satan's spirit filled Apples.

Jas 4:1 From whence come wars and fightings among you?
Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

Jas 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain:
ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

Jesus came here to show us that we must build Godly Character by Resisting Evil thoughts and actions
and Purify the Mind .

Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity,
and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Jas 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.
Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

OMEGA777

 

[Nakosis]

Do we have a definition of free will that we're all working from here?

Religious concept of freewill, the ability to choose between good and evil.
Compatibilistic concept of freewill, the ability act according to your desires.

So I think the argument is that the religious concept of freewill does/does not exist.

Problem is I suspect people use the compatibilist concept of freewill to support the religious concept.

 

[idav]

Yes, that is indeed what i would say.
It doesn't mean the process of changing the hierarchy of 'wants' is simple though.



By making our desire to don't continue driking greater.
How could anything else make you choose according to your desired goal If a desired goal can only be achieved by the presence of a 'want'?



Do you consider the desire to continue drinking to be an emotinal want/need?
And on the hand, you consider the desire to stop drinking to be a logic matter?

Why and how do you make this distinction?

For someone who wants/needs to drink there is less free will involved because the desire is strong. The brain wants something and so the reasoning can go both ways but the reasoning to continue wouldn't stand up to debate. Like when people often say "I can stop if I wanted to". If it is actually possible to stop then it is through us making a free choice because the want is powerful. This is why chemical dependencies of the brain are an interesting test for free will because if your dependent you don't really have free will, or do you?

 

[9Westy9]

Religious concept of freewill, the ability to choose between good and evil.
Compatibilistic concept of freewill, the ability act according to your desires.

So I think the argument is that the religious concept of freewill does/does not exist.

Problem is I suspect people use the compatibilist concept of freewill to support the religious concept.

Well then I reckon both exist but both are prone to change and influence, depending on the person holding the belief.