-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is free will?
- Thread starter nilsz
- Start date
Is that a bad or good thing?
I define it as the ability for rational, self-aware beings to make conscious decisions.
Yea, i just made a model to scientifcally explain it for those who need a boost.
nilsz
bzzt
Your indirectness forces me to consider your response in whole, along with its implications. As a random angry Internet person, I grudgingly accept that.
While I realize that evidence suggest that there are truly random forces in our universe, I consider deterministic thought experiments valid regardless, because any random element can be thought of as a replayable input to the deterministic parts of the system. I don't think I will ever assign any human responsibilities to elementary particles, or anything truly random for that matter.
My usage of the words determinism and causation differ from how you define them. By causation I mean that an event would not have occurred if the causing combination of elements were not present in the situation. I consider a system to be either deterministic or not regardless of unknown lowest-level operations which may or may not violate our understanding of locality - the important characteristic being that if all preconditions are the same, the outcome will be the same, which includes all the choices made.
...
The discussion of free will vs. determinism is partially motivated by the question "Are we responsible for our actions?" Opponents to deterministic thought often believe that if our choices are fully defined by external influences, that would mean that we aren't truly responsible for our actions, and that our minds does not truly make "free" choices.
My position, on the other hand, is that a mind needs to be shaped in order to make context-sensitive decisions, and that anything not shaped by external influences could not possibly act in an intelligent manner - it would either be fixed or truly random, and it would hence be meaningless to attach any human responsibilities to it. It is also difficult to see how such random elements could possibly make us any more free.
Last edited:
Counterfactual causation. "if x had not happened, then y would not have happened, hence x was a cause of y". The problem with this is that it fails to hold true for quantum mechanics.
Determinism typically implies that we are capable, if only in theory, of understanding any future evolution of a system from a current state. We cannot, even in theory, do this.
That's true. For me, as a neuroscientist, it's more about trying to understand the brain and the problem of consciousness.
If we cannot have made a choice other than that which we did (as determinism entails) then how are we responsible?
There is a difference between influenced and determined. Also, there is no reason to suppose that something is either determined or random. The most fundamental indeterminism that exists (that of quantum mechanics) is probabilistic.
Easy one!
Whether I do so by free will or by predetermination, I hold myself &
others responsible for actions which appear to be in one's control.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, true or false, moral or immoral.
It's just what happens...independent of free will's existence.
Last edited:
So the illusion of choice is good enough. Well, that's one answer certainly.
Well, I can't narrow it down that much. Tis either illusion or real, but we've no way to determine
which is true, or if it's a combination of the two. Practically speaking, it makes no difference.
Practical. Engineers, man.
nilsz
bzzt
I tolerate our disagreement on terms provided that you respond understanding what I mean by mine after I have explained them.
Regardless of determinism (as I define it), there is such things as uncertain expectations from humans who most typically lack omniscience, that when broken by an individual, often leads to a limitation of further responsibilities and possibly rights.
Responsibilities are to some extent determined by estimates of capabilities and future behaviour; a job comes with responsibilities that vary with the qualifications desired. When living outside the walls of prisons and institutions, you are (hopefully) presumed to be able to take care of yourself and not bring harm on other individuals.
I don't see how this detracts from my point, neither am I sure it is supposed to. We disagree on usage of terms, yes, and if something is partially determined, partially random/probalistic, it would be called "influenced," yes. So?
Regardless of determinism (as I define it), there is such things as uncertain expectations from humans who most typically lack omniscience, that when broken by an individual, often leads to a limitation of further responsibilities and possibly rights.
Responsibilities are to some extent determined by estimates of capabilities and future behaviour; a job comes with responsibilities that vary with the qualifications desired. When living outside the walls of prisons and institutions, you are (hopefully) presumed to be able to take care of yourself and not bring harm on other individuals.
I don't see how this detracts from my point, neither am I sure it is supposed to. We disagree on usage of terms, yes, and if something is partially determined, partially random/probalistic, it would be called "influenced," yes. So?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Free will is contained though. In that sense, its not our decision or choice at all. But within that containment...there are options we choose. Which in itself, our free will. But strangly enough...you are FREE TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
I would contain that...
What if Something Greater tells you...you are wrong?
consequence pending if you persist.
You are free to believe as you WANT...and free to suffer the consequence.
Still call that...'free'...?
Last edited:
Yes i do. But i believe in something so much bigger than that.
Infact...nothing greater can say im wrong, nor right. For nothing greater exist.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Yes i do. But i believe in something so much bigger than that.
Infact...nothing greater can say im wrong, nor right. For nothing greater exist.
So, top of the line life form are you?
No Almighty?
Theres an almighty absolute one. And im a quite mighty one...but not the absolute one.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
yeah...there's another thread nearby using the word...Absolute.
What if He doesn't agree?....can your freewill be denied?
I suspect the difference is like the line between heaven and hell.
(the old story of Lazarus the begger and the rich man)
Not denied, but the boundry can get smaller. Does that make sense?