If nature is deterministic then aligning with nature is not free will.
In order to divert from the course of a system requires at least a sort of indeterminism or else there is no way for the will to be free, it would just be the will of nature.
-
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 Muslim Atheism
- Start date
Muslim Atheism
Matheist
Therefore, the issue is:
(1) Whether human beings is part of nature, and subjected to the laws of nature ? Human nature or some form of animal etc.
(2) How to define the concept of free will?
(2) How to define the concept of free will?
(a) How exactly must the will be free?
(b) What exactly must the will be free from, in order for us to have free will?
(b) What exactly must the will be free from, in order for us to have free will?
Last edited:
The laws of nature have to allow for it. Proving einstein wrong that "god doesnt roll dice" is a start. Quantum mechanics gave him reason to doubt that statement.
Free will would have to come from within. A decision has to be free from physical causality.
Muslim Atheism
Matheist
I agree with this, free will must be free from phenomenal self and egoic consciousness.
Which I think can be achieved with no-self, emptiness.
Muslim Atheism
Matheist
True. . it is what differentiate between the conventional theism/atheism from true system of life. . free from personal fallacy.
Could that emptiness relating to nature ?
Could that emptiness relating to nature ?
I believe it relates to the true nature of things, not really the nature we are used to, the underlying reality. That is what many religions aim for, a liberation from materialistic things.
Muslim Atheism
Matheist
I agree. . .
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
What is free will? A self contradiction, like something undetermined/determined.
"“Everything happens as if the world, man, and man-in-the-world succeeded in realizing only a missing God. Everything happens therefore as if the in-itself and the for-itself were present in a state of disintegration in relation to an ideal synthesis. Not that the integration has ever taken place but on the contrary precisely because it is always impossible” (792 Being and Nothingness)." Sartre from
http://www.examiner.com/article/sartre-s-argument-against-the-existence-of-god
Yes, I realize that many think that Sartre argued for free will. I think his own arguments destroy that position.
"“Everything happens as if the world, man, and man-in-the-world succeeded in realizing only a missing God. Everything happens therefore as if the in-itself and the for-itself were present in a state of disintegration in relation to an ideal synthesis. Not that the integration has ever taken place but on the contrary precisely because it is always impossible” (792 Being and Nothingness)." Sartre from
http://www.examiner.com/article/sartre-s-argument-against-the-existence-of-god
Yes, I realize that many think that Sartre argued for free will. I think his own arguments destroy that position.
Last edited:
Nature is essentially what we decide it is, by virtue of assigning properties. For instance, one thing has the property "cold" relative to other things, and another "hot" relative to other things, but neither are actually hot or cold. A thing has the property "hungry" relative to other states it might be, and the property "happy" relative again.
If we assign the property "free" to the process of decision, would it not be nature?
But what "diversion" occurs if the course followed is the course chosen?
Yes freedom should be innate.
The "will" part of free will is determined by the chooser. So yes some path is to be taken. The freedom to choose the path without prior cause is the question in the "free" part.
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
“Honestly, I cannot understand what people mean when they talk about the freedom of the human will. I have a feeling, for instance, that I will something or other; but what relation this has with freedom I cannot understand at all. I feel that I will to light my pipe and I do it; but how can I connect this up with the idea of freedom? What is behind the act of willing to light the pipe? Another act of willing? Schopenhauer once said: Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will (Man can do what he will but he cannot will what he wills).”
― Albert Einstein
FROM
Quote by Albert Einstein:
In other words free will implies an infinite regress.
― Albert Einstein
FROM
Quote by Albert Einstein:
In other words free will implies an infinite regress.
Last edited:
The "will" part of free will is the chooser, determining. It's not divorced of cause, just of external cause.
Free will stems from the idea that 'a person' is a collection thoughts and those thoughts are self-governing. It stands in contrast to ideas that would reduce 'a person' to (for instance) brain neurons, sub-atomic energy or machinations of an unconscious mind.
To "will what one wills" is only nonsense regression if one holds those contrasting ideas, with their insistance that there must be a cause of all things and that all things may be subject to analysis. That isn't in evidence.
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
I think Einstein's point ( which is still valid if you take a spiritual or materialist position) is that the infinite regress occurs because if the chain of causation started somewhere, that beginning has no cause ( from the self or anything.)
For example, For my act of picking up my pipe to be an act of free will, I must have decided to pick up my pipe. However, if I did not decide to consider picking up my pipe *, then no free will exists. So, I must have decided to decide...Unfortunately, that leads to an infinite regress.
* In other words my decision was outside my control.
For example, For my act of picking up my pipe to be an act of free will, I must have decided to pick up my pipe. However, if I did not decide to consider picking up my pipe *, then no free will exists. So, I must have decided to decide...Unfortunately, that leads to an infinite regress.
* In other words my decision was outside my control.
But deciding to consider picking up my pipe needn't preceed deciding to pick up my pipe. I may decide to pick up my pipe without deliberating the point beforehand.
Besides, "decide to decide" is tautology. You either decide or you don't.
External causes end up being internal causes. Determining needs to be free from any sort of cause to be free will.
What do you mean? The chooser being the cause of the choice is a grammatical necessity, quite unavoidable.
It is avoidable in the quantum realm where cause and effect are not king.