is there free will?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's generally called "compatibilism". Many varieties.

That's all you've got? I was hoping for a reasoned argument.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's all you've got? I was hoping for a reasoned argument.

All you made was an assertion

You are saying that free will requires regulative control, i.e. that you have to be able to choose between different alternatives. Other people would argue that you have free will if you have guidance control, i.e. you bring about your actions even if you don't have any alternative. I was talking about this in the ice cream example. Do you define freedom as the ability to do anything? I would think not, because then no one could have free will, since we are all fettered by gravity. Some might say that a freely taken action originates in a certain way from your psychological self.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All you made was an assertion

You are saying that free will requires regulative control, i.e. that you have to be able to choose between different alternatives. Other people would argue that you have free will if you have guidance control, i.e. you bring about your actions even if you don't have any alternative. I was talking about this in the ice cream example. Do you define freedom as the ability to do anything? I would think not, because then no one could have free will, since we are all fettered by gravity. Some might say that a freely taken action originates in a certain way from your psychological self.

Free Will requires options, if you have only one option then your "Will" is being externally directed and is totally unfree. Since it certainly appears we have Free Will (otherwise we would not have started this agument) I tend to think the burden of proof must lie on determinism.

[Andres]

I tend to think the burden of proof must lie on determinism.

Me too.

I decided to post in this thread today. Prove to me that I did not post out of my own free will but that I did it because I was determined to do so. And even if you can prove that everything is determined: does it matter? I certainly don't feel like everything I do is determined. If my free will is but an illusion, then it's a damn good one. Maybe it's so good because it's not an illusion?

Filosophy is nice and fun and it offers good thinking exercises, but it often occupies itself with fruitless questions, "do we have a free will?" being one of them. Who cares if what I'm doing has always been determined or not?

Of course, there are some things we can't control. Some call it "luck" or "bad luck", others "coincidence" and others "destiny", but the fact that there are some things beyond our control doesn' mean that we don't have free will. I have a free will.

Feel free to convince me otherwise.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Quite, but why bother to try and prove us wrong if the world is deterministic. Then it doesn't matter either way.

[Andres]

Quite, but why bother to try and prove us wrong if the world is deterministic. Then it doesn't matter either way.

Determinism is just an excuse for hippies and communists to be lazy

"It's not my fault that I'm lazy! I was determined to be so!"

Bah.

[The Stranger]

Quite, but why bother to try and prove us wrong if the world is deterministic. Then it doesn't matter either way.

u make a mistake here. if the world really was determined they have no choice. they just do it and why they do it is something we and they dont understand. i agree with you that if it was divinely determined there would be no sense in this argument, why would a god let his subjects talk possible heresy etc. but if its more bodily determined than there are no reasons only causes for what we do.

With determinism, your actions are merely predictable, not "externally directed"

what kind of determinism is that? they are not merely predictable, they are predictable because everything is cause and effect, so if you know that cause and of everything you can logically determine its effect and so on. so its indeed not neccesarily externally directed... hmm...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

you should google the deciscion inducer thought experiment.

This one?

Jones has resolved to shoot Smith. Black has learned of Jones's plan and wants Jones to shoot Smith. But Black would prefer that Jones shoot Smith on his own. However, concerned that Jones might waver in his resolve to shoot Smith, Black secretly arranges things so that, if Jones should show any sign at all that he will not shoot Smith (something Black has the resources to detect), Black will be able to manipulate Jones in such a way that Jones will shoot Smith. As things transpire, Jones follows through with his plans and shoots Smith for his own reasons. No one else in any way threatened or coerced Jones, offered Jones a bribe, or even suggested that he shoot Smith. Jones shot Smith under his own steam. Black never intervened.

Well, I agree that not having the ability to do otherwise is not a threat to free will. I don't think you need the thought experiment though, although I guess it helps.

what kind of determinism is that? they are not merely predictable, they are predictable because everything is cause and effect, so if you know that cause and of everything you can logically determine its effect and so on. so its indeed not neccesarily externally directed... hmm...

I say "merely" because it's simply not bad thing if our actions are completely predictable by some sort of omniscient thing, even though people present as if it is a bad thing. The fact that you can predict what I'm going to choose, that I was always going to choose it, simply isn't that relevant. It doesn't change the fact that I'm the kind of person who would choose it in that circumstance, just as it doesn't make Jones not a murderer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

u make a mistake here. if the world really was determined they have no choice. they just do it and why they do it is something we and they dont understand. i agree with you that if it was divinely determined there would be no sense in this argument, why would a god let his subjects talk possible heresy etc. but if its more bodily determined than there are no reasons only causes for what we do.

Actually, I made a naughty rhetorical flounce and you caught me . However, if one admits that everyone here actually believes they have free will (otherwise why are the determinists arguing with me, regardless of whether their belief is determined they clearly believe they can argue with me.) then that begs the question of why we should think the world is deterministic. Cause and Effect does work, broadly speaking, but it's not reliable.

Increasingly we find that answers beget more questions, formulae end in curves rather than finite results.....

there's clearly something fishy going on.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Determinism:

"I'm lazy, but so what, everything is determined anyway, so I can just as well be lazy."

And yet, we had the Calvinist work ethic.

I decided to post in this thread today. Prove to me that I did not post out of my own free will but that I did it because I was determined to do so. And even if you can prove that everything is determined: does it matter? I certainly don't feel like everything I do is determined. If my free will is but an illusion, then it's a damn good one. Maybe it's so good because it's not an illusion?

Why should the burden of proof lie on determinism as opposed to the free wil argument? Determinism is the simplest explanation of why things are the way they are today. Free will requires all sorts of abstract reasoning for alternative timelines, allowing different paths through time for different choices.

With determinism, you chose to post in this thread because given the conditions which you took into consideration when deciding whether or not to do so, you went with the option that appeared best to you. With free will, you need something that goes beyond the way science sees our brains as being sorts of computers that run by generating electric signals, and you have to add it some sort of spiritual/metaphysical element that we have no proof of whatsoever.

You say that your participation in this thread is proof of your free will. But surely all you can know is that you wanted to participate in the thread. Can you provide any evidence to suggest that you might ever have not participated in this thread?

[The Stranger]

science is not as a whole in favor of determinism. or free will for that matter. what science says about the brain or sees it etc is not a valid argument in this discussion untill more is known.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Free Will requires options, if you have only one option then your "Will" is being externally directed and is totally unfree. Since it certainly appears we have Free Will (otherwise we would not have started this agument) I tend to think the burden of proof must lie on determinism.

I agree that the fact that we started this argument is evidence that we have free will, a certain kind of free will. But I disagree with your definition. It is entirely possible for the world to be deterministic and for us to have started this argument.

With determinism, your actions are merely predictable, not "externally directed". And why would you want to live in a world where your actions weren't predictable? Would you want to be unpredictable? Would you want "I'm perfectly normal now, but could go crazy at any moment if a certain random event occurs"?

Essentially it seems like your concluding determinism to be false based on the assumption that it's incompatible with free will. But why do you assume that?

"It's not my fault that I'm lazy! I was determined to be so!"

That's fatalism.

[Andres]

With determinism, your actions are merely predictable, not "externally directed".

Then the word determism is poorly chosen. Our actions are predictable (only to a certain extent, certainly if you look at the individual level), not determined.

That's fatalism.

Semantics.

The difference is not that big.

Determinism:

"I'm lazy, but so what, everything is determined anyway, so I can just as well be lazy."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Then the word determism is poorly chosen. Our actions are predictable (to a certain extent, certainly if you look at the individual level), not determined.

They are predictable to the extent that they are determined. The idea being, that if there was some demon who understood perfectly the laws of nature, and had exact information about the world, he could predict exactly what choice you would make. If it was up to you entirely, then your actions wouldn't be predictable. If there is an element of randomness, then it isn't predictable either, but since randomness isn't choice it's generally best to just leave the complicated physics out of the discussion.

There would be no predictability without some level of determinism. Now we as people can't predict very well, but that's because we have a limited capacity. You can't predict where all the balls will go when you break on a pool table, but do you think that some thing that had more capability couldn't predict where each ball would end up, based on information about the cue ball?

Semantics.

The difference is not that big.

Determinism:

"I'm lazy, but so what, everything is determined anyway, so I can just as well be lazy."

That's fatalism, a nice definition of it by the way. Determinism is the "idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature".

Why don't you think there is a significant difference? Fatalism is a kind of "it doesn't matter if I wear my seatbelt, my date of death is predetermined". But of course, it does matter if you wear your seatbelt.

[The Stranger]

double post sorry.