is there free will?

[Reenk Roink]

This has always been an interesting point of view especially with religion such as Christianity which believes in redemption. Hypothetically, if there is no free will then what is the point in redemption? As the end result, the Lord Almighty will know that we will commit sin and in the same breath the Lord Almighty would know if we will redeem ourselves or not. then the act of redemption becomes trivial as ultimately we are slaves to our destiny and we do not have the choice to redeem ourselves, as our fate has already been decided.

The problem comes because many people seem to require a sense of free will for moral responsibility (in both secular and religious contexts).

Aquinas made a really good case for double predestination (of the elect and the damned), even though I don't think it's an idea the Catholic Church endorses (correct me if I'm wrong Catholics).

[The Stranger]

The problem comes because many people seem to require a sense of free will for moral responsibility (in both secular and religious contexts).

Aquinas made a really good case for double predestination (of the elect and the damned), even though I don't think it's an idea the Catholic Church endorses (correct me if I'm wrong Catholics).

i dont know... aquinas is one of the major authorithies for christianity and has been redeemed quit alot since the 19th century. so its much possible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aquninine determinsim, itself essentially Augustinian in nature, was rejected as heterodox by the Catholic Church, and remains so today. Interestingly, Aquinas also proposed that beings are capable of independent agency seperate from God's direct control. From my persepctive, it seems that every attempt to remove Free Will from the Christian worldview is born of angst over relatively minor questions regarding how God's own nature and Divine Knowledge interact with the world he created.

broadly speaking, determinists usually feel the need to explain away one of two logical inconsistancies. The first is that God is all powerful, but that Free Will allows beings to rebel against God's power; the argument is easily undone by stating that God allows rebellion (Sin), but does not condone it. The second argument relates to God's constancy and his Onnicience. While this is harder to answer, it is easy to ignore because, bluntly, the Bible contains numerous instances of rebellion, so it clearly does happen.

On to the more philosophical question:

Why must the exercise of Free Will require reationality, and how do we define who is "rational"? For me, Free Will is apparent because if there were no Free Will or Random Chance the universe would be a perfectly ordered and regular place. It would also be a lot less interesting.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

On to the more philosophical question:

Why must the exercise of Free Will require reationality, and how do we define who is "rational"? For me, Free Will is apparent because if there were no Free Will or Random Chance the universe would be a perfectly ordered and regular place. It would also be a lot less interesting.

The problems I see with this are:

a) Who says there isn't random chance?
b) How do you know the universe isn't orderly? It could be a very complex order.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problems I see with this are:

a) Who says there isn't random chance?
b) How do you know the universe isn't orderly? It could be a very complex order.

Well, I claim there is random chance, and it therefore follows that there is random chance in our decision making. This being so, our decisions are not pre-determined, ergo Free Will is possible.

As to the Universe being orderly, Quantum Theory tells us that a situation has a variety of possible outcomes with varrying probability, not one pre-determined outcome.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, I claim there is random chance, and it therefore follows that there is random chance in our decision making. This being so, our decisions are not pre-determined, ergo Free Will is possible.

As to the Universe being orderly, Quantum Theory tells us that a situation has a variety of possible outcomes with varrying probability, not one pre-determined outcome.

I don't see the relation between random chance and free will. Imagine that you are in an ice cream shop picking your favorite ice cream. In a largely deterministic world you would probably pick your favorite, unless you have an urge to go for variety, or something else like that. Your favorite was predetermined, possibly be some combination of genetically coded taste buds, what kind of ice cream you had first, etc. Is this really a bad thing? Your choice may be predetermined, but it's based on who you are and what you want.

If there is random chance, then how is that different from you flipping a coin to decide between two flavors? It doesn't sound like a choice at all.

So human bodies are not a dictatorship or an autocracy but more a federal constitution. However it is still very much possible that our body as a whole has free will, because there are (many) situations thinkable in which nothing from outside this body influences the body in such way that the body has no choice left but to obey. The point I'm trying to make is that our concept of freedom must evolve alongside our conception of human beings. Since the idea the mind and body are separated is fading in our conception of human beings it should likewise fade in our conception of free will.

...

To say that a person has free will because he (in this case is soul or mind or any similar phrase) makes his own choices, amounts to as much as to say that, a person is free because nothing outside this person influences him so that he has no choice but to obey that external influence.

I mostly agree, but disagree with the direction you took it. Saying that the human body is not a dictatorship would lead me to the conclusion that free will doesn't apply to the body as a whole. I can't choose not to be hungry, right? If we have any sort of free will, it rests in the part of our brain that is conscious, that thinks and has urges to overcome our "basic" urges. It's not very powerful, but it's what separates us from most animals.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't see the relation between random chance and free will. Imagine that you are in an ice cream shop picking your favorite ice cream. In a largely deterministic world you would probably pick your favorite, unless you have an urge to go for variety, or something else like that. Your favorite was predetermined, possibly be some combination of genetically coded taste buds, what kind of ice cream you had first, etc. Is this really a bad thing? Your choice may be predetermined, but it's based on who you are and what you want.

If there is random chance, then how is that different from you flipping a coin to decide between two flavors? It doesn't sound like a choice at all.

Determinism would mean that whether or not the coin landed heads or tails would be determined before you flipped it, with 100% certainty. Random chance is a prerequisite for Free Will because wihtout it the universe has no room for divergence from it's ordained course.

[The Stranger]

I don't see the relation between random chance and free will. Imagine that you are in an ice cream shop picking your favorite ice cream. In a largely deterministic world you would probably pick your favorite, unless you have an urge to go for variety, or something else like that. Your favorite was predetermined, possibly be some combination of genetically coded taste buds, what kind of ice cream you had first, etc. Is this really a bad thing? Your choice may be predetermined, but it's based on who you are and what you want.

If there is random chance, then how is that different from you flipping a coin to decide between two flavors? It doesn't sound like a choice at all.



I mostly agree, but disagree with the direction you took it. Saying that the human body is not a dictatorship would lead me to the conclusion that free will doesn't apply to the body as a whole. I can't choose not to be hungry, right? If we have any sort of free will, it rests in the part of our brain that is conscious, that thinks and has urges to overcome our "basic" urges. It's not very powerful, but it's what separates us from most animals.

no it can't choose not to be hungry. but i dont see hunger as some influence from the outside. it is part of the bodily functions. it is part of life. life needs to be sustained or otherwise it will die. no free will can alter that. the body though is free to choose not to eat, to ignore this hunger, or to eat and choose what it eats. its probably much more complicated, i have to get more into biology. i already foresee difficulties with allergies and stuff.

the brain which is conscious, or the conscious activity of the brain is very limited, i believe the entire body thinks, but just not everything is translated into the conscious part of the brain. only those actions that cannot do without.

[The Stranger]

i just am not in the mood to continue where i left of yesterday so ill just post the things i do have. sorry if its a bit fragmented or inconsistent.

Freedom in its most radical form is when one is subjected to nothing but oneself, meaning that nothing outside the individual controls his choices. This type of radical freedom would only exist in a situation when the individual is all there is, usually only Gods are attributed this type of freedom. Yet somehow this type of freedom, which is a divine freedom is also the standard to which humans are sometimes held. We must return freedom to the humans, it must become a human freedom, not an animal one, nor a divine one.

With neurosciences on the rise, more insight is being gained into the biochemical processes of our body. So while our conception of what a human is, is changing rapidly, our concepts which apply to humans are not changing at the same rate. This results in a Cartesian concept of free will, e.g. the idea that there is a rational faculty in each human being which controls it from a centralized point in the body, being pitted against a modern conception of what a human being is, e.g. we can conclude as much as that there is no such centralized rational faculty in our body. From the absence of this centralized rational faculty some people like to conclude the absence of free will. This is not a valid conclusion however. Free will may very well still exist, but instead of just one part of our body deciding for everything else, parts of our body decide for their own jurisdiction and as a body together they decide for the body as a whole. So human bodies are not a dictatorship or an autocracy but more a federal constitution. However it is still very much possible that our body as a whole has free will, because there are (many) situations thinkable in which nothing from outside this body influences the body in such way that the body has no choice left but to obey. The point I'm trying to make is that our concept of freedom must evolve alongside our conception of human beings. Since the idea the mind and body are separated is fading in our conception of human beings it should likewise fade in our conception of free will.

To say that a person has free will because he (in this case is soul or mind or any similar phrase) makes his own choices, amounts to as much as to say that, a person is free because nothing outside this person influences him so that he has no choice but to obey that external influence. So if our conception of what we are as human beings changes from the soul to the body than so must it change in our conception of free will. Thus the 'he' is no longer soul but body, yet the concept of free will applies to the body as well as it did to the soul before.

The objection can be made that we are not aware of these choices at the bodily level and thus the choices are not rational and so one is not free. Yet why is rationality a requirement for freedom? Are animals not free, or rationally impaired human beings? And if it is truly so that our current conception of human beings is the right one, than it has always been so. Why should the actions we would have labeled as an act of free will not years ago be labeled as determined only because it turns out we are not aware of them.



if this: "a decision or situation is often called rational if it is in some sense optimal, and individuals or organizations are often called rational if they tend to act somehow optimally in pursuit of their goals." is the definition of rational. i dont see why the body cant be rational. and thus when the body is rational and the body makes choices, then the body must have free will.