Zadok001

Another disconnect. I was using "believe" properly, to mean "In my opinion, based on what experiences I have to reference." It's not something that can be confirmed factually at all, so we have to work with what our experiences tell us. It's a predictive conclusion: I think that if X occurred, Y would occur as a result. Since X has never occurred, obviously I can't use previous events as a reference point.

Also, you're missing the most important part of the predictive argument. Yes, a lack of free will shouldn't affect 100% rational, intelligent beings with a capacity for understanding the true meaning of free will. Unfortunately, the world is not made up of 100% rational, intelligent beings - It's made up of humans, flawed, emotional, and incapable of purely rational reasoning (as per your post).

Think about this. Go find a devoted Christian somewhere in the world, preferably on top of a high building. Now, as an intellectual exercise, consider what this person would do if suddenly they KNEW, beyond all doubt, that they had no free will. Just suddenly, it was a fact to them.

"Gosh golly gee whiz. I don't have free will. Well, since the future is inherently unreadable, and the universe is infinitely complex and untenable, it's clear that my lacking free will in no way affects my ability to make (ir)rational decisions, therefore, this knowledge changes nothing."

OR

"Fuck me." *jumps off building*

My point is that I think the second possibility is distinctly more probable. People who frequent a discussion board like this one may go through the mental gymnastics to reach the first conclusion, but it sure wouldn't be a universal mental exercise.

But really, that's all secondary to what I wanted to see from this thread: Is there a way out of that argument against free will, setting aside the definition presented by Thomas Metcalf and tronvillain. Say, working under the more normative definition:

"A lack of free will simply means that no being, living, rational, or otherwise, can affect the outcome of its existance."

sweep

point taken

doesn't this mean that I *can* affect the outcome of my existence?

to do or not to do is clearly a matter of restraint or discipline> one of the clearer arguments for 'free will'

If I want to die, but can't force myself to commit, then my will isn't free, but bound by something else.

there are several ways of getting out of of the argument 'against free will' I suppose these would involve a compatiblist position: a merger if you like. without the rules of football, we are not free to play the game; without planes we are not free to fly. It is a good job I don't have total control, otherwise I would not have the freedom of surprise.

If free will involves desire then restraint is the only option. If free will involves perception, then we are free to look. If free will involves abstractions, then we are free to reorganise and reinvent our experiences.

Before this discussion goes any further, I would like to see your definition of 'free will'

Devilnaut

sweep, this (Zadok's) argument's purpose is to debunk precisely the kind of "free will" that would absolve God of the problem of evil, if that helps.

You certainly can! You can do any number of things, but any decision you make is bound by physical reality and subject to the laws of cause and effect like everything else. You can affect the outcome of your existence, only any decision to do so is clearly caused.

This doesn't look like an argument to me.

Yes, but they're all definitional (IE having a different conception of the terms 'free' and 'will' than those which the argument is designed to deal with will avoid the argument), and none of them will save an omniscient and omnipotent being from the responsibility of having created evil through human actions, thereby negating his omnibenevolence.

I don't mean to derail the thread with theology, but this sort of example helps illustrate the argument's main strength I believe.

The AntiChris

Surely, all you've done is prove that the concept of free will that you started out with is nonsensical and self-contradictory?

Just try to define the concept of free will you're using!

I very much doubt the validity of your assumption that most people subscribe, in any real sense, to your version of free will.

Or is there really a far higher than average suicide rate amongst philosophers?

Chris

sweep

how do we look? (as in search for a way out. how do we solve problems?)

I think that we are at war with ourselves. If I am bad, I'm not smiling, thats for sure, so if I am upset, I am not happy. Who can say that not being happy is good? If you are happy do you want to hurt others?

we are in a state of ignorance, governed by our amazing bodies, over which we have little power. We use them for sensual pleasure and short term gain. We are frightened because our bodies cause us pain and when we are injured or diseased, our bodies cause things out of our control.

These conditions determine our path out of ignorance, and we actively search to shake off ignorance-

what is it to be fully sentient, to be fully conscious? when we hate others what do we really hate? how can we really know someone else, if we view them through hate?

have you asked any of these questions to yourself, Devilnaut? If you have, and you have answers, then I will feel a little better about having been patronized

Devilnaut

I didn't mean to patronize you sweep.

Sure I've asked several of those questions, and I'll be the first to admit that the human mind is extremely complicated and that we definately do not have all the answers.

However, I don't see how any of those questions have the potential to avoid Zadok's argument.

Rusting Car Bumper

Yes. Free will is the impression or experience that you have free will. You have approached the problem backwards.

The only reason free will is a question is because we have an experience of something we call free will.

Although one could produce a *valid* argument against freewill, it does not explain the nature of my consciousness which has a sensation of choice.

I could use a simlar tact as above to show that democracy doesn't exist because free choice does not exist. If free choice does not exist then people cannot choose. If they cannot choose then there cannot exist democracy.

I think one can see the absurdity. Of course democracy exists because we see people practicing it frequently.

I think when you don't start from what you know, as semmed to not have, you will, more frequently than not, get into quandries you can't solve and whose allewys aren't useful in understanding what it is you are trying to understand.

DC

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

Devilnaut

This seems like a non-sequitur. If truly "free" choice does not exist, then all this means is that people cannot freely choose.


Again, I want to stress that combatibilist versions of free will certainly avoid the argument, however it is still is very valuable in defense of the problem of evil.

Zadok001

Eh? To interpret, you're saying Free Will is the experience of making choices? That makes perfect sense, of course, and it's another separate definition of free will that neatly dodges this argument. (I'd like to thank you and Thomas for giving me those alternate defintions, btw. They're very useful.)

You seem to be making presumptions about my objectives, however. I never said I wanted to prove/disprove free will. I just want to explore this argument and its implications. Responses thus far have helped me do that. Yes, I know it's a somewhat self-contradictory argument; i.e., I choose to type an argument saying I can't choose anything. Nonsense.

What this shows me is simply that the outcome of our lives is based almost entirely on random chance. (Looking at the argument in retrospect, it seems that if one assumes any pecentage of events can be based on random chance, instead of causes, we can logically conclude that the vast majority of events are 'random.') This doesn't affect my sense of independance, but it's nice to know - If only for the purpose of happily going about confusing my dear friends and enemies.

To summarize, there isn't anything that fits the description "what it is [I am] trying to understand." I'm just interested in keep my mind sharp.

Devilnaut already touched on this, but your argument against Democracy seems strange to me. Democracy is a form of government - It can exist independant of free choice. I mean, if everyone was bound to one state of mind, one could still have a democratic environment. Everyone would voice (identical) opinions, and everything would be done unanimously, but it would still follow the form of democracy. (Pointless, but existant.)

Rusting Car Bumper

Choice is an essential component of democracy. If people cannot choose then they don't have democracy. In fact the outcome of democracies are predetermined then its not democratic. If they can't choose because of random processes as described in the original argument then its not democracy either.

My point in mentioning this was to critisize the methodology of understanding the existence of something *in consciousness* without ackowledging as an axiom that indeed we have that experience in consciousness. Please understand the example in that context.

DC