NialScorva

Now, go back and define it without asking a rhetorical question like "Do we *really* have a choice?".


I went out tonight and bought a bag of chex mix at the store. It appears in all ways to be *my* choice. How does free will or lack thereof affect it?

Liquidrage

Definition:
Free will - The ability to choose without constraints

Removing "contraints" makes it a non-issue.
Also without "constraints" I have seen it referred to as "weak free will".

Neither free will nor determinism effects who's choice it was. It was your choice.

DRFseven

It was you who chose, alright. If you have free will, your choice was not governed by your past experiences with Chex Mix, stores, taste preferences, money, etc. You rose up and traveled to the store without motivation when you could, just as easily have torn all your cables loose, thrown them into a big pot, tossed them in olive oil with a little Parmesan, and munched on them.

OK, everyone who can think knows this wouldn't work, plus people are even consciously aware of some motivations. So what most people do is to say, well, there are influences, but they don't force us to do anything. OK, take away the influences, though, and what do you have? Where's the force? What moves your arm, wraps your fingers around the Chex Mix and removes it from the shelf? YOU do it, but what moves you to move it? Why Chex Mix? Influences are the whole shebang; there is nothing else drive anything or to make a motivating thought out of.

jpbrooks

Hello again, all.

Perhaps it would help if we could define the term "will" first. I'm not certain what "free will" is because I'm not certain what the faculty that we call the "will" is (and my comments here may reflect that lack of knowledge). But common usage of the term "free will" suggests that there could be a kind of "will" that is not "free". But, outside of the concept of "joint causality', I can't see how a "will" that is not "free" to make choices (or even to desire to make choices, if it makes sense to assume that a "will" can desire anything) can be considered a "will" at all.

DRFseven

Hello, JP. Will is intent.

phaedrus

So is everything determined or not? Or since we will not have a clear picture on the issue as of now, we continue to say - nope nothing is determined by some supernatural entity, things are only determined to the extent of our linguistic/cultural/biological grounding ?

Edited to add...

Just remembered something i read about a while back...
Food for thought

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: phaedrus ]</p>

excreationist

Note that those who believe in "compatibilism" believe in free will AND determinism! So apparently they can exist simultaneously rather than be mutually exclusive.
e.g.
<a href="http://web.syr.edu/~jddraege/compatibilism.htm" target="_blank">http://web.syr.edu/~jddraege/compatibilism.htm</a>
"Compatibilism – Free will and determinism can be true together. All human actions are causally determined, but some behavior is caused in a way that is compatible with free will while other behavior is not."

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2178/compat2.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2178/compat2.html</a>
"What the compatibilist is saying is that free will – real free will – is compatible with determinism."

I think that we are forced to do whatever we determine is the most desireable course of action. e.g. we pull our hands away from the flame because we naturally are compelled to avoid bodily pain. We can endure that bodily pain, but only if it prevents a greater evil or results in something so desireable that it outweighs the pain. People might endure bodily pain so that they feel more in control... it could give them a feeling of power or strength to be able to endure intense bodily pain. Either there would be a positive feeling which outweighs the bodily pain or the threat of guilt or something which is a greater negative than the bodily pain. Perhaps the pleasure of endorphins or something would help to overcome the pain of burning yourself.
A related thing is people who cut themselves. Apparently they do this to stop them feeling emotional pain. They would feel that they deserve to be punished and this physical pain might comfort them. The pain signal would force itself to the front of their attention (because of the signals intensity) and they could forget about their troubling thoughts. These troubling thoughts may involve suicidal thoughts and cutting might involve less emotional pain than suicidal thoughts - so it is the lesser of two evils.
Anyway, I think the reasons why people do things can theoretically be explained although there would be a huge number of factors involved (including their experiences while they were a newborn and even an unborn baby).
Anyway, I'm saying that people choose things depending on their preferences at that moment in time. They are constrained to do this. These preferences mightn't be the socially acceptable ones they say they have though.
If their choices were truly free then they would choose things that aren't their moment by moment preferences. It would mean that people would do things that have absolutely no explanation including a chemical imbalance or madness.
e.g. they might suddenly feel the need to roll along the ground everywhere rather than walk. (Actually a Hindu guy/fakir did that) And you could ask them "why?" and they might say "well I love walking but I just chose to do this for the rest of my life."
Then the next day they might continue rolling but always wear pyjamas.
I mean if people had free will then they wouldn't be constrained to following social conventions - or even bother doing what they want to do.
Then a person might come up to them a few months later and say "that rolling is silly" and the rolling person might get up and decide to continue their old life. Or give all their wealth to charity and sell themselves into slavery in a country that allows slaves. But be rude to their master and stick out their tongue all day on Tuesdays no matter how much they are beaten.

excreationist

phaedrus:
Hmmm... "voluntary" is quite a problem word... that might be a synonym for "free will".

Well I guess it wouldn't be voluntary but the thing is that our future actions *can* change. It may be inevitable that a person stole some candy but a punishment might change their future behaviour. And this future behaviour is carried out by themselves.

I don't know.. but somehow I think things can be voluntary in a deterministic universe.

Mr. Sammi

DOes FREEWILL have anything to do with trying to influence the future OR determine the future for your own benefit. The chew-mix was not based on the PAST was was an act to influence the FUTURE.

A big bag of chew-mix can occupy a person for the better part of half-an-hour.

FREEWILL I believe is also based on the scope of possibilities that exist for the individual. The more possibilities available, the greater the degree of freedom. Chew-mix, pop, nuts, candy, chocolate, biscuits, wafers, cakes, toffee, smarties, the more, the merrier. Clutter your brain up until the choice is indeterminate. Spend the half hour deciding instead.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Ierrellus

Nial,

Woody Allen, in "Everything you always wanted to know about sex , but was afraid to ask", shows the awful determinism of a sperm cell that has no destiny other than penetrating an egg. (He got this idea from Barth.) But since none of us are evolutionarily designed for a single function, we have some leeway in our actions that we could consider "free will".

The leeway for action, IMO, begins with the probability inherent in gene disposition pitted against environmental reality. Will is the disposition to act. "Free will" (a stupid phrase) is possiblity of multiple actions for achieving the same goal. The cerebrial cortex in humans provides the space between urge and activity that allows for considered MO. Otherwise, we would never have advanced past the simian stages.

Ierrellus