CJD

At the risk of oversimplification, the history of philosophy has fought over basically two positions regarding the will—"libertarian" and "compatibilist." The following briefly summarizes both:

John Frame defines compatibilist freedom simply as the "freedom to do what you want to do." He elaborates further that it is called thus because it is compatible with determinism (or anything else for that matter), and that "even if every act we perform is caused by something outside ourselves (such as natural causes or God), we are still free, for we can still act according to our character and desires" (John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God, (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 136).

R. K. McGregor Wright defines libertarian freedom as "the belief that the human will has an inherent power to choose with equal ease between alternatives. . . . This belief does not claim that there are no influences that might affect the will, but it does insist that normally the will can overcome these factors and choose in spite of them. Ultimately, the will is free from any necessary causation" (Wright, No Place For Sovereignty, 43-44; quoted in Frame, 138). Frame goes on to explain the libertarian’s principles: "if our decisions are caused by anything or anyone (including our own desires), they are not properly our decisions, and we cannot be held responsible for them. To be responsible, we must be able to do otherwise" (Frame, 138).

This dilemma has already been referred to in this thread by others ("personal agency," etc.). js africanus was right, for example, when he/she said that "personal agency does not imply free will," IF he/she meant "[libertarian] free will." In my opinion, libertarian free will is self-referentially absurd; but that does not mean that freedom of the will does not exist—just not in the "libertarian" sense.

Regards,

CJD

Nom

Isn't that what kills Schrodinger's Cat?

Quantum Ninja

My moniker comes from two of my interests/hobbies: science (primarily physics) and martial arts. Some of my college buddies jokingly refer to me as a ninja. I then thought about how cool it would be if there were a ninja that took advantage of the principles of quantum mechanics at the macroscopic level. Think Heisenberg here. If you know where I am, you have no idea how fast I'm coming at you.

Godless Wonder

Hmm, so you are interested in defining free will, not in debating whether we have it or not. Ok, this makes a lot of sense to me to define it first, before trying to figure out if we have it. However, I suspect, by the act of defining it you will likely decide also whether we have it or not.

Well, generally, those who talk about having "free will", more often than not, mean that there is something happening inside our brains which is more than just molecules bouncing around interacting with one another in accordance with the laws of physics. There is something special, something magic happening, according to most people who argue that "free will" "exists." At least this has been my experience.

My argument is merely that there is nothing magic happening inside our brains. It is merely a very involved, very complex interaction of our brains and the environment, and this alone can accounts for conciousness. I admit we humans do not know the details of how this works (yet). I merely assert that there is no evidence for anything which requires magic. So, I assume that there is no magic (Occam's razor.) And if there is no magic, then there is no "free will", as free will is commonly (albeit nebulously) defined.

If one defines free will to be merely the result of our brain's inteacting with its environment, no different than the composite reaction of all the molecules of which it is made to their environment, then, sure, I woudl agree, we have that kind of "free will.", but this is not the "free will" that most people think of when they use the words.

Apathist

People make decisions - no magic required. Our ability to choose and direct our thoughts seems no more mysterious to me, then the fact of our mental existence. And that fact is also unexplained by current knowledge of physics.

Warcraft3

Interesting.....I also have those two interests.........What type/style of martial arts did you study?



Russ

Sylvan Wizard

Free will requires no "magic". Those complex interactions you mention account for consciousness, and consciousness accounts for free will.

haverbob

I gave you a proposed answer to your question. Again, I'm not sure about the validity and I was curious on what you thought.

xorbie

Here is my definition of free will:

The ability to want to do something.

Yep, that's it. Free will, IMO, does not speak of actual ability. My inablity to fly in no way infringes upon my ability to fly. I think the reason my definition is so simple is that the one condition I believe determines (no pun intented) if we have free will or not is consiousness, which is it's own little mess. Any self-consious being, IMO has free will. And being without self-consiousness has no free will.

If this seems to leave something out, or has a loophole (somehow) or is otherwise faulty, feel free to tear it to shreds.

paul30

Free will is entirely subjective, much like "beauty" or "love."

The PERCEPTION of free will in fact constitutes the entirety of free will.

Few of us doubt the deterministic nature of events (even if they are only statistically determined), so on some level, and absolutely, free will is an illusion.