Theli

Claim: If determinism is true then we don't have free will.

I would like to know what real "free will" is, as we do not possess it?

This question is obviously directed at those who agrees with the claim.

Theli

Continued...

Originally writen by Zadok001:
This seems to be a general belief, but what I can't understand is the reasoning behind it.
If we were to postulate that for an individual to have free will he would have to be in control of his own thoughts/actions. And the general idea with determinism is that those thoughts/actions is caused by a prior event. Am I correct in this observation?

But the problem here is that the claim above is false. It assumes that the "self" is something external to the thoughts/actions that we need to trace back to in order to have free will.
Wich ofcourse contradicts the first premiss of the claim, that the "self" is process of the brain. The no free will argument seems ambiguous to me.

Kharakov

In response to your post:

Can you think of a time when you were not responding to the environment (internal/external) while exerting conscious volition?

Bible Humper

Hmm, maybe I've missed an important idea somewhere, but shouldn't this be:

Claim: If pre-determinism is true then we don't have free will?

Starboy

As for the definition of “free will” I would have to go with 2. I would consider it to be the same as the ability to make a fee choice. Also I would say that even if in one’s entire life one only got to make just one free choice, then that person would have free will. Not much free will, but free will nonetheless. I also contend that the easiest demonstration of free will is to make a decision based on the outcome of a toss of a “fair” coin. “Fair” meaning a coin where the probability of heads is the same as tails, each being .5. Now the question is, is the toss of a coin random? And if it is not, is there some mechanism that exists in nature that could be used as a random heads or tails generator? The current scientific answer to that question is yes. Therefore the universe is not deterministic and people have free will.

Starboy

Amos

Better question is where the idea of free will came from. You must understand that determinism cannot be conceived to exist without its opposite and so free will is necessarily available to us o determinsm would not make sense or at least be redudant.

Free will is when we are in charge of our own destiny and as a free agent can respond to internal and external forces from a singular identity. For this we must know who we are and cannot be divided between our ego awareness and our true self. In religious terms this would mean that we have the mind of Christ, or Buddha. To have the mind of Christ our left and right brain must become one in the hypostatic union.

Devilnaut

Why not continue the thread that's already going w/ this discussion? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Devilnaut

Oh well.. i'll just continue over here too.. heh.

I disagree with this, but it's probably somewhat tangential to the thread, so I'll consider it granted.

I disagree that a choice based on randomness constitutes "will" at all. I don't think the Webster definition is well considered, because this is clearly what it implies (as you seem to agree). If a choice is essentially random, in what sense is it a choice?

Further, you seem to admit that humans do not have free will except in one very special circumstance. So, I don't quite see how it is an entirely important distinction to make.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Theli

Kharakov...
You missread my post. hobbit
The claim that I said was false what that posted by Zadok001, not the text you quoted.


Bible Humper...
If "pre-determinism" is the correct term, then we'll use that instead.


Starboy...
Back to my initial question, if we refer to a human choice as a process of the brain, what would real free will then be? If a choice compatible with free will must be uncaused then how is it a choice?

I was under the impression that a choice must be governed by logic, and logic must be determined by the situation where it's applied and the mind that 'calculates' the logic.
The term "undetermined choice" is contradictory. I think Webster's dictionary is using a very old and outdated definition.

I was thinking about this awhile ago, the world could not always been determined since that would not allow for a source for the information in our universe today. But that's another story, and another thread.

I'm not sold on determinism either, but this thread was based on the assumption that it is true. hobbit

Amos...
Correction, without the notion of it's opposite. We can concieve things that are different from our reality, yet they don't exist and our reality does exist.

Back to my response to Starboy, our response must be determined by our situation. Our choice is not based on our mind alone. This might open for the tricky question, where do we end and our surrounding begin? I have just as little control over my nails growing as I have over my footprints, so why is my nails part of me and not my footprints?
I do agree with you on most parts, it's just that we seem to use a different definition of the word "will".

It's difficult to know the difference sometimes.


Devilnaut...
I found the old thread abit noisy, and I didn't want my question to be lost in it.

Amen

I didn't have time to re-read my post, so there might be some contradictions, spelling errors or hobbits in it.

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Synaesthesia

I think free will is based upoon the internal-external distinction.

Yes, there is nothing about your internal life what was not causally shaped by it's physical history. However, we can "freely" respond to new environmental stimuli having accumulated a great deal of internal complexity in descision making ability.