Do you believe in free will?

[Johnnymushio]

Just curious.

[tech_support]

Yes! We must all be free... and hippy-like... and jump around waving our hands across the air like there's no tomorrow.

We'll jump onto random cars, driving around like mad... robbing stores... drinking 3 litres of beer... and all that.

Let's all have a fun life! :D

[djr33]

I choose to post.

Or was I made to?


Even if you don't believe in free will, your predetermined destiny is guided by what feels like free will, so in any sense that is possibly definable in the real world, it is free will. Your fate may be to choose certain actions and end at a certain result, but that fate simply includes those "decisions".

You could test this by sitting on your couch until something is done to you, but that isn't the point-- and if you didn't figure that out, and did just sit there, then it could easily be argued that was your fate; in the same sense, making your free choice to jump in front of a bus would be the same argument-- it was your fate to die that day.

It's one and the same; all a matter of opinion.

Is there a god, and, really, does it matter? What's the result? Will life change if you believe or not? Does god really need you to pray to him for him to care about you? Does this boost your points in his mind? Perhaps it does, or perhaps not, or perhaps there is no god.

Interesting thoughts, but I feel tough to make important-- you can still "decide", even if it's your fate to make that decision.

[vaibhav24in]

What do you mean by free will? We all are free in this world but illusion keeps us binding

[Twey]

In any discussion of free will it's necessary to first define "free will." One of the most common definitions of free will, and the one I use, is the ability to act according to our desires. This we almost certainly have. However, those desires are often demonstrably caused by something external: I've just spent two days in a desert, therefore I'm thirsty, therefore I want a drink, therefore I will take a drink (or in my case, I've spent five hours in a British winter morning, therefore I'm ruddy freezing, therefore I want to be warmer, therefore I'm going to turn up this radiator). There is no reason to believe that less obvious examples are caused by anything more than a more subtle external stimulus, or combination of such. Thus, the answer is "yes," but perhaps not in the manner most people would mean it: we see that a common definition of free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.

Why the sudden interest in philosophy?

[BLiZZaRD]

I have always understood the term "free will" to be the apparent choice that God has given the humans to either believe in him or not. Angels were not given free will and were to a point "forced" to believe in God.

If you believe in that...

[Johnnymushio]

i asked because i read some articles in philosophy class that convinced me i did not have free will. they proved it. then when i read articles proving we did have free will, they couldnt. i could explain to you guys, but i dont want to. because when i was told the example it was so believable, and almost devastating. but like anything i learn in school that devastates me, time will heal it.

[BLiZZaRD]

That's because you were given only half the information. Schools are a dictatorship of the mind, and you are taught according to one persons beliefs.

If the head of your particular institution believed in free will, I can promise your evidence would point the other way.

[djr33]

Ironically, the above posts show your belief in each point of view--
Johnny can't choose to be free-- it simply is that there is no free will.
And Blizzard of course believes that the leader of the institution is free to each either way.

Amusing.


The answer, again, is so simple, there's no point in asking it. If we really have no free will, then asking this question was predetermined as well; in fact, our existence and every detail of our lives is predetermined. That means that we're just characters in a movie, basically, but, in any definable sense, within our reality, it is free will. It has been predetermined that we will feel as if we make a choice toward a predetermined result. But... we still "choose" that, whether or not we have been made to choose that or not. You can't even WANT to be free, if you aren't supposed to.

You can believe that everything happens as it should, or that everything is random, based on what happens, but, really, it's both, and the only difference is at the most essential level, where you determine what the ultimate result or reason for life is, but that's basically irrelevant-- you can choose A or choose B, but this may or may not be predetermined for you-- but who cares if it has been-- it still feels like you are deciding.

Now there are some people who act more free than others (and it's also related to opportunity, but not ultimately), but that's a different story.


Think of this as the theory that the universe is expanding. Slowly, as aftermath of the big bang, the particles that make up everything are spreading; however, in spreading out from the center, all at the same rate, though we may be growing each instant, bigger now than yesterday, and bigger still tomorrow, everything in any sense that we can comprehend is relative and we are simply, still 6' tall, because 6' has also expanded; the world has expanded; the stars have expanded.

This may or may not be true. Interesting if so. If not, well, ok. But either way, we still exist in our limited scope, feeling exactly 6' tall, no matter how that is defined in relation to actual space within the atomic structure.


Short answer-- yes, absolutely. Go out and do something you want. You did it. That was free will-- you picked. Whether or not that decision was actually guided... well... we can't know that. So who cares? It doesn't change anything, except it's theoretical "meaning."


An interesting question, does God exist?
The answer, as far as I can tell, is absolutely not. He does not EXIST. He created all things. Things exist. He can't be a thing. He can't exist. Now, there MIGHT be a "God", whatever he/it/-- may be, but in the definition of the word "exist", it can't be true. So, within our scope, it can't be understood. As such, our scope clearly allows free will. This scope may limit us from understanding that it's all predetermined. But, well, it is so.

Time is simply the 4th dimension. In string theory, there are up to 11 dimensions, all operating simultaneously in various ways, relating, affecting one another, etc. The first 3 are spacial, 4th time. The rest are complex and VERY interesting, but I won't go into detail. In short, they allow time travel, then probability, multiple probability/timelines, etc.

Time simply exists; every time exists, just as all dimensions/locations exist. So, really, it isn't a linear ending, flowing occurrence as we see it, but rather just as ever present as is dimension; in the same way that a 2D image of an object doesn't represent the complexity or entirety of the third dimension, we exist in instances of the 4th dimension.

So, in it's "real" sense [assuming you believe this, and for the example just go with it], time doesn't exist as we know it. It's simply another way to experience, another fact, each time representing a state, something very similar to a location.
Time is an illusion.
However, to us, it would be stupid to suggest that it is fake in our lives-- time very much has existence, consequences and an effect.

Technically, there may be complex grammar practices still implied in English today. But since they aren't visible, it's not very relevant to talk about them, is it?


So... there IS free will. Is it predetermined? Hmm... interesting. We can't know. We can't prove that it isn't, and we certainly can't prove that we can, because that would give us more insight than we are allowed in such a situation. And, does this even matter, in our scope?



Let's go with a hypothetical anecdote.

Jimmy is a serial killer. He hear the voice of god telling him to kill. No, really, he does. And we believe him. More than that, he doesn't even decide for himself. He might as well be a robot. He kills, because he is predetermined to.
Now, getting back to the theory here a bit, think about this: Jimmy could argue, so easily, well, he isn't a bad person. He didn't do it-- it was determined for him. He didn't want to. It isn't his fault.
Well, that's a reasonable argument. Ok, poor Jimmy. Really, he's the victim. Must have been tough on him, too.
Let's think about Jimmy for a moment.
His views are weird, right? Against the cultural norm, ie, weird. Not acceptable. But, really, that isn't why he would be punished for such actions. He'd be locked up to protect society. It's not ok to kill, but that isn't a moral judgment; it's a simple rule of survival.
So, Jimmy didn't mean to do it. Even call him insane. But, still, he must be locked away, or he will kill people.
The fault, the cause, the choice, may all be predetermined. But it's consequence is still the result of that choice, and very real.
In our existence, the only possible answer can be to lock him up. Must protect the people.
In conclusion, it can be seen that it's irrelevant-- he killed people; he must be stopped.
Now, the strange decision must be made-- is he insane? Does he feel insane? Does he feel rational in killing people? Hitler certainly thought he had a good reason. The argument was even logical, from his point of view. What if you killed "bad" people-- what if you killed everyone like Jimmy-- or Hitler? Is that right?
Well, the answer comes down to something much more complex; we have mental hospitals and jails. The reason someone goes to either is based on a moral judgment about their choices. However, anyone who kills is seen as a danger and must be locked away, UNLESS they are going with societal norms. If they are killing in war, killing in self defense, or performing a legal execution, then that's "right", in our society. But it doesn't really "mean" anything. But I'm getting off topic.


Meaning can only be seen from our limited perspective. Perspective cannot be infinite. We cannot understand the infinite from a finite perspective; it can be represented and perceived, but not in full.


Truth, that is the condition upon which this question is answered, must be defined. Ultimate truth may be that there is no free will. Realistic truth, from our perspective, must say that, yes, there is free will.

[BLiZZaRD]

And after the coffee break, Daniel will continue with Chapter 2 of his new book, we will hope you join us!


:D


on a serious note.. I am interested in your 11 dimensions. If you have information to link me to I would be much appreciative.

[djr33]

You can simply look up "string theory." It's very complex and hard to understand, but fascinating.

This video does a superb job of explaining it, with visuals, etc. I highly recommend watching it.

It's about concepts not concrete understanding, so don't worry if you do feel a bit lost. The ideas are there, but maybe not yet tangible for you. I still can't really put it all into words. This video did the best job of getting me there, though.

It only covers 10 dimensions. The 11th is theoretical, I suppose even more so than the other 6 "new ones". It is a "special" dimension in which only super strings "live"... or something. I'll let you discover that one after watching the video on the rest.

http://one.revver.com/watch/99898/

[Johnnymushio]

blizzard, that was pretty funny,

ok.

every action has a cause, right? and eventually all causes lead to an external cause, right? so...

i want you guys to prove me wrong on this, please

lets say, i choose to exercise and practice guitar every night, rather than just continue to be on the computer, or video games. i choose to walk my dog on some days/night, and on other days/nights, i wont.

ok, so there, i have free will... BUTTTT

all of my choices had external causes. i chose to walk my dog one night because it was cool outside. but last night it was raining so i didnt. so, nature determined for me.

i chose to do crunches every night because i want to keep my abs. ok. why did i want to do crunches in the first place? because i became addicted to a certain singer around 2005, and i found his way of life almost perfect.

do you see what im saying? these are very simple examples. they can get so complicated.

its like, determinism.

but i came up with a theory a minute ago.

ok, in a place where there are no minds, then everything can theoretically be predicted, with patterns, etc. but, when minds are thrown into the place, determinism ceases to exist.

sorry if i dont make sense, i have trouble expressing thoughts, maybe because i dont even understand them.

ok so lets say you are walking down the street, then you suddenly jump up, throw your left arm in the air, scream, then start rolling around.

ok sure you can do tat but why did you? because you read this and wanted to prove toy ourself you have free will. its almost as if, an individual can control everything except for himself. hmm. i wish my thoughts were more coherent, oh well.

lets see what else.

well im gonna go to the bathroom now. is that free will?

see, no one can live with the fact that there is no free will.

but i think i have satisfied myself with my mind and freewill thing.

seems.... logical. do you guys agree with me? a place with no minds, every action can be determined, but with minds, its impossible to determine?

i wonder if these articles i have read are online, so if you guys wanna read them, it would be easier to discuss.

they are too long for me to type up, too lazy

one mor thing. can we really determine our wants? and if we change out wants, you wanted to want a want.

gosh.. im confusing my self with what i want to say, its like i can feel my mind being tortured.

ok i really need to go now before my mind dies

edit

another example.

a rock is thrown into the air

in midflight, it is given consiouness

it thinks it is flying with its own free will

then when it starts to fall, it htinks it is falling because it wants to.

could the same be with humans?

edit number 2

twey, im taking a phil class in university and these topics we read about, and i think i was better off not reading these things. maybe i should base which classes i think would be good based off of the fresh prince of bel-air

[djr33]

You could say that everything is predetermined by what is happening around us, so that we are simply reacting, but we still feel as if we have a choice. Within that limited reality, it still is a choice.

Really, though, that's what separates us from machines (and why these two discussions should be one). We are not programs, reacting to stimuli. We are, rather, reacting, creating, and choosing, in order to make things as we want them. We make mistakes, interpret things incorrectly, see things individually, and react. Sure, WHO WE ARE determines this, so it could be argued genes and environment-- nature AND nurture, but that's our existence.

In other words, it's subjective.

And, the CHOICE to react to this and fight it, whether or not that is based on reality, as it is how we feel, and what we want, simply is free will.

WHY we do something gets into psychology. It becomes a question of what made us want something, what environment made us feel a certain way, or even if we are being controlled by something else. But it is still a choice, and one that we make freely, within the bounds of what we can see.

We are subject to our environments, but not slaves to them. Within our bounds, we can move as we choose-- regardless of WHY we choose.

WHY we choose gets into psychology, or mind control. But, still, if we do choose, it is a choice, and it is free will.

Free will and omnipotence are different. I may choose to eat a sandwich today. I might not know it happens to be spoiled, and I might die. But I did choose to eat it.

[BLiZZaRD]

blizzard, that was pretty funny,

ok.

every action has a cause, right? and eventually all causes lead to an external cause, right? so...

i want you guys to prove me wrong on this, please

lets say, i choose to exercise and practice guitar every night, rather than just continue to be on the computer, or video games. i choose to walk my dog on some days/night, and on other days/nights, i wont.

ok, so there, i have free will... BUTTTT

all of my choices had external causes. i chose to walk my dog one night because it was cool outside. but last night it was raining so i didnt. so, nature determined for me.

No YOU chose not to go out in the rain. You COULD go out, nothing prevented you from going out except your free will to stay dry. A choice you made.



i chose to do crunches every night because i want to keep my abs. ok. why did i want to do crunches in the first place? because i became addicted to a certain singer around 2005, and i found his way of life almost perfect.

And a choice you made based on a choice you made. You could have chosen to not think this singers way of life was perfect. You could have chosen to think it was and then chosen not to live up to it. Your free will decided what you wanted based on your choices and your free will.



do you see what im saying? these are very simple examples. they can get so complicated.

its like, determinism.

but i came up with a theory a minute ago.

ok, in a place where there are no minds, then everything can theoretically be predicted, with patterns, etc. but, when minds are thrown into the place, determinism ceases to exist.

sorry if i dont make sense, i have trouble expressing thoughts, maybe because i dont even understand them.

ok so lets say you are walking down the street, then you suddenly jump up, throw your left arm in the air, scream, then start rolling around.

ok sure you can do tat but why did you? because you read this and wanted to prove toy ourself you have free will. its almost as if, an individual can control everything except for himself. hmm. i wish my thoughts were more coherent, oh well.

I chose to do it (if I did it) not to prove anything but because it was a choice. Don't confuse choice with fate. You are late for work, as you leave the door the phone rings. You decide not to answer and rush out. As you enter the freeway you are hit by another car. Would you have been in a wreck if you had answered the phone? Maybe. Maybe not at the same place, maybe a car would have hit you as you pulled out of the driveway. Maybe, the car that hit you on the freeway would have gotten behind a slow driver for 20 miles while you were on the phone... fate? perhaps, but not by choice, such as the case with free will.



lets see what else.

well im gonna go to the bathroom now. is that free will?


Sure. You don't HAVE to go anywhere, you can pee right where you are at. But you choose to do it in private. Biological functions are not determinate of free will either. I can choose to hold my breath until I pass out, but I am designed by nature to breathe, and to live I need to breathe, so after I pass out I will continue to breathe. Again, don't confuse the sciences.



see, no one can live with the fact that there is no free will.

but i think i have satisfied myself with my mind and freewill thing.

seems.... logical. do you guys agree with me? a place with no minds, every action can be determined, but with minds, its impossible to determine?

i wonder if these articles i have read are online, so if you guys wanna read them, it would be easier to discuss.

they are too long for me to type up, too lazy

one mor thing. can we really determine our wants? and if we change out wants, you wanted to want a want.

gosh.. im confusing my self with what i want to say, its like i can feel my mind being tortured.

ok i really need to go now before my mind dies

I don't think by changing my mind I wanted to want a want, I think I decided to cease wanting what I wanted in the first place. You can determine a want, not a need. I need to drink and eat. I want to drink Pepsi and eat nachos. Vast differences.

[Johnnymushio]

maybe i am not explaining the subject well enough.

and maybe my mind is lazy, because your argument satisfied me

[Twey]

on a serious note.. I am interested in your 11 dimensions. If you have information to link me to I would be much appreciative.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

A good point, I hadn't thought about the many-worlds hypothesis. However, the conclusion that results is the same as my earlier conclusion based on a linear universe: the question of free will is ultimately meaningless. In string theory, all our possible choices are laid out before us, and in some universe, we take every possible choice. However, since each self can only take the judgement he/she/it is going to take in that particular branch, based on previous forks which were themselves determined in the same manner, each self's actions are also predetermined.
You could say that everything is predetermined by what is happening around us, so that we are simply reacting, but we still feel as if we have a choice. Within that limited reality, it still is a choice.Quite true -- this "limited reality" is a simplification of the world around us, since human minds (or mine at least) can't begin to comprehend the full implications of determinism.
No YOU chose not to go out in the rain. You COULD go out, nothing prevented you from going out except your free will to stay dry. A choice you made.But that choice is dictated by, amongst other things, the fact that you are biologically programmed to dislike being overly cold or wet, the fact that you've had experiences where rain is generally both cold and wet, and the fact that there's no truly pressing reason to go outside against that impulse. If you did have such a pressing reason, you'd be following another impulse (perhaps a need for food, or a moral structure to save the person you hear calling for help) by overriding the lesser impulse.

[djr33]

You're going a bit beyond what I was talking about with string theory, mostly that time is just an impression/illusion, but also a solid point. Much like god, it's not something we can comprehend from our current perspective, so it's this big mystery that makes things happen, so, sure that or god controls free will, but in doing so gives us the distinct impression that we have it, so for all practical purposes, it we do.


Well, if we determine that we really don't "decide", then we're not missing out on anything. We're happy, in our predetermined existences, to go about life and think we're making choices.
However, we must make these predetermined choices, or we'll.. die.
If we just sit on the couch, which would be doing nothing (arguably a choice), we'd die. So, in short, we must make "choices", so, sure, they're controlled, if in no way but that.

But it's still how we perceive.

Is god real? Well, that's the wrong question. Reality is subjective on this deep philosophical level, as is anything, such as why 1+1=2. So, is god real to you?

Perception is reality, and that is our limitation.

When I see the color blue, I get a certain impression, and you get a similar impression because we have been programmed by the world-- that IS blue. It's a distinct color, certainly, but who is to say that we all see blue as blue. In any comparative sense, we could never determine a difference, but it might actually look different to us, and, in fact, must to some degree.

When a relationship ends between two people, because one partner leaves, is that "right"? Sure, to them. Wrong? Yes, to the other. We can also argue-- That person was bad for me. This.... this... and this. Or, wow, I really miss them. They were right for me. But, that is simply how we perceive. Many will choose to justify this. "Oh, I'm better off now." "Nah, it was wrong, just an illusion."

So, we can see things how we want.

If you breathe, perhaps that shifts air molecules to a certain degree and causes a hurricane across the world. Really; it might.

So, is everything based on that?

Well, yes, actually, it is. I don't think we have free will, at the very basic level. We are just the result of a marble traveling through a maze, of dominoes falling, etc. Of course those are drastically simple representations, but, sure, the world is just a collection of subatomic particles bouncing off one another, causing things to happen, including human consciousness.

Either you believe that, which is "random" (but not all-true, so in some sense predetermined-- that marble will continue on it's path and could be projected if all variables were known-- you could program a computer to simulate life with enough processing power and variables-- something so far from happening it is seen as, presently, impossible, due to simple time and processing power), or you believe in God. Well, either way, we're in this conceived world, as we perceive it.

We perceive free will. Does that mean God isn't really making us perceive this? No. Does this mean it hasn't originated from a random bouncing of particles creating circumstance? No. So, no, free will is certainly an illusion, but also very real in any sense it applies to us, in this limited existence.

Also, consider that perhaps some believe their God does allow free will-- well, that's a possible argument for it, I guess, as long as they also consider science wrong.

Hmm... free will? Believing in God? Not? Or just random chance.

Equilibrium-- eventually the deck of cards will become again sorted if you shuffle enough.

This discussion is taking two routes, and it would be good to rephrase--
Theoretical, or practical?

[Twey]

I agree entirely. Since this is a philosophical discussion, we're concentrating on the theoretical. If we weren't, I'd limit my answer to the bounds of that simplification and just say yes, we do have free will, without bothering to go into what free will actually means and why it's not mutually exclusive with predeterminism.

[djr33]

Well, then our discussion has ended.

Because God can never be proven or disproved, and that's all there is to it.

God is based on faith and exists beyond comprehension. Or he doesn't, but we can never prove that, as no matter how far our comprehensions reach, it will fall short of the level that God exists on. If he does.

Now, based purely on science, in an over simplified sense, it would seem that it is all predetermined by the insanely complex equation that is life.

[Trinithis]

Without any backing support on my side, I would say that free will does exist. Though I would stress that free will and determinism/fate/etc are separate beasts. I think fate can coincide with free will without any contradiction.

(Note: I've only read half of the posts so far, so my opinion might change after that. Excuse me . . . I will have read it because I can time travel.)

[djr33]

Ha. Nice.

I will have had been here yesterday if I were happy tomorrow. Or something.

Well, free will has been defined in this as the ability to control things and to want. In the overall existence, can't really be true-- it's all about circumstances which are predetermined. But, certainly appears within our scope that we do.

In short, it's irrelevant and syntactic, and, if true, so removed from our perception is isn't even correct in the same scope that the word "correct" has value.

So, yeah, there's free will. Why? Because I say so. And that must prove it. :p

[BLiZZaRD]

But that choice is dictated by, amongst other things, the fact that you are biologically programmed to dislike being overly cold or wet, the fact that you've had experiences where rain is generally both cold and wet, and the fact that there's no truly pressing reason to go outside against that impulse. If you did have such a pressing reason, you'd be following another impulse (perhaps a need for food, or a moral structure to save the person you hear calling for help) by overriding the lesser impulse.


Who said the rain was cold? He said that one night he did walk the dog and it was "cool" outside, but another night it was raining and did not walk the dog. Your perception led you to believe these nights were consecutive and that it was getting colder. I for one enjoy warm rain, and who hasn't jumped in a creek or a lake fully clothed?

Sure circumstances dictate our actions, polite society, manners, a butt whoopin' from mom, etc. That's cause and effect, action and reaction. We know the difference between right and wrong, but knowing that doesn't change the fact we can choose to obey or disobey what is right or what is wrong. You can take a cold shower with your clothes on. The effect being you will be miserable and not get clean.

But I don't think that dictating circumstances change our choices or perceptions, they merely guide them, ready to be over ruled at any time based on a whim.

[jscheuer1]

The determinists would argue that these whims are also molded by circumstances, as are one's sense of right and wrong, a long chain of prior events that dictate what will happen next. I don't agree or disagree, it s very hard to prove one way or the other. Simply asserting one belief over the other doesn't change the implacable nature of this question.

[BLiZZaRD]

So then by a standard that all arguments are infallible and no one is right while no one is wrong, I would then pose this question:

If I do not believe in free will, and I choose to state my cases, aren't I expressing free will to state that I have none?

I hate picketing, but I don't know how to show it.

[jscheuer1]

So then by a standard that all arguments are infallible and no one is right while no one is wrong, I would then pose this question:

If I do not believe in free will, and I choose to state my cases, aren't I expressing free will to state that I have none?

I hate picketing, but I don't know how to show it.

I'm really not sure what you are saying/asking here. The question is unchanging in my opinion. There is no definitive right or wrong answer. It has always been so, ever since it was first conceived, and it will ever continue to be so, as long as there are those who argue with depth and passion on each side.

If you want or need an answer to it, you must make either a leap of faith or in some other way negate the validity of the opposing point of view. As human beings, we cannot get far enough outside of it to know the true empirical facts of the matter. We can choose to go with our guts, hearts, heads or hands, or any combination thereof, but there will be no unassailable proof, except perhaps in one's own terms.

I choose to largely ignore it. I opt personally for responsibility in my own actions, and for determinism in judging other's less stellar actions, because it works for me. If you want to know how someone else actually arrived at a given course of action though, or why they think that they did, that would require at least some investigation.

[BLiZZaRD]

I agree with you 100%. I am of the personality that I love a good debate. Even if I am wrong or on the side of something I don't 100% get behind I still like to hear your fight.

Currently at home I am debating the religion vs. evolution with a friend. I happen to believe in both, he is firmly against evolution. I however, like to see his mind work when I poke a small hole in his theory. Even if he is right, I still like to make him "earn" it.

Same here.

And what I was saying is that those that valiantly fight that there is NO free will are expressing free will to state their case. So in essence then there IS a free will, even for those that oppose the idea. On the flip side, one can argue that predeterminates made them state their case and in such a fashion those fighting FOR free will are using determinism to state free will, in which case there is none.

I just find it interesting that the turn can go either way as long as one side uses the others arguments.

[molendijk]

The whole discussion on determinism and free will reminds me of Russell's barber paradox. You will have heard of it. There is a barber who shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. Question: does the barber shave himself? Answer: impossible to say, since if the barber shaves himself, he doesn't shave himself, and if he doesn't shave himself, he shaves himself. If we put the barber AND all other men in one and the same 'domain of discussion', then we would have to conclude that that barber cannot exist, which is in contradiction with his being a member of a given set of people.

It also reminds me of this. If God is allmighty, then He must be able to create a rock whose weight is such that He cannot lift it, which, however, would make Him non-allmighty. Being allmighty, then, leads to 'non-allmightyness'.

The fascinating thing about humans is that they can 'invent' questions which they can never answer. The question about free will is such an unanswerable question (as Ives would say: an unanswered question).

By the way: I did not choose to be born in the first place, so I am rather pessimistic about my apparent freedom now. I may PERCEIVE what I do as resulting from a free will, but that doesn't prove anything.

[djr33]

With the initial conditions there, a computer would crash. A human would get tired of that and find a solution-- get his friend to shave him. Isn't that free will?

Good point with the rock. And for that matter who created God. Science? Random chance? God? His God?

Free will is reaching into the unknown; we cannot know what death is before we reach it; but if we came back, the answer would be simple, as it would be with this question if we were to reach there. As such, that's why this question is outside the range of reality and how it actually applies to our lives.


By the way: I did not choose to be born in the first place, so I am rather pessimistic about my apparent freedom now.Hmm... perhaps, then, the ultimate irony is that the only, perhaps, suicide would then be a way to have free will against being born, and once you've done that, you lose any free will.


Perception is truth, in our world. God may have a God, so he isn't really all powerful. To us, though, he is, if he does in fact exist. For this same reason, religious people have faith, not proof, because God, etc., cannot be fully understood from our perspective. So, perception IS everything. If you perceive free will, you have free will. But it might be controlled in a way beyond your comprehension, so, really, you're not free, but you're made to think you are.

Beyond the world we perceive, many things may or may not be true, and truth, existence and all other fundamental aspects upon which our lives are built are not only minuscule and limited, but probably wrong-- only right within the bounds. 1==1, absolutely, but only within math. Within greater bounds, such as all communication, 1 is not necessarily equal to 1, only in those bounds, and, ultimately, irrelevant, because "All communication" is about more than just a single expression, but the way it's expressed, how it changes, etc. All communication by default includes exceptions, so the included exceptions disprove 1==1, so it becomes irrelevant. But if you want to learn math or have it be useful in any sense, you must accept it.
So, stop doing anything right now and wait for it to all be over, or might as well get on pretending to be able to choose what you want-- for, in fact, you CAN choose to do anything you WANT, except that the want in the first place may be predetermined. But you still want it. In fact, inherently so.

Plus, hey, if you want to do nothing and you're predetermined to do stuff, you can't, right?

Might as well just get out there and have fun instead.

[jscheuer1]

I like the rock idea, but there must be some theological way around that one. If nothing else, then the fact that being almighty isn't necessarily about picking up rocks. If I can make the rock and destroy it, if I can command it, why do I need to pick it up? When you say that you didn't choose to be born, how do you know? Perhaps you did and forgot.

[molendijk]

... If I can make the rock and destroy it, if I can command it, why do I need to pick it up? When you say that you didn't choose to be born, how do you know? ...

You see? Unanswerable questions.

[So let nobody ever say that God exists (believers), nor that He does NOT exist (atheists); that everything was created (creationists) vs evolved by itself (evolutionists). You don't know, and never will (since you don't know what you are talking about), and that's fine].

Arie M.

[Twey]

If you want or need an answer to it, you must make either a leap of faith or in some other way negate the validity of the opposing point of view. As human beings, we cannot get far enough outside of it to know the true empirical facts of the matter. We can choose to go with our guts, hearts, heads or hands, or any combination thereof, but there will be no unassailable proof, except perhaps in one's own terms.That's true. However, Occam's razor would suggest that since we know the principle of cause and effect to be true (or at least, subjectively true enough that we make use of it in our daily lives, which is about as true as most things get), we shouldn't needlessly attempt to create a new principle to explain things that are already explained by that existing one.
If nothing else, then the fact that being almighty isn't necessarily about picking up rocks. If I can make the rock and destroy it, if I can command it, why do I need to pick it up?That's besides the point. "Almightiness," or to use a more technical term "omnipotence," is part of most monotheistic definitions of God. It means all-powerful, able to do anything. The "picking up a rock" thing is merely a limited example; of course an omnipotent being would have better things to do with its time than pick up rocks. The argument is that if God can do anything, God can create an entity which it cannot affect at all, thus negating its own omnipotence.

BLiZZaRD, you're missing the point a little. Determinists would say that their own belief in determinism and expression of that belief are all pre-determined.
[So let nobody ever say that God exists (believers), nor that He does NOT exist (atheists); that everything was created (creationists) vs evolved by itself (evolutionists). You don't know, and never will (since you don't know what you are talking about), and that's fine].This is a very absolute definition of "truth." Nobody uses an absolute definition of truth except foundationalists, since without a foundation nothing can ever be proven absolutely true. There are various principles that philosophers use to select a probable truth even when it's possible that other truths may exist, Occam's razor being one. Also see pragmatism, coherentism, &c.

[jscheuer1]

You don't know, and never will (since you don't know what you are talking about), and that's fine].

Arie M.

I know what I am talking about (what the subject at issue is), and I know that I don't know an incontrovertible answer I can provide to you or anyone. I also know that I may at some time or already know the incontrovertible answer.

[djr33]

The argument is that if God can do anything, God can create an entity which it cannot affect at all, thus negating its own omnipotence.Not necessarily. Isn't it more just that he is above all life as we know it, more powerful? After all, he apparently can't control our free will, or what we think, so that is limited in some sense. (Or, wait, is it that he can and chooses not to?)

[molendijk]

I know what I am talking about (what the subject at issue is), and I know that I don't know an incontrovertible answer I can provide to you or anyone. I also know that I may at some time or already know the incontrovertible answer.

Sorry John, there is a misunderstanding here. By 'you don't know ...' I didn't mean 'Scheuer doesn't know ...', but 'people in general don't know ...' My native language is Dutch; in Dutch you often use 'je' ('you') to refer to people in general (generic use).

Arie M.

[djr33]

We do as well; "you" is informally used to represent an example person. Formally, and usually excessively (but not in a philosophical argument, such as this, perhaps), "one" can be used.

"If one were to want free will and..."

[molendijk]

...This is a very absolute definition of "truth." Nobody uses an absolute definition of truth except foundationalists, since without a foundation nothing can ever be proven absolutely true. There are various principles that philosophers use to select a probable truth even when it's possible that other truths may exist, Occam's razor being one. Also see pragmatism, coherentism, &c.

I'm aware of that. I used 'truth' in its absolute sense precisely to make clear that you cannot be too absolute in your statements.

Arie M.

[BLiZZaRD]

Perhaps the barber is God, and therefore doesn't have to shave (even to remove hair).

[djr33]

What if the barber is a woman?


I don't like rules, as you might guess, so I argue with them. If that isn't free wil, then I don't know what would be. And, it is, within this context.

The question can be asked a different way, free will against what?

Rather than saying in a limited context, what exactly are you claiming we don't have free will for? Our destinies? Clearly we can't choose what happens in the future anyway. What is going to happen is going to happen. Back to string theory, it already exists in time. However, we very much can choose what we do at any given moment as we perceive time passing, and that is the definition of choose. Once you go beyond that scope or start relating it to forces we can't relate to, "choose" becomes obsolete and worthless-- sure, no free will then, but free will doesn't even exist as a concept at that point, so its absence doesn't either.

In some sense, and an interesting concept, we don't have free will against the most important thing-- ourselves. If we want something, we want it. One thing about life is that you can't choose to want something else. You can pretend, but you can't actually want to want something else-- that's just contradictory.

[molendijk]

Perhaps the barber is God, and therefore doesn't have to shave (even to remove hair).

Blizzard: exactly, that's what I was trying to say! In order to deal with the barber question, you must place the barber outside of the domain of discussion. That's also what Russell ment.

Arie M.

[molendijk]

What if the barber is a woman?
Then we replace 'shaves all the men' by 'shaves all the people'.

Arie M.

[BLiZZaRD]

What if the barber is a woman?

Women still shave (just not the face) OR do you mean to imply that God cannot be a woman?

I would assume to read the question where "man" refers to mankind, the species as a whole, not "male" which I suppose is inferred.

[molendijk]

...Clearly we can't choose what happens in the future anyway. What is going to happen is going to happen. Back to string theory, it already exists in time...

That creates another question: does time exist independently of 'things that happen'? If nothing happens, will there be time? But that's perhaps something for another thread.

Arie M.

[djr33]

Seemed it was setup discussing only the face, though perhaps I was just under the wrong impression.

No, it's the same thread, and what I've been saying for many posts.

Our perception includes free will. I think we can all agree on that.

But it might not exist in a bigger sense. In that bigger sense, things are so weird, though, that it becomes irrelevant. Suddenly, time is different, God is just a guy sitting next to you, and life is unraveled, into something that is just an aspect of "the great beyond".

ONLY outside the level in which we exist is free will possibly controlled. To us, it doesn't matter, then, unless you just want to have an emotional reaction to how you feel about it... "oh, wah, no free will, so I don't really want what I feel... it's just that I'm supposed to want ice cream... wah... I don't like ice cream now"
//shrug

It's interesting, though.

As animals, our main goal is to reproduce-- to have sex.

So, do we desire sex? Do we even like sex? Well, sure. But do we choose that? No. Is it "good"? Well, sure, because we like it. But is it a choice? No. Can we choose to not have sex? Yes. Will we want to? Probably.
But, in our context, it exists as something we want, so do you fight that just because it's given to you as a desire? You still do want it, unless you choose to not want it because you don't want to be "controlled" by something or someone that may not exist.