Free Will - Yes/No?

[RozKek]

I don't know either way.  I go about my days believing that free will is definitely real because the idea of determinism makes me feel unmotivated.

Why? Even given determinism, you still can do what you want to do.

This 1000 times. You can still do what you want to do it's just you don't decide what you want to do... Unless your will is to not be happy there shouldn't be any worries. If your will is to be happy you'll do stuff that makes you happy, it doesn't matter whether it was your free decision to want to be happy or not.

[IATIA]

How does randomness exclude determinism, exactly? What does it matter that you can't predict the effect, there's still going to be an effect and you're going to be bound by it.

Determinism is predictable, random is unpredictable, free will is unpredictable.  Whether it is determinate, random or free will, one is still bound by the outcome.

I need a six.  I roll the dice and get a six.  Was that predictable?  Did I make the dice come up six?  Whether it was determinate or random, I still won.

Free will is not provable by the result.  Only the cause can prove it one way or the other.

Yes I did.  You are just being obtuse,

I said the same thing Sam did, albeit more technical and much less eloquent.

You never even approached the subject.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-42978-po...pid1269322

http://atheistforums.org/thread-42978-po...pid1269354

http://atheistforums.org/thread-42978-po...pid1269415

http://atheistforums.org/thread-42978-po...pid1269430

http://atheistforums.org/thread-42978-po...pid1269530

[emjay]

I think the problem with compatablist free will is that it's a definition of free will so undeniably true that it doesn't even address the question. No one even doubts that kind of free will anyway, it's undeniable we all make decisions and have choices and they're not always coerced. That's basically redefining the will everyone believes in from "will"  to "free will".  Compatabilist free will is like saying "people open doors with their hands" when a bunch of other people are asking if doors can be opened with telekinesis and some people are trying to tell them that it's not possible.

-Hammy

Was this addressed at me?

[Edwardo Piet]

Nothing exists outside the mind, to argue otherwise is completely irrational.

LOL that that's hilarious. So I take it you don't believe in evolution then because as far as you are concerned nothing existed until minds capable of conceptualizing existence existed...

Existence is a mental concept.

No the concept of existence is a concept. Existence is not a concept. The concept of existence is a concept. A cup of coffee is not a concept. The concept of a cup of coffee is a concept. Love is not a concept. The concept of love is a concept. God is not a concept. The concept of God is a concept. Superman is not a concept. The concept of superman is a concept. A cheeseburger is not a concept. The concept of a cheeseburger is a concept. [fill in the blank] is not a concept. The concept of [blank] is a concept. Existence and essence are separate, what something is and whether it exists is a separate question. Get it yet?

Without the mind, there are no mental concepts. Thus no existence.

Without the mind, there are no mental concepts. Thus no concept of existence.
Without the mind there is still the rest of reality. Thus there is an existence (besides again, what on earth would the nonexistence of existence itself be?).

I don't believe objective reality doesn't exist outside the mind, I know for a fact it doesn't.

If you redefine existence to mean "the concept of existence", sure. But if the concept of existence is existence then wouldn't that make the concept of that be the concept of the concept of existence? Furthermore what about actual existence, actual objective reality? Do you call that reality but like to redefine existence as "the concept of existence" so if it's a concept what is it a concept of? Itself? But it itself is a concept so it's a concept of a concept of itself? That's completely vacuous EP.

Are you saying objective reality is identical with the concept of objective reality?

Again, it's pretty simple, you're just over-complicating stuff.

You're confusing terms. If "existence" is just a concept then what is it a concept of? And what is actual objective reality indepndent of whether minds exist then, what would you call that? Would you not call that "existence"?

-Hammy

[Edwardo Piet]

I think the problem with compatablist free will is that it's a definition of free will so undeniably true that it doesn't even address the question. No one even doubts that kind of free will anyway, it's undeniable we all make decisions and have choices and they're not always coerced. That's basically redefining the will everyone believes in from "will"  to "free will".  Compatabilist free will is like saying "people open doors with their hands" when a bunch of other people are asking if doors can be opened with telekinesis and some people are trying to tell them that it's not possible.

-Hammy

Was this addressed at me?

Nah that's just addressed to the thread as a whole

You say you're a hard determinist, so I'm sure you'd agree with me here then anyway. Compatablism which I don't agree with, is soft determinism

-Hammy

[Edwardo Piet]

Why? Even given determinism, you still can do what you want to do.

This 1000 times. You can still do what you want to do it's just you don't decide what you want to do... Unless your will is to not be happy there shouldn't be any worries. If your will is to be happy you'll do stuff that makes you happy, it doesn't matter whether it was your free decision to want to be happy or not.

This is all undeniable anyway, no one besides a total fatalist doubts compatablist free will. The problem is it completely sidesteps the question in regards to incompatabilist free will, as a lot of people really do believe we can do otherwise in a more ultimate sense. It's not at all that compatabilist free will is not true the problem is that it's trivially true. Of course our conscious desires affect us and of course our choices and decisions are real, they're just not ultimately and absolutely free. Relative freedom was never into question. The problem is many people do believe we are ultimately and absolutely free.

-Hammy

[Excited Penguin]

How does randomness exclude determinism, exactly? What does it matter that you can't predict the effect, there's still going to be an effect and you're going to be bound by it.

Determinism is predictable, random is unpredictable, free will is unpredictable.  Whether it is determinate, random or free will, one is still bound by the outcome.

I need a six.  I roll the dice and get a six.  Was that predictable?  Did I make the dice come up six?  Whether it was determinate or random, I still won.

Free will is not provable by the result.  Only the cause can prove it one way or the other.

You never even approached the subject.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-42978-po...pid1269322

http://atheistforums.org/thread-42978-po...pid1269354

http://atheistforums.org/thread-42978-po...pid1269415

http://atheistforums.org/thread-42978-po...pid1269430

http://atheistforums.org/thread-42978-po...pid1269530

Still didn't answer my question, strangely enough.

[emjay]

Was this addressed at me?

Nah that's just addressed to the thread as a whole

You say you're a hard determinist, so I'm sure you'd agree with me here then anyway. Compatablism which I don't agree with, is soft determinism

-Hammy

Okay, just looking up the definition of that, do you think I come across more as a soft determinist? I see it that from the perspective of the system (ie us) there is free will but that's part of its 'design'... in reality it's all a play, both what's on stage and the audience.

[paulpablo]

I don't know either way.  I go about my days believing that free will is definitely real because the idea of determinism makes me feel unmotivated.

Why? Even given determinism, you still can do what you want to do.

My mindset when it comes to free will vs determinism basically boils down to.

1) It's not an important question, we're here now, let's get on with it.

2) Because I care so little about if we have free will or if everything is determined and I'm not intelligent enough to fathom proof for either side and I have 0 motivation to look over all the proof for either side, I'm basically just going to pick the option which I feel psychologically makes me feel better.

For me everything being predetermined, the idea of it, takes away the passion I have for life.  Like if a warrior is a believer of determinism and he goes to the battlefield wondering "Hmmm I wonder who will be predetermined to win this battle."  I think it will be detrimental to his frame of mind as opposed to a warrior who is set on a achieving a personal victory and doesn't just see the battle as a bunch of predetermined statistics and numbers.

If this question wasn't asked in a thread on this forum I'd just totally ignore it because I don't give a shit about the answer of free will vs determinism, but since the question is being asked and I do sometimes consider the question to myself this is my answer and I fully admit my answer is based purely on emotion and psychology.

[PETE_ROSE]

Yes.  Having foreknowledge of things does not shape or change the inevitable outcome.  Knowing Alabama is going to trounce LSU in their own house come November, does not mean they should/will not play the game.

Regardless how 'educated a guess' that is, it is still a guess as you do not "know".  A couple of bad bounces for Alabama and a couple of good bounces for LSU and  we have an upset.

But as the question of free will relates to a pre-determined universe, where the creator has written the beginning and the end, knowledge of events does not negate the decisions and actions of the players within it. Thus the creator has foreknowledge that Alabama will (and already has, due to the foreknowledge, it merely hasn't come to pass in our timeline) thrash LSU by at a score of 42-18 in November 2016.