Free will

[RozKek]

Some people are so disturbed by the idea of the illusion of freewill that they will do anything, including redefine words, lie to themselves and others, in order to maintain the illusion

We are little robots going through the motions. Our consciousness is almost like a passenger inside us, just observing as things that are determined to happen, happen.  We control none of it.  Under extreme duress, sometimes the illusion is wiped away and you can actually feel yourself doing things without your own control, and you may see past the illusion.  I honestly believe this is one of the "enlightenment's" that many eastern religions try to get people to experience, because it is humbling to realize you aren't really different from a rock, or a tree, or the animals you eat. That's getting a bit philosophical though.

I myself don't believe in free will, I don't believe that we decide our will etc but I'd still say semantics are important. I like to say I am my brain. I'm fine with either way anyway.

[Aroura]

Some people are so disturbed by the idea of the illusion of freewill that they will do anything, including redefine words, lie to themselves and others, in order to maintain the illusion

We are little robots going through the motions. Our consciousness is almost like a passenger inside us, just observing as things that are determined to happen, happen.  We control none of it.  Under extreme duress, sometimes the illusion is wiped away and you can actually feel yourself doing things without your own control, and you may see past the illusion.  I honestly believe this is one of the "enlightenment's" that many eastern religions try to get people to experience, because it is humbling to realize you aren't really different from a rock, or a tree, or the animals you eat. That's getting a bit philosophical though.

I myself don't believe in free will, I don't believe that we decide our will etc but I'd still say semantics are important. I like to say I am my brain. I'm fine with either way anyway.

Oh, I agree that we are our brains. I just mean that part which manifests itself as consciousness feels seperate, and can alter our perceptions of free will quite drastically, depending on the experience.
I'm no dualist. Our language is dualistic though, and it can be difficult to find accurate phrasing when I'm talking about both myself and the functioning of theach brain that is me simultaneously.

My brain...this phrase is really funny, but it can be hard to work around.

[IATIA]

Your god cannot see the future of free will.  If your god can monitor and calculate every single wave/particle reaction/event, then your god will know what will happen, but then we are merely puppets of determinism.

I have no idea how God knows the future. He can certainly monitor and calculate every reaction/event if He chooses to. But what are you actually saying? You seem to be implying that we are puppets of determinism whether God has foreknowledge or not. What do you actually think? Are we robots or are we free?

Robots.

If your god can 'see' into the future, then it must have already happened and again, we are merely puppets, but this time of history.  Your perception may give you the appearance of free will, but it cannot be so as you are just playing out a history that has already happened ...

I have already answered this line of thinking several times. Knowledge of the past does not change the nature of the past. I am in the present, and I know what I did yesterday of my own free will. My knowledge today doesn't change the nature of the free will that I exercised yesterday, even if I recorded myself yesterday and replay it today to watch myself make my choices all over again. Remember, in your conception of time, our present is what you are currently calling our future, so my example of my own history is entirely applicable.

L e t - m e - t r y - t h i s - r e a l - s l o w.  T o - s e e - i n t o - t h e - f u t u r e - r e q u i r e s - t h e - f u t u r e - t o - e x i s t.  I f - t h e - f u t u r e - e x i s t s, - t h e n - w e - a r e - i n - t h e - p a s t - a n d - e v e r y - d e c i s i o n - t h a t - w e - w i l l - e v e r - m a k e - h a s - a l r e a d y - h a p p e n e d - a n d - w e - h a v e - n o - c h o i c e - b u t - t o - f o l l o w - t h e - p r o g r a m - t h a t - h a s - a l r e a d y - h a p p e n e d.

... or are simply a product of determined quantum reactions.  Free will would, by definition, force a random variable into the universe and that cannot be known until it happens or it is not free will.

No. Free will does not by definition force a random variable into the universe. Randomness is not freedom. Will is not random. A robot has no will at all. A robot with a random number generator in its controller is still a robot. It has not suddenly gained free will.

Did you actually read what you just wrote?

Free will is unpredictable.  There are two red glasses before you on the table.  Both are exactly the same.  Which one will you pick?  The choice is 50/50.  There is no way to determine which you will pick (under a free will scenario).  Whether you pick the one on the left or the one on the right will change the air currents, photon paths, gravitational field, etc. and that change will continue on for the life of the universe.  That is a random variable.  From the perspective of the universe, eventually every part of the universe will be touched by your choice.

[Edwardo Piet]

Shadow Man is so silly. Silly is good.

[Shadow_Man]

Jörmungandr,

Mularkey.

Is that how you spell that? I always wondered.

There's a reason why decisions made under duress have lesser consequences in law than those freely made. Our ability to control the outcome is compromised by duress. The individual coercing another has usurped control. I can't imagine any greater duress than the threat of an eternal punishment.

Your analogy fails because you are applying it incorrectly. Duress only applies when you are forced to commit a crime and then punished for commiting that crime. That is not what is happening.

The law applies the carrot and the stick to encourage good behavior, rewarding the good and punishing the bad. God does too.

The law applying the carrot and the stick does not rob you of your free will. Neither does God.

Our ability to control the outcome is compromised by duress.

Free will does not demand that we are able to control the outcome - only that we have the ability to make up our own mind and make our own choices within our ability to enact them. Outcomes are frequently beyond our control.

Your statement is pure poppycock.

The proof is in the pudding. My statement remains true despite your protest. The world in general, and this message board in particular, stand as evidence to its veracity. 5 years of being here is long enough for you to have seen it with your own eyes. You can imagine no greater coercion, yet even that does not rob your companions of their free will and choice to reject Heaven and embrace hell.

Regards,
Shadow_Man

[Angrboda]

The proof is in the pudding. My statement remains true despite your protest. The world in general, and this message board in particular, stand as evidence to its veracity. 5 years of being here is long enough for you to have seen it with your own eyes. You can imagine no greater coercion, yet even that does not rob your companions of their free will and choice to reject Heaven and embrace hell.

Few people reject heaven and embrace hell. The majority simply believe the threat, heaven and hell, isn't real. You're conflating not believing with believing but rejecting. If I truly believed I was bound for hell, you can bet that would be a strong influence on my behavior. This isn't the carrot and stick of law but rather a terroristic threat designed to cow the believer into submission. And that I have seen in my five years. It's the very foundation of Pascal's wager. No matter how you try to minimize it, it still remains a powerful, behavior modifying threat to the believer. It's a form of duress, plain and simple.

[Shadow_Man]

Alasdair Ham,

If determinism is true, libertarian free will cannot exist because libertarian free will implies by definition the ability to be able to have done otherwise. It would imply that someone could have done differently. Determinism by definition implies that no one and nothing can be different than one determined path. So determinism and libertarian free will are logically incompatible.

Ok. Let me see if I have this right.
Libertarian Free Will  = we could have done otherwise.
Determinism = prior causes produce one and only one possible outcome.
Right?

If indeterminism is true, libertarian free will cannot exist because indeterminsm means nothing and no one can be determined, which implies that no one can freely will or in other words determine their own behavior, which implies that there is no libertarian free will.

Here is where I am having a problem. If I have the definition of Determinism correct, then it would seem that the definition of Indeterminism would have to be -
Indeterminism = prior causes can produce any number of possible outcomes.

Therefore libertarian free will does not exist.

Which would seem to allow that we could have done otherwise, and that Libertarian Free Will can exist.

"Will"=Willpower. The dictionary can define that one, same for "free". "Free will" is a willpower that is free. A compatabilist believes that free will is compatible with determinism, but the only kind of will compatible with determinism is the will with the kind of freedom that no one doubts humans have -- just normal human willpower. The only "free" added to that beyond that could be libertarian free will, which is impossible as explained above. Without that it's just ordinary willpower. So compatabilists may call it "free will" but they're just talking about ordinary willpower and calling it "free". That is why I personally think it's silly.

When I speak of free will, I am speaking of our ability to make up our own minds and make our own choices within our ability to enact them. It includes the concept that we could have done otherwise. In your definitions, does that correspond to Libertarian Free Will, what you are calling Normal Human Willpower, or something else entirely?

Do you define Normal Human Willpower to allow that we could have done otherwise? If so, is there some other characteristic of Libertarian Free Will that sets it apart from Normal Human Willpower?

I am not aware of what Dyresand is or isn't doing.

I thought that perhapse you were reading the thread, noticed dyresand's appeal to authority, and confused the two of us. In retrospect, I should not have said anything about it. My bad.

I'm not accusing anyone of an irrelevant appeal to authority. My post was just a general statement of my opinions on the matter, it was not aimed at anyone in particular. I know you think and speak for yourself and I'm sorry that I made you feel otherwise. That was not the intention I had in mind at all. I wasn't even talking to you specifically. I was just posting my opinions.

You came up in an alert that said you had quoted me, so I assumed you were talking to me specifically. No problem.

I'm more than happy to not swear when talking to you, at least during this conversation ...

Thank you.

-- but don't expect me to remember anywhere outside this specific conversation.

I can barely remember who I am, let alone who other people are from thread to thread, so each thread being a world unto itself is fine with me.

Regards,
Shadow_Man

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm tired and drunk but I don't want to forget to respond to you, I hope to give you a better response at anotehr time.

For now I will say that:

Indeterminism implies literally that we "could have done otherwise" but as I said above it also implies that we cannot determine ourselves and therefore can't will ourselves. "could have done otherwise" is more than just the literal meaning, it means "could have done otherwise using ones own will, could have willed it the way we chose it to be willed", the kind of "could have done otherwise" in indeterminism is the same kind of "could have done otherwise" that a bunch of dice or a roulette real has, that's not free will.

Hammy

[Mudhammam]

So get this god is all knowing he knew humanity would fall he knows what everyone at any given point and time would be doing 
something. so even if we wanted to live a "sinless" life it would be purely impossible. Since god would know our actions a head of time
that being said free will is just a illusion and were all drones. Free will if a god existed the chirstian god it simply doesn't exist only 
the illusion of free will does.

Evidence?

[dyresand]

So get this god is all knowing he knew humanity would fall he knows what everyone at any given point and time would be doing 
something. so even if we wanted to live a "sinless" life it would be purely impossible. Since god would know our actions a head of time
that being said free will is just a illusion and were all drones. Free will if a god existed the chirstian god it simply doesn't exist only 
the illusion of free will does.

Evidence?

I don't believe in god but the general question goes is god all knowing yes or no?