Do you believe in free will?

[everythingafter]

Yeah it's strange isn't it that computers were created by intelligent beings and according to you the human brain was created by pure intelligence and yet the brain far exceeds any technology or human invention ever intelligently designed.
But if the brain was not the act of intelligence what reason do we have for trusting it? And I mean if we don't really have free will and our brains were created by unintelligence and we are not really guided by intelligence we are simply being controlled by deterministic natural laws I just don't see why we should trust anything.

You must have missed my meaning. I didn't say the human brain was created by "pure intelligence," unless by that term you mean selective "intelligence" inherent in natural selection. Human brains came about — I wouldn't like to say "created" — by the same natural forces as every other brain in the animal kingdom. Some brains, indeed, can't be trusted (terrorists, extremists), while others, generally law-abiding citizens can, until they give us a reason not to trust them. Nonbelievers have free will to do whatever they want as long as they accept the positive or negative consequences. Indeed, it's in their best interests to act as polite and civil members of society, but they are free to carry on with any other behavior if they wish.

Believers, on the other hand, don't have free will because, at least from the Christian view, you either believe and have eternal life or don't believe and perish in eternal separation from God. There are no other options. You can't "opt out" as it were of the whole eternal life thing and simply choose to die a mortal death like dogs or cats, for even nonbelievers, according to doctrine, are eternal beings as well ... it's just that their eternity will be filled with weeping and gnashing of teeth. As the popular mural goes: "Heaven or Hell. It's your choice." While this presents the illusion of some kind of free will, it's not really free will because of the lack of a third or fourth or fifth option. God doesn't really let us choose, for the consequences and causes of each possible choice predate the choice itself. "Created sick, but commanded to be made well ..."

[jason56]

Everything is random. The universe is random, the Earth forming was random, life on Earth was random, this forum is random, so this message I'm typing is random.

I shouldn't even be here. I was one of millions of random sperms.

The only need for order is within the human mind, by chance.

There's a cheery thought. Tune in for more cheery thoughts by me, randomly in the future.

[Anomalocaris]

It seems like that is the only option if materialism is true, however it just doesn't seem like that explanation fits in with the universal experience of free will. I mean if an object is dropped it must necessarily fall to the ground because of gravity. But there is no physical law that makes it necessary for me to post on this forum, it seems like I freely chose to do it myself.

Any way if any one feels up to it please explain your thoughts on the topic for me. Thanks

What experience? Having "freely" chosen to post on this forum at that point in time, pray demonstrate that at that same point in time you were in fact also free to "freely" choose another course.

[Edwardo Piet]

Everything is random.

Probabilistic you mean? Some things are more likely than others.

[jason56]

Everything is random.

Probabilistic you mean? Some things are more likely than others.

Yeah, you definitely need rules and therefore probability, otherwise people start walking on water when you're not looking.

but nothing is definite, I meant.

I posted this in the wrong thread anyway. or did I even have a choice?

Yes - that's all I've got.

[Angrboda]

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. It may, however, be more accurate to say that compatibilists define "free will" in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism (in the same way that incompatibilists define "free will" such that it cannot). Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situation for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics. For instance, courts of law make judgments about whether individuals are acting under their own free will under certain circumstances without bringing in metaphysics. Similarly, political liberty is a non-metaphysical concept. Likewise, compatibilists define free will as freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals. In contrast, the incompatibilist positions are concerned with a sort of "metaphysically free will," which compatibilists claim has never been coherently defined.

This is a well developed area of philosophy and I would suggest that instead of posing ill formed and banal arguments that you actually do some reading. I would start with Daniel Dennett's excellent Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting (it's a slender volume at 172 pages, but not necessarily an easy read; it's quite densely argued). I have read good reviews of The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, yet not having read it, am unsure how much is devoted to compatibilism (looking at the table of contents, 40 pp devoted to determinism, 54 pp to incompatibilism, and 100 pp to compatibilism).

Other resources are Daniel Dennett and Chris Taylor's essay Whose Afraid of Determinism (in Oxford) or that I just found yet haven't read (it appears to be a book excerpt on Dennett's compatibilism).

I myself lean strongly in the direction of incompatibilism - I don't think free will exists; since it doesn't exist, there is nothing to explain. However, I would be happy to see someone, anyone, propose a coherent concept of free will. I don't think that the free will traditionalists have really done so. You seem to be asserting that you feel free choice is a pre-condition of rationality. I say bollocks. Perhaps you would like to explain what aspect of rationality requires free choice? I don't think there is one.

(It might also prove fruitful for you to acquire a passing familiarity with David Lewis' work on contrafactuals.)

[The Grand Nudger]

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

October2010? Oh fuck. That means I have almost certainly already commented.

Latter day comnents removed.

[Nine]

Time vortex?

[Angrboda]

The hell? That came up under "Today's Posts". Fuckin evil afoot.