Free Will (again)

I'm a little unclear on exactly what is considered in the confines of free will, because I have an example that should make it clear that we have free will, if this example is included in that definition.

So, would this count:

If I think of an abstract concept, like for example, free will, and then I post my thoughts about it on a philosophy forum. (Forgive the simplicity, its late.)
Is this action of posting my thoughts, about an abstract concept mind you, considered an action we can debate about? If so, I think it proves free will--at least to a certain extent. We would be free in our choices when they are governed by reason.

Let me give a better example: I come to the conclusion that God does not exist and thus there is no such thing as sin. I then proceed to the nearest house of pleasure and get my fill. Now it was my reasoning that motivated me to do what I did, and then I made a choice based on it. Before I reasoned this, I wouldn't have gone because it would've been against my values.

PS: When you forget to put the subject line in and just wrote a lot in a post, it is frustrating having to type it all over again. Perhaps something the webmaster should look into fixing.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little unclear on exactly what is considered in the confines of free will, because I have an example that should make it clear that we have free will, if this example is included in that definition.

So, would this count:

If I think of an abstract concept, like for example, free will, and then I post my thoughts about it on a philosophy forum. (Forgive the simplicity, its late.)
Is this action of posting my thoughts, about an abstract concept mind you, considered an action we can debate about? If so, I think it proves free will--at least to a certain extent. We would be free in our choices when they are governed by reason.

Let me give a better example: I come to the conclusion that God does not exist and thus there is no such thing as sin. I then proceed to the nearest house of pleasure and get my fill. Now it was my reasoning that motivated me to do what I did, and then I made a choice based on it. Before I reasoned this, I wouldn't have gone because it would've been against my values.

PS: When you forget to put the subject line in and just wrote a lot in a post, it is frustrating having to type it all over again. Perhaps something the webmaster should look into fixing.

[/ QUOTE ]I believe you are correct on the two main important accounts regarding freewill questions. All of your actions are determined untill you choose to reason for yourself. I'm surprised more people do not see this.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this action of posting my thoughts, about an abstract concept mind you, considered an action we can debate about? If so, I think it proves free will--at least to a certain extent.

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems like you are just assuming the conclusion and begging the question, but maybe I misunderstood your example.

[ QUOTE ]
Now it was my reasoning that motivated me to do what I did, and then I made a choice based on it. Before I reasoned this, I wouldn't have gone because it would've been against my values.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure how this gets you to free will. Why did you reason the way you did?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure how this gets you to free will. Why did you reason the way you did?

[/ QUOTE ] Not only can your values be changed as was shown in the example, but so can your abilty to reason be changed and improved. How it gets to free will is a certain point one has the ability to accept or reject the percieved input. Freewill is what arises out of a infinte recursive loop in learning and percieving. When we examine a certain situation, we take different perspectives of the world and the try to see if it fits for the given situtation. When we find a good fit, we use that perspective. If the situation turns out the way we liked, we stenghten that perspective of the world that we used. And if it doesn't turn out the way we like we lessen our use of that perspective. We can control the perspectives we are able to use, and we can control the output that we would like to see, but only after, in most cases, we realize that we are being determined. At a certain point free-will and determinism becomes a chicken and egg game. People like to compare us to an advanced computer, but one difference between us and computers is the ability to choose the learning data, and disregard some learnt information because it to much work to make the changes that are required. The more you know about just how you are determined the more free-will you have. But don't worry there are alot of people who choose not to accept all that is required to actualy have free-will, because it is to difficult, instead they say it is an illusion. And they are of course right, it is to much work for not enough gain, if you are happy in your life, with your beliefs to change them, regardless if they are right or wrong.

As far as I understand, the advocates of theories that negate free will are not basing their 'theories' on philosophical grounds, but on the grounds of physics, chemistry and all other sciences that regards reaction/action in matter/energy.

As such, you in order to prove such a theory right you must fail to prove it wrong. If you want it proven wrong, just prove it wrong but sadly I think that is beyond the scope of philosophical insight, you'll need hard science.

As far as philosophy goes, it is fairly clear to everyone that we seem to possess a free choice of action in our everyday lives and as such, we can probably happily disregard the 'materialist' view, because it doesn't matter for us.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little unclear on exactly what is considered in the confines of free will, because I have an example that should make it clear that we have free will, if this example is included in that definition.

So, would this count:

If I think of an abstract concept, like for example, free will, and then I post my thoughts about it on a philosophy forum. (Forgive the simplicity, its late.)
Is this action of posting my thoughts, about an abstract concept mind you, considered an action we can debate about? If so, I think it proves free will--at least to a certain extent. We would be free in our choices when they are governed by reason.

Let me give a better example: I come to the conclusion that God does not exist and thus there is no such thing as sin. I then proceed to the nearest house of pleasure and get my fill. Now it was my reasoning that motivated me to do what I did, and then I made a choice based on it. Before I reasoned this, I wouldn't have gone because it would've been against my values.

PS: When you forget to put the subject line in and just wrote a lot in a post, it is frustrating having to type it all over again. Perhaps something the webmaster should look into fixing.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the "I" that chooses? If it is something other than the sum of the physical phenomena that constitute one's body, then it is supernatural. If not, then free will is an illusion. Science can't help us with this question.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If I think of an abstract concept, like for example, free will, and then I post my thoughts about it on a philosophy forum. (Forgive the simplicity, its late.)
Is this action of posting my thoughts, about an abstract concept mind you, considered an action we can debate about? If so, I think it proves free will--at least to a certain extent. We would be free in our choices when they are governed by reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Just because we are unaware of the processes behind our choices does not make them free. A robot programmed with a random number generator, who is unaware of the program, will produce numbers seemingly independantly of causality, and thus would have the illusion of free will.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me give a better example: I come to the conclusion that God does not exist and thus there is no such thing as sin. I then proceed to the nearest house of pleasure and get my fill.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just smacks of causality.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
PS: When you forget to put the subject line in and just wrote a lot in a post, it is frustrating having to type it all over again. Perhaps something the webmaster should look into fixing.

[/ QUOTE ]

EF,

I usually type my post in Word, then copy and paste. Mostly I do this because I can’t spell and use the spell check. Also, for reasons similar to what you just said.

RJT

[carlo]

Free will should be considered from the two aspects, freedom and will.

That we are "will full" is apparent from our earthly life and in fact is that which describes(manifests) our individuality. ONe may build a bridge, compose a symphony or meditate on the ethereal and in each case we would be manifesting our will. Physiologically an expression of this will can be seen in our appendages especially our legs. In our "will full" activities is where we define our individuality.

The question of freedom cannot be extracted from our will which is very much a question of desire but will have to be clarified as that which guides this will. The clearest aspect of the human being is his thinking. That man is sure of his thoughts is apparent especially on this forum and we would say that the "will full" impulses can be guided by our thinking and indeed they are. Move your arms and a thought will preceed the movement but the mystery of the will manifests here as the connection between thought and movement of the arms becomes apparent. Man thinks his activity and guides the will in activities external or internal to his being.

One can see that in order to be "free" one must know that one is free as well as act in freedom. An example is the acceptance of the the commandment "thou shall not kill". If one accepts this as a part of a religious credo within fear then one is not acting in freedom but compulsion. It can then be said that this person is not acting in freedom. "Thought Full" consideration of the commandmant in thinking can lead one to conclude that "this is a good idea" and this person enters into an activity of freedom by being a "knowing doer". In subscribing to any creed, political system, race,folk, nationality,etc. systems of beliefs we act under compulsion but in "thinking into" the particular credo and experiencing it in thinking we will be acting in freedom.

It goes without saying that we are all a combination of free and unfree activities and in fact this is an evolutionary aspect of man in which he becomes "more free" in love.

The moral tenets of humankind are brought to us by human individualities such as Moses or Buddha who are able to rise to a thinking which creates newly that for which mankind is ready. All the various systems and creeds are brought to us by men, acting freely in an experience of thought and in this aspect we obtain the moral maxims of man. That this changes is obvious as we would not necessarily follow the moral activity of 3000 years ago unless it were pertinant to our melieu. Therefore we have the evolution of morals brought to us by human individualities.

It also goes without saying that in each individual act in our lives we can make a moral creation of our own which can be free or unfree and in a real sense act as Moses or the Buddha did by "working out" our own freedom in activity. We too, in creative thinking produce the moral tone of our lives and are able to do this irrespective of any compulsion from without or within.

carlo

[carlo]

I believe you are stating that free will is the ability to choose but this too is an abstraction. There is no moral activity in this concept of free will. One can state that a criminal who performs a henious deed is acting in free will which is not the case. In the performance of the henious deed there is a diminished activity of knowing(one can say he is clouded in his understanding) and is therefore acting under compulsion.

Free will does not exist without the moral tonality of man.

carlo

[DougShrapnel]

I am stating that free will is an emergent property. I am stating, free will is the controling of the input, and the wieghting.

[ QUOTE ]
One can state that a criminal who performs a henious deed is acting in free will which is not the case. the performance of the henious deed there is a diminished activity of knowing(one can say he is clouded in his understanding) and is therefore acting under compulsion.


[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure why this matters? Sometimes murder is commited with free-will, we calll this premeditated murder, other times it's not, we hold the person responsible regardless.

[ QUOTE ]
Free will does not exist without the moral tonality of man.


[/ QUOTE ] Cetainly correlation, but not causation.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little unclear on exactly what is considered in the confines of free will, because I have an example that should make it clear that we have free will, if this example is included in that definition.

So, would this count:

If I think of an abstract concept, like for example, free will, and then I post my thoughts about it on a philosophy forum. (Forgive the simplicity, its late.)
Is this action of posting my thoughts, about an abstract concept mind you, considered an action we can debate about?

[/ QUOTE ]


You posted your thoughts about an abstract concept so what is there to debate about. Who could argue you DIDN'T make the post?

[ QUOTE ]
I think it proves free will--at least to a certain extent. We would be free in our choices when they are governed by reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

The premise is false so this conclusion doesn't follow from it.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me give a better example: I come to the conclusion that God does not exist and thus there is no such thing as sin. I then proceed to the nearest house of pleasure and get my fill. Now it was my reasoning that motivated me to do what I did, and then I made a choice based on it. Before I reasoned this, I wouldn't have gone because it would've been against my values.

[/ QUOTE ]

It felt like you made a rational chioce. The feeling that you have free will is pure illusion

[bearly]

oh gosh, for the last 4 posters: has anyone read aristotle? how can we talk about free will until we have some concept or definition of the agent who is supposed to have this free will? "dimished capacity"? we have to nail down the "capacity" first. also, if anyone wants to see where all this can lead, read some works by (or a synopsis of)those who describe thenselves as epiphenomonologists. last: what in the world is "the moral tonality of man"?...........b

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
oh gosh, for the last 4 posters: has anyone read aristotle? how can we talk about free will until we have some concept or definition of the agent who is supposed to have this free will? "dimished capacity"? we have to nail down the "capacity" first. also, if anyone wants to see where all this can lead, read some works by (or a synopsis of)those who describe thenselves as epiphenomonologists. last: what in the world is "the moral tonality of man"?...........b

[/ QUOTE ]I have forgeten almost all of what I have read from aristole. But what I can remeber is that what aristole believed is most likely inadequate, he just didn't have the ammount of knowledge required yet.

[bearly]

oh my, that can be said for all of us. you missed the point: that is, aristotle clearly showed the need to start w/ a definition of "human", "moral agent" and the like. for discussions at the level of this forum that is all important to get all of us on "the same page" so to speak. if you are truly concerned w/ having "adequate knowledge" then ratchet this discussion up about 10 notches and go to subjects such as psycho-linguistics, phenomenology and conciousness,heck, just bring it up to the wittgenstein of the "investigations". you can't have it both ways: that is , decree what ammount of knowledge is too little, and also claim to know how much knowledge is enough............b

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why this matters? Sometimes murder is commited with free-will, we calll this premeditated murder, other times it's not, we hold the person responsible regardless

[/ QUOTE ]

That we hold the person responsible is true but does not imply that he acted freely. To act in error is the face of the question of good and evil. It is evident that to perform a murder is in error and that is why our legal system punishes/etc..

To live in "darkness" is the error and obviates our acting in freedom.

I'm trying not to let this spread out too far but if you will, coming to the concept of error as not acting in freedom, may give a start.

I believe there was a post earlier where the poster talked with James Woods who stated that when he played the villan he worked through the idea that even the most foul bird believed he was doing right. Reality is much like this as we all can only be right in our thoughts but by thinking through the "thought full" activity we come to and exercise and indeed live in freedom.

There are many clouds which obscure this activity such as hate, envy, anger,etc. Working through these impediments in clarified thinking is to act in freedom.

carlo

p.s. The concept of free will as an "emergent property" as stated in your post is certainly in keeping with the evolution of morals .

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
then ratchet this discussion up about 10 notches and go to subjects such as psycho-linguistics, phenomenology and conciousness,heck, just bring it up to the wittgenstein of the "investigations".

[/ QUOTE ] Go ahead if you wish. But why would you want to do that when it is easier to roll your eyes and damn at he same time the basicness as well as missing the basics of free will. But these barbs slung from a distance are best for your style. Please, forget I said anything, continue, just do not mind that I will ignore.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
what in the world is "the moral tonality of man"?...........b

[/ QUOTE ]

Come out of yourself. Consider that morality and morals is not just the "thou shalt not" paradigm. You can certainly issue commandments as to what a man shall not do(not kill, not steal, not cheat,etc.) but the life of a man is also very much involved in WHAT HE DOES .

Each step along the way has it's own moral tone and each persons approach to life reveals a " moral tone poem" of being which reveals man in his noble nature. To live only in negative reenforcements(commandments,etc.) is debilitating and each man breaks into a morality which is NOT CHOICE but his own CREATION.

carlo

[bearly]

this is what happens when you try to be too clever. your response to my post was garbled, but i tried to interpret. i said if YOU are truly concerned..... i made it clear (unless quoted out of context) that i was content w/ the "basics", getting everyone on the same page and having a go at it. whichever way you or anyone chooses, my remarks were guided by an event which is unforgettable: a professor writing on a term thesis of mine, "who is right? who is wrong? philosophy is not a game you know". you refer to my "style". i will tell you what i told another poster who said nearly the same thing: if your idea of being helped is being spoon-fed, then i can't help you.................b

[bearly]

remarks above, ignore if you will............b