Re: Free Will (again)
 

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.

Re: Free Will (again)
 

[ 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

Re: Free Will (again)
 

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

Re: Free Will (again)
 

[ 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.

Re: Free Will (again)
 

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

Re: Free Will (again)
 

[ 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 .

Re: Free Will (again)
 

[ 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.

Re: Free Will (again)
 

[ 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

Re: Free Will (again)
 

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

Re: Free Will (again)
 

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