Free Will

[sSsflamesSs]

That basically repeated what I said, except my response was more concise.

Again, I ask, can determinism coexist with free will?

You mentioned compatibilism, but to me, the two ideas (determinism and free will) are exact opposites. So how can they be compatible with each other?

[loseyourname]

Read this:

Originally posted by loseyourname Nan, your arguments cut right to the heart of what I initially wanted to get at with this thread. As I mentioned at the beginning, I don't subscribe to contracausal freedom. The very idea is ridiculous. Basically, modes of action are separated into two distinct categories: one is caused, and therefore determined and unfree, the other is uncaused and therefore free. First off, if strict determinism is correct, then all determined events are unfree; that is, they are traceable all the way back through a series of causes and could have been predicted. However, I see no reason to view an uncaused event as free. That which is uncaused is completely random. Free will must involve some form of conscious decision-making process; that is, a free agent may not know ahead of time what he will do, but he must be able to cause a certain mental event to occur. With this argument in hand, I turn to a compatibilist form of freedom. W.T Stace begins his argument with an assessment of decisions that we would commonly agree are free and are those that are not free.

Unfree decisions include those that fstkhnan speaks of: being forced to live somewhere that she does not want to live and to do things that she does not want to do. Free decisions include her decision to live where she wants to anyway. Stace then analyzes what it is that makes these decisions different from one another. The conclusion is that the unfree decisions have a cause originating outside of the free agent's own psyche. Nan here is being forced to do something. The cause of her decision is directly traceable to her tennis coach. Her decision to live in her house, however, is traceable only to her. Nothing external to her psyche coerced her into making this decision; it is hers and hers alone.

So, in conclusion, that is what separates a free decision from an unfree decision. The free decision is simply that which originates in the psyche, or the self, of the agent making the decision. Whether or not this act is truly free is another story, although it would fit the common definition. Whether or not it is truly free depends largely on the nature of consciousness itself. If consciousness is entirely a biochemical process that strictly follows the laws of physics and can be traced to a series of causes that existed prior to the arising of the consciousness itself, then the decision is not technically free. However, I'm not sure that this is even relevant, as again, the common defitition and understanding of freedom does not seem to take such things into consideration.

[sSsflamesSs]

Loser, maybe you should bring up the Free Will thread, for my discussion is going to involve humans.

I confess that I have not really read that thread, so I might repeat some things that have been said there, I don't know.

Anyway, for starters, we should try to define what "free will" really is.

Two possibilities exist:

a) If our actions are determined by any factor (such as selfishness), then we do not possess free will (you were getting to this in an earlier post, so I'll go along with it).

b) If our actions are not determined by any factor, then our actions are random, and we have no control over our actions, and hence we do not possess free will.

I just copy/pasted my response after finding the thread. Aphro mentioned Hume's fork, which are the two possibilities above. I made a thread a while back involving Hume's fork, but the thread didn't get much traffic.

Anyway, does determinism invalidate free will? Can free will coexist with determinism?

[sleuth]

Originally posted by PASAMONSTER understandable.


but i'm talking about a guy having a picnic with his family in his secure back yard. Me and the boys decide that we're going to go on a random shooting spree. just walking down the street, eenie meenie myniee mo. pick a family to slaughter.


guy having lunch with wife and 2 kids add 60 clip magazines full of armor piercing bullets multiply by 3 maniacs. what do you get?

well you get the families body parts dividing and eventually end up with one family minus living.

and not a single choise they made was theirs.

they didn't give up the power to choose either.

besides if they had given up the power to choose wouldn't that mean that they're choosing, therefore they aren't giving up the power to choose.

It was YOUR choice...you didn't give them chance to choose,they murdered.. that's a different story...then again its a choice its your choice and i am pretty sure it has an impact in your life...

[PASAMONSTER]

understandable.


but i'm talking about a guy having a picnic with his family in his secure back yard. Me and the boys decide that we're going to go on a random shooting spree. just walking down the street, eenie meenie myniee mo. pick a family to slaughter.


guy having lunch with wife and 2 kids add 60 clip magazines full of armor piercing bullets multiply by 3 maniacs. what do you get?

well you get the families body parts dividing and eventually end up with one family minus living.

and not a single choise they made was theirs.

they didn't give up the power to choose either.

besides if they had given up the power to choose wouldn't that mean that they're choosing, therefore they aren't giving up the power to choose.

[sleuth]

Originally posted by PASAMONSTER couldn't have put it better myself

======We make our lifes...=======by sleuth.






what about the times when someone makes the choise to take your self chosing life away, is that also your choise?

Nobody can make a choice for you unless you give that person a power your own power of choice to make choice for you...again it is your choice to give out your power,your free will...it is really hard to get...but it is soooo true...

[PASAMONSTER]

couldn't have put it better myself

======We make our lifes...=======by sleuth.






what about the times when someone makes the choise to take your self chosing life away, is that also your choise?

[sleuth]

If there is a place for racqute and tennis coach would you mind a little room for poor sleuth...

WE was born with free will...there is no doubt about it...Life is all about choices....everything the way we live,act,think it's all about choices and the univers support us whatever we choose...it is not about tennis coach,or religion...because we choose them,it's ourrrrrr choice...fstk your tennis coach is your CHOICE...you let her to take control of you.... why do you complain? Acting like a victim is just a lame cover of our own choice..to blame someone lol,being a victim...but reality thats our choice...if we suffer its our choice,if we are happy its our choice....some ppl are masochists..they love to suffer and they love when someone suffers,,they love to cause pain and get pain...We make our lifes...

[fstkhnan]

yeah I see ur point there, and I pretty much understand what u mean and agree as well....it's well written and explained.....

[loseyourname]

Nan, your arguments cut right to the heart of what I initially wanted to get at with this thread. As I mentioned at the beginning, I don't subscribe to contracausal freedom. The very idea is ridiculous. Basically, modes of action are separated into two distinct categories: one is caused, and therefore determined and unfree, the other is uncaused and therefore free. First off, if strict determinism is correct, then all determined events are unfree; that is, they are traceable all the way back through a series of causes and could have been predicted. However, I see no reason to view an uncaused event as free. That which is uncaused is completely random. Free will must involve some form of conscious decision-making process; that is, a free agent may not know ahead of time what he will do, but he must be able to cause a certain mental event to occur. With this argument in hand, I turn to a compatibilist form of freedom. W.T Stace begins his argument with an assessment of decisions that we would commonly agree are free and are those that are not free.

Unfree decisions include those that fstkhnan speaks of: being forced to live somewhere that she does not want to live and to do things that she does not want to do. Free decisions include her decision to live where she wants to anyway. Stace then analyzes what it is that makes these decisions different from one another. The conclusion is that the unfree decisions have a cause originating outside of the free agent's own psyche. Nan here is being forced to do something. The cause of her decision is directly traceable to her tennis coach. Her decision to live in her house, however, is traceable only to her. Nothing external to her psyche coerced her into making this decision; it is hers and hers alone.

So, in conclusion, that is what separates a free decision from an unfree decision. The free decision is simply that which originates in the psyche, or the self, of the agent making the decision. Whether or not this act is truly free is another story, although it would fit the common definition. Whether or not it is truly free depends largely on the nature of consciousness itself. If consciousness is entirely a biochemical process that strictly follows the laws of physics and can be traced to a series of causes that existed prior to the arising of the consciousness itself, then the decision is not technically free. However, I'm not sure that this is even relevant, as again, the common defitition and understanding of freedom does not seem to take such things into consideration.