Free Will

[Terra Nullius]

I've been developing a very coherent philosophy for the past couple years, and then a bit of logic led me a certain way, and then woops, I lost free will.

My immediate reaction is that you're putting the cart before the horse.
Your logic does not coincide with your experience and rather than using logic to explain your real experience, you are trying to re-interpret experience to fit in with your logic.

And if you happen to already believe in ...

See? Seems like you already believe in your logic, and your logic does not agree with your experience. So rather than re-evaluating the logic, you seem to be assuming that it is your experience which is mistaken.

And my definition of the universe probably isn't quite the same as everyone else's.

I apreciate that it would take some effort, but could you please have a shot at putting it into words? Doesn't matter if it's incomplete. At the moment I can't see where you're coming from and I'd really like to have at least a vague idea of where you're trying to get to.

You are right that we cannot test free will in any fashion. And because we cannot test it, we cannot assume it to be true.

Nope. I can test it every time I get a paycheque, every time I choose to get out of bed in the morning. I make choices and put them into action.

The experience of acting with free choice is quite ubiquitous. It doesn't take complicated theories to explain. To say I have no such free choice seems to require all sorts of complex theorising. I quite agree that it might just be one big illusion, but it does generally tally with experience.

What fundamental insight led you to question free will?
What experience have you had which suggests to you that free will does not exist?
Where do you find examples of the non-existence of free will? Addiction might be one place to start, but even then, addiction is generally interprated as a condition in which free will exists albeit in a compromised state.

What fundamental insight led you to question free will?

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
For example, a dog comes to a fork in the road. How will it "choose?"

I'm sure Aggie could explain this better than me but...
i. Physical fredom
When a sunflower inclines towards the sun, it exercises physical freedom. A rock does not have physical freedom, it can be moved, but it does not have the ability to move by itself.
ii. Mental freedom
When a dog chooses to eat Pal instead of Poo, it exercises mental freedom. But, it does not choose whether, in the grand scheme, that is a good or bad thing to do.
iii. Moral freedom
When a human decides to drive a Prius instead of a Hummer it exercises moral freedom.

There seems to bee a lot of confusion here about what sort of freedom we are talking about. As I understand it, "free will" equates to having moral freedom. We have the ability (theoretically) to
i) throttle some bastrd in peak hour traffic
ii) choose which particular bastrd to throttle
iii) decide whether it is actually a good or bad thing to do.

All this talk about 'science' and the 'flat earth' suggests some very muddy concepts.

Free will is the idea that we have the ability to choose what is morally good or bad. It's not about whether I feel like having coco pops or rice crispies for breakfast.

[Terra Nullius]

fOzzygumP is awesome

[Lorizael]

People, people. I already told you all. I figured out free will. No need to respond to my silly posts anymore.

[Lorizael]

And Terra, we cannot discuss this. The reason we cannot discuss this is because you are starting your argument at a different place than I do.

You assume free will exists, and don't need any evidence to prove it. You assume free will exists because you have created a definition for free will that fits your perception of your experiences.

I do not assume free will exists.

I cannot explain my philosophy to you at this time because it would take a very long time and every time I do explain it, people end up hating me.

But... I do not assume free will exists. My metaphysical thinking began with... make no assumptions, create no artificial definitions.

It is too much of an assumption, to me, to simply believe that because I perceive an action of mine to have originated from my ability to tell right from wrong, that there is free will.

What if the action came from something higher? What if my perception is wrong? What if right and wrong don't exist at all?

I force myself to ask these questions.

Now, some people think this means I'll be a depressed nihilistic skeptic my whole life, but it doesn't have to mean that. All you have to do is figure out where you can go when you start with no assumptions about the universe. That was what I did.

[Terra Nullius]

I don't see where you get it that I'm assuming the existence of free will.

And really, I'd be very interested in hearing what you have come up with so far. Doesn't matter if it takes a lot of explaining. I'll wait.

But it's up to you. If you're not ready to go beta with it yet, I won't push you.

Oh! and you've got something against depressed nihilistic sceptics???

[Lorizael]

Well, I used to be one.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Terra Nullius

You are right that we cannot test free will in any fashion. And because we cannot test it, we cannot assume it to be true.

Nope. I can test it every time I get a paycheque, every time I choose to get out of bed in the morning. I make choices and put them into action.

This is where you're assuming free will to exist.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Deterministics laws stopped holding sway around 100 years ago, fool.

Are you asserting that GR doesn't work? I am sure physicists around the world await your proof in awe.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lorizael
The problem with that little theory is all those pesky serial killers in the world.

They are... defective units.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Kidicious
This is where you're assuming free will to exist.

Doesn't look like that to me.

They were examples of how to verify the concept.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Agathon
Nobody really believes in Free Will anyway.

Think about how many assumptions you make about how people will react, and how often you are right. If you add it up, people are 99.9% predictable. We can jot down the other 0.1% to our own ignorance.

People are more predictable than the weather, and we don't ascribe some mystical free will to the weather.

I agree wholeheartedly with Aggie.

Now tell me you saw THIS ONE coming

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Terra Nullius

Doesn't look like that to me.

They were examples of how to verify the concept.

But where did you get the concept from in the first place? From the fact that you could do those things or...?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Lorizael


But where did you get the concept from in the first place? From the fact that you could do those things or...?

the concept comes from our very own existance, we are live beings (well if you equal free will as the 3 option on Terra N list, than humans), our very existance is the proof. Free will is just a description of our ability to choose what we want, or could be interpreted "what we think is right". There has to be an expression that describes our ability to flip the TV channels until we find the one we want to watch .

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Lorizael
But where did you get the concept from in the first place? From the fact that you could do those things or...?

Yep, from the observation of my own actions and those of others.

@ Kidicious
Note that I am not claiming to make no assumptions here.
I am assuming
- that I exist
- that moral good/bad exists
- that it is possible to reliably discern good and bad.

If you dispute any of those assumptions, then I don't see how you could support the existence of free will.
(If I believe that I do not exist, I can't very well claim to have free will, can I?)

Otoh, while none of those assumptions are incontrovertible, they can be reasonably inferred from human experience.