Free Will

[Meleagar]

If you can only believe what your reasoning compels you to, you are not a free will agent, but rather only a tool of that system of thought.

If you argue that free will doesn't exist, then you are arguing that your argument is nothing more than the wind blowing through the trees - the sound made by the inevitable sequences of physics. If it seems to make sense to you, or to others, it is only because physics commands us to think that - which would be the same reason for everyone - fundamentalists, scientists, logicians, the spiritual, and the cliinically insane.

Only if free will exists do debates like these have any coherent basis for meaning. We're all assuming everyone has the free will to understand and respond in a way that isn't coerced by physics. We're all assuming we have free will in every such debate or discussion.

So, free will is a necessary component of all coherent, meaningful discussions. For one to have free will, one's will, or intent, must be free from coercion by physics. To be free of coercion by physics, free will must be beyond physics and more powerful than physics. It must be empowered by something more powerful than, or unencumbered by, the operating rules of the physical universe, to override the impulses of cause and effect.

Therefore, every such discussion is an implicit admission that god (our putative source of free will) exists.

[Rog]

The truth will set you free.

[Cruella]

Rog, debate, or don't post, thanks.

[do not respond]

[Tycoon]

If you can only believe what your reasoning compels you to, you are not a free will agent, but rather only a tool of that system of thought.

Good so far.

If you argue that free will doesn't exist, then you are arguing that your argument is nothing more than the wind blowing through the trees - the sound made by the inevitable sequences of physics. If it seems to make sense to you, or to others, it is only because physics commands us to think that - which would be the same reason for everyone - fundamentalists, scientists, logicians, the spiritual, and the cliinically insane.

Even better...

Only if free will exists do debates like these have any coherent basis for meaning. We're all assuming everyone has the free will to understand and respond in a way that isn't coerced by physics. We're all assuming we have free will in every such debate or discussion.

And here is were your argument fails. You assume that debates like these have any coherent basis for meaning in order to try to prove free will. When we debate, we are simply animated tissue processing information and giving responses. There is no meaning to it. We are simply material beings trying to judge a material world. You've failed here to prove why it makes no sense for that to be true.

So, free will is a necessary component of all coherent, meaningful discussions. For one to have free will, one's will, or intent, must be free from coercion by physics. To be free of coercion by physics, free will must be beyond physics and more powerful than physics. It must be empowered by something more powerful than, or unencumbered by, the operating rules of the physical universe, to override the impulses of cause and effect.

Therefore, every such discussion is an implicit admission that god (our putative source of free will) exists.

And, of course, since your argument fell apart about halfway through, this last quote becomes meaningless.

[ItsDarts]

If you can only believe what your reasoning compels you to, you are not a free will agent, but rather only a tool of that system of thought.

As a child, are you honestly able to believe or not believe in Santa Clause? As an adult, are you "HONESTLY" able to believe in Santa Clause? Sure, I could "say" I believe, but I wouldn't be honest. I have the same problem with God. I can't honestly believe a god exists. I could tell you that I believe, and you'd have no reason to doubt me if you didn't know I was atheist.

If you argue that free will doesn't exist, then you are arguing that your argument is nothing more than the wind blowing through the trees - the sound made by the inevitable sequences of physics. If it seems to make sense to you, or to others, it is only because physics commands us to think that - which would be the same reason for everyone - fundamentalists, scientists, logicians, the spiritual, and the cliinically insane.

I would say that Free will is situational. I'm free to go to work, but I'm not necessarily free to believe what ever I want and be honest at the same time. I believe thought processes are physical, but because everyone's physiology is slightly different, our thought processes are different as well. You may be wired for belief in god, I'm not. Can thought processes be manipulated? Of course they can, because as a child you are wired to believe most if not all of what your parents tell you. First you honestly believe in Santa, then at some point, you lose that belief and you have no honest choice in the matter but to deny the existence of Santa.

Only if free will exists do debates like these have any coherent basis for meaning. We're all assuming everyone has the free will to understand and respond in a way that isn't coerced by physics. We're all assuming we have free will in every such debate or discussion.

Again, I'd have to say that its situational. Its not the same for everyone.

So, free will is a necessary component of all coherent, meaningful discussions. For one to have free will, one's will, or intent, must be free from coercion by physics. To be free of coercion by physics, free will must be beyond physics and more powerful than physics. It must be empowered by something more powerful than, or unencumbered by, the operating rules of the physical universe, to override the impulses of cause and effect.

Therefore, every such discussion is an implicit admission that god (our putative source of free will) exists.

The bolded part doesn't follow. Free will is a concept of the mind. I believe the mind is nothing more than the physical processes in the brain. Your processes allow you to believe in god, infact it might not let you "not believe god doesn't exist". Your argument fails.

[gela]

I see no logical reason in that argument that free will couldn't have evolved.

Explain to me why we can't evolve the ability to choose the best course of action depending on the circumstances

I wonder.. do you think animals have free will?

[Meleagar]

Tycoon,

It wasn't an argument that free will exists - you either experience it or you do not. It was an argument that arguments are essentially incoherent without it. Since you agree,and you assert that you do not have free will, then I cannot expect you to provide meaningful discussion any more than I would expect rustling leaves on a windy day to provide meaningful discussion.

Your argument negates itself as a meaningful argument.

[Meleagar]

Darts,

I didn't say that all people have free will. I don't think they do. I didn't say that someone with free will always had it, or always uses it. I don't think they do. However, it stands to reason that if you cannot choose your beliefs, then you are the tool of whatever your system of thought allows/coerces you to believe/do, and thus you do not have free will.

If thought processes are simply the effects of prior causes, then of course there is no free will. Your rebuttal fails because you have no basis for assuming your argument makes any sense whatsoever, being entirely determined by prior physical causation. "You" don't exist, under your philosophy, because "you" are simply an agglomeration of physics-driven causes that generate (by the chance sequences that led to now in your history) whatever you happen to believe, say, and do; from your perspective, you believe, say and do whatever you do for exactly the same reason anyone else does: physics. If physics compels you and a delusional person in an institution to believe you are perfectly reasonable and rational, then that is what you will believe.

Thus your rebuttal isn't the rebuttal of a free will entity; it's nothing more in essence than the rustling of leaves in the tree. You've negated your own capacity to have a meaningful argument ... unfortunately (and amusingly) those physical forces are causing you to continue to act and argue as if you believe you and others have free will.

[Meleagar]

Gela,

It depends on what you mean by "evolution". If you mean that random mutations and natural selection in a physical, materialist universe by chance and law generated a mind with free will, then I'd say that you and I have a different definition of what free will is.

Under the above scenario, "will" is simply another chain link in a long sequence of physical cause and effect, which includes some random influences. So, everything you "will" is physically caused, one way or another. A quantum fluctuation here, a bowl of cheerios, a certain DNA sequence, and *bam* you "choose" to take the subway this morning. That's it.

That makes "you" nothing more than a physical machine where part of the "machine" is generating thoughts and beliefs. Without the ability to abrogate that sequence, to access something outside of it, more powerful than it, from a non-programmed perspective, then calling that automated will "free" is a rather ludicrous use of the term.

Do you carry on such conversations with the rustling leaves, with babbling brooks? You might as well be, because in the materialist universe, that's all that is going on in this forum. I seriously doubt any of you are writing what you're writing from the psychological perspective that physics is compelling you to do so and that none of it is likely to make any real sense whatsoever. I doubt if you believe that you believe what you do because of the exact same reason fundamentalists and the insane believe what they do, being compelled to as the result of sequences of physics. If you really believed that, you see, you'd realize that there is no reason why your position should be taken as meaningfully any different from anyone else's.

But then, realizing that about your own argument and views would require free will, which I doubt you have.

I don't know if animals have free will or not. Maybe some do. I doubt all humans have free will. They certainly don't display it most of the time, as far as I can tell. I mean, from my perspective, it's incoherent to argue that you don't have free will, so that to me is the first clue that I'm talking to an NPC, so to speak. An automoton without free will. You can program a machine to do all kinds of absurd things, because it just does what you program it to. An entity with free will, though, has access to something beyond any programming or physical constraints. It's more difficult to get them to believe or do incoherent things.

[minorwork]

If you can only believe what your reasoning compels you to, you are not a free will agent, but rather only a tool of that system of thought.

If you argue that free will doesn't exist, then you are arguing that your argument is nothing more than the wind blowing through the trees - the sound made by the inevitable sequences of physics. If it seems to make sense to you, or to others, it is only because physics commands us to think that - which would be the same reason for everyone - fundamentalists, scientists, logicians, the spiritual, and the cliinically insane.

Only if free will exists do debates like these have any coherent basis for meaning. We're all assuming everyone has the free will to understand and respond in a way that isn't coerced by physics. We're all assuming we have free will in every such debate or discussion.

So, free will is a necessary component of all coherent, meaningful discussions. For one to have free will, one's will, or intent, must be free from coercion by physics. To be free of coercion by physics, free will must be beyond physics and more powerful than physics. It must be empowered by something more powerful than, or unencumbered by, the operating rules of the physical universe, to override the impulses of cause and effect.

Therefore, every such discussion is an implicit admission that god (our putative source of free will) exists.

Free will is the feeling of having a choice. It is the basis of freedom within the law whether that law be natural (Love), civil, or constitutional.

If the very basis of physical matter is panpsychic, that matter is composed of varying degrees of mind, then the feeling of having a choice is the very basis of consciousness and is the foundation of the universes.

Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

[PlatoNot]

I believe everyone has the capacity for free will. I do not believe, however that everyone exercises their free will. Perhaps our value system has more to do with whether we exercise free will than anything. Take, for instance, someone who belongs to a cult and begins to doubt some of the tenets of that cult. An exercise of free will would be to separate from the cult, but that would incur consequences. Perhaps one's family are members of the cult. Perhaps one has exclusively limited their acquaintences to those belonging to the cult. Alienation for separating from the cult may be deemed greater than the ramifications for remaining a member.

Battered wives also fall into this catagory. Many remain in a terrible situation when they could exercise their free will and escape. But then what of the children? What about support?

Sometimes we are torn by what we want to do versus what we should do or what we are expected to do. The admonishment from Christ that we should do good to them that abuse us is difficult to follow. We are engrained with our sense of rights and our natural inclination to get even. We are the one wronged and we are expected to be good to the one who wronged us? Not basic human nature. In such a situation we reject our free will and accede to His will.

[Sonart]

.

Only if free will exists do debates like these have any coherent basis for meaning.

Nonsense. Our debates have a coherent basis specifically because they are filtered though both the commonality and diversity of both our common and individual genetic inheritances and learned experiences. Our instinct and capacity for language has a genetic basis, just like our imaginations and inventiveness has a genetic basis, our instincts for competitiveness, aggression, consensus, cooperation, curiosity, wonder, etc. etc. etc. are all tools bequeathed to us by evolution.

Even our belief in God(s).

What you see as free will is a freedom that exists only within the design limitations of our species. It's like driving a car... you may think you have free will because you can choose to turn left or turn right or go straight ahead at the next intersection, or hop on the freeway and go wherever the wind blows. But you can't go wherever the wind blows. No amount of free will is going to allow you to leave the road and drive through a building or burrow into the ground or take off and fly. It's not what the car was designed to do.

Likewise your 'Free Will' is influenced by countless genetically determined aspects of you nature -- whether you're extroverted, introverted, cautious, risk-taking, artistic, pragmatic, calm, volitile, whatever - synergisticly combined with our zillions of both individually and communally learned behaviors and experiences.

As a poster once explained in trying to demonstrate his absolute free will, "why, I can simply choose, out of the blue, to go play golf with my brother, instead of doing something else."

Free will? Really? Then why golf? Why his brother? Seems to me his 'free will' is extremely limited to a few alternatives already pre-determined by his nature and his experiences.

You may be wired for belief in god, I'm not.

Me neither. And trust me, I've tried.

.