Does Free Will Exist?

[Gracchus]

Ok, so it really does just come down to how someone defines "free will," and whether or not there is such a thing as a "true" definition of free will?

We can always try to do what we want.
We can occasionally even act against our own best interests for some perceived good, some expression of pure art, for its own sake.
Selflessness is our true freedom.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Ok, so it really does just come down to how someone defines "free will," and whether or not there is such a thing as a "true" definition of free will?

No, I don't think so. You can very well discuss both LFW or Compatibilism, as well as which is better, etc.

 

[JackBauer]

According to Christianity, free will necessarily has to exist because otherwise, all of our actions could be considered blameless. Therefore, there would be no point of a savior.

 

[jonmichael818]

According to Christianity, free will necessarily has to exist because otherwise, all of our actions could be considered blameless. Therefore, there would be no point of a savior.

In order to believe you have free will, it may be necessary to accept that god is not omniscient.

 

[jonmichael818]

No, I don't think so. You can very well discuss both LFW or Compatibilism, as well as which is better, etc.

Perhaps. I'll have to look into LFW a bit more.

 

[Girder of Loins]

According to a naturalistic standard, then free will is impossible. If the mind is a materialistic organ, and thought processes are simply electrical signals that are percieved as thoughts, then free will is impossible as we are simply robots with our programming preset as stimuli receptors. Free will is impossible as what we are is what we are introduced to.

According to a Marxist-Leninistic worldview, then speech is our free will. Speech adds our own stimuli to another person, "warping" their thought processes(which is simply electrical impulses) to yours. And this is how Communism is furthered.

My belief? Yeah. Free will is necessary for an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God to exist. Otherwise we are simply stimuli recpetors. We are capable of making logical choices, thus needing free will.

 

[Gracchus]

According to a Marxist-Leninistic worldview, then speech is our free will.

Hey, why not say "Marxist-Leninistic-Stalinist" world-view? If you are going to "poison the well", you might as well do a thorough job.

Speech adds our own stimuli to another person, "warping" their thought processes(which is simply electrical impulses) to yours. And this is how Communism is furthered.

It is also how religion is furthered, and a knowledge of mathematics.

My belief? Yeah. Free will is necessary for an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God to exist.

And why do you believe this?

Otherwise we are simply stimuli recpetors.

But we are also effectors, else we exercise no will, free or constrained. What's your point?

We are capable of making logical choices, thus needing free will.

But if your logic is flawed then your choices may be bad, and your free-will is useless, so it might as well be non-existent.

 

[jonmichael818]

My belief? Yeah. Free will is necessary for an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God to exist. Otherwise we are simply stimuli recpetors. We are capable of making logical choices, thus needing free will.

As I said to someone a few posts back, "In order to believe you have free will, it may be necessary to accept that god is not omniscient."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

According to a naturalistic standard, then free will is impossible. If the mind is a materialistic organ, and thought processes are simply electrical signals that are percieved as thoughts, then free will is impossible as we are simply robots with our programming preset as stimuli receptors. Free will is impossible as what we are is what we are introduced to.

That doesn't mean we don't have free will.

According to a Marxist-Leninistic worldview, then speech is our free will. Speech adds our own stimuli to another person, "warping" their thought processes(which is simply electrical impulses) to yours. And this is how Communism is furthered.

The Big Bad, eh?

My belief? Yeah. Free will is necessary for an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God to exist.

Why? Can an omniscient, ominpotent, omnipresent deity not exist without humans? Surely, if God wanted to, he could create humans without free will? He could even deign not to create humans at all.

Otherwise we are simply stimuli recpetors. We are capable of making logical choices, thus needing free will.

Allegedly. If we don't have free will, we still think we have free will.

 

[Girder of Loins]

To those who responded to me:

I'll first take point on free will and what it is. Free will is the freedom to choose between choices. Freedom is the part that doesn't make sense according to a "one-mind" outlook on the brain. If dualism is false, then responses to every question and every choice in life is predetermined due to stimuli. If one stimuli overpowers another stimuli, then the overpowered stimuli is "false" according to the brain. Since thoughts, ideas, morals, choices, etc... are all part of cognitive thought, and cognitive thought is simply an affect of electron movement in the brain, then the brain takes all the stimuli you have, and the strongest "wills"(so to speak) is right according to cognitive thought. If all we can do is go by stimuli, then all free will is taken away because you have no freedom to choose because of the "battle of the wills."

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

To those who responded to me:

I'll first take point on free will and what it is. Free will is the freedom to choose between choices. Freedom is the part that doesn't make sense according to a "one-mind" outlook on the brain.

Alright so what kind of evidence do you have for this?

If dualism is false, then responses to every question and every choice in life is predetermined due to stimuli. If one stimuli overpowers another stimuli, then the overpowered stimuli is "false" according to the brain. Since thoughts, ideas, morals, choices, etc... are all part of cognitive thought, and cognitive thought is simply an affect of electron movement in the brain, then the brain takes all the stimuli you have, and the strongest "wills"(so to speak) is right according to cognitive thought. If all we can do is go by stimuli, then all free will is taken away because you have no freedom to choose because of the "battle of the wills."

Okay, so assuming all of that is true. So what?
If your arguement is that you find that a uncomfortable thought, reality does not have to appeal to you, it just is as it is.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Well, coming from a naturalistic worldview, then there can be nothing outside of the physical world. Therefore there can be no dualism. No mind. Only electrical signals in the brain.

On to the second part. This entire topic is on if free will exists. By having no mind, we are stimulus receptors. How we act is determined by the stimulus we perceive. If this is the case, then you have no free will as the stimuli dictates every choice, every thought made. Therefore, no "free will" exists, as free will would have to cut into the physical world. But since there is nothing but the physical world, there can be nothing outside to cut into it all.

 

[quatona]

Well, coming from a naturalistic worldview, then there can be nothing outside of the physical world. Therefore there can be no dualism. No mind. Only electrical signals in the brain.

I have no clue where you pull your ideas about this ominous "naturalistic worldview'. I have never heard of a worldview that denies that there are thoughts, feelings etc. (i.e. mind). Even if "the mind" (thoughts, feelings, pain) is a neurochemical process it still exists (or maybe it would be more accurate to say "it occurs"), just like other processes in the physical world. Think "energy".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

To those who responded to me:

I'll first take point on free will and what it is. Free will is the freedom to choose between choices. Freedom is the part that doesn't make sense according to a "one-mind" outlook on the brain. If dualism is false, then responses to every question and every choice in life is predetermined due to stimuli. If one stimuli overpowers another stimuli, then the overpowered stimuli is "false" according to the brain. Since thoughts, ideas, morals, choices, etc... are all part of cognitive thought, and cognitive thought is simply an affect of electron movement in the brain, then the brain takes all the stimuli you have, and the strongest "wills"(so to speak) is right according to cognitive thought. If all we can do is go by stimuli, then all free will is taken away because you have no freedom to choose because of the "battle of the wills."

Allegedly. How did you jump from the premise that the mind is physical, to the conclusion that free will cannot exist?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, coming from a naturalistic worldview, then there can be nothing outside of the physical world. Therefore there can be no dualism. No mind. Only electrical signals in the brain.

On to the second part. This entire topic is on if free will exists. By having no mind, we are stimulus receptors. How we act is determined by the stimulus we perceive. If this is the case, then you have no free will as the stimuli dictates every choice, every thought made. Therefore, no "free will" exists, as free will would have to cut into the physical world. But since there is nothing but the physical world, there can be nothing outside to cut into it all.

You're assuming that, for free will to exist, it has to exist as some supernatural, spiritual, ethereal, 'wiff'. Why can't it be a purely physical phenomenon?

 

[Girder of Loins]

Because, as stated with the whole stimuli stuff, free will would have to go against your stimuli. That means logic vs. instinct. If we are simply stimuli receptors, we base our choices on instinct, not on logic.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because, as stated with the whole stimuli stuff, free will would have to go against your stimuli. That means logic vs. instinct. If we are simply stimuli receptors, we base our choices on instinct, not on logic.

I don't see how that follows. Instinct isn't diametrically opposed to logic - if our instincts tell us to take our hand off a hot hob, that's also the logical decision.

Free will doesn't go against stimuli. It is the complex process by which an individual considers all stimuli, and makes a decision that isn't sheer reflex. It doesn't have to be supernatural, and it can be entirely physical.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Well, coming from a naturalistic worldview, then there can be nothing outside of the physical world. Therefore there can be no dualism. No mind. Only electrical signals in the brain.

Okay... So are you saying you have evidence of something outside of the physical world? And that you are about to present this evidence to argue for freewill?

On to the second part. This entire topic is on if free will exists. By having no mind, we are stimulus receptors. How we act is determined by the stimulus we perceive. If this is the case, then you have no free will as the stimuli dictates every choice, every thought made. Therefore, no "free will" exists, as free will would have to cut into the physical world. But since there is nothing but the physical world, there can be nothing outside to cut into it all.

You do not get to redefine mind to mean "Super natural force" then claim it does not exist in a natural world.
We still have what we call minds, even if that is simply what we call the process of stimuli interacting with receptors at a concious level.

Other then that. Okay sure so you just proved there is no free will.
I was under the impression you where argueing for freewill. My bad.

Because, as stated with the whole stimuli stuff, free will would have to go against your stimuli. That means logic vs. instinct. If we are simply stimuli receptors, we base our choices on instinct, not on logic.

What about when the simuli is logic?

 

[Girder of Loins]

What about when the simuli is logic?

Well, that is just another's stimuli'ed brain trying to stimulate you with apparent "logic." Now you probably can tell that I'm a Christian, and therefore hold none of what i have said in truth. I was coming from a naturalistic worldview. If you want my opinion, I would say there is free will, because i believe in the supernatural which would allow something above this physical world, which would allow free will, as shown by my previous arguments against free will.

 

[Girder of Loins]

I don't see how that follows. Instinct isn't diametrically opposed to logic - if our instincts tell us to take our hand off a hot hob, that's also the logical decision.

Free will doesn't go against stimuli. It is the complex process by which an individual considers all stimuli, and makes a decision that isn't sheer reflex. It doesn't have to be supernatural, and it can be entirely physical.

I never said it was opposed to logic. They go hand-in-hand a lot of the time. When you take your hand off of a hot knob, that is stimuli telling you to take it off. Past stimuli tells you how to and why. And that is why free will doesn't exist. Because it is a series of stimuli affecting other stimuli.

Free will has to be able to go against logic, against all stimuli. The choice to keep your hand on the hot knob. And here is the confusing part. The idea of keeping your hand on the knob could be said to be pure stimulus from past experience. But the idea of curiosity destroys my entire idea that there is no free will.