Free Will

[TeddyKGB]

It seems to hardly matter at all who does the explaining. The point is that there exists an endless string of dependant explanations. There is no possible bottom to it.

But the statement that we can not know everything there is to know within this reality is not necessarily true.

 

[Corey]

Having said that, I used to be a proponent of free will, but I'm not so sure anymore.

"Free will" is a meaningless statement.

- I think the turn off to determinism is the idea that people wont be held morally responsible for their actions (compared to the moral implications of a random acausal event?), but I dont think this is the case as long as we consider that moral responsibility implies that a person knows what he or she is doing, and that their intentions and desires play some part in the outcome of their actions.

Not quite true...here we get into the concept of volitional control. Even if you have limited choices, you can still choose between options. Free will implies all choices are available, but in reality, you're limited to response strategies that you know how to apply to the situation.

 

[KCDAD]

"Free will" is a meaningless statement.
Not quite true...here we get into the concept of volitional control. Even if you have limited choices, you can still choose between options. Free will implies all choices are available, but in reality, you're limited to response strategies that you know how to apply to the situation.

If you are free to choose, you have free choice. If you are the chooser of the choice, it is your will that chooses. FREE - WILL. Now we can please stop arguing this "meaningless" semantic waste of time?

 

[KCDAD]

Free will implies all choices are available

No, it does not. You may infer it if it makes you happy. There is nothing implicit in the definition or useage of the phrase regarding the availabiltiy of a universe of choices... that is ludicrous.

 

[elman]

But the statement that we can not know everything there is to know within this reality is not necessarily true.

Within what realty do you think you can know everything there is to know?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Within what realty do you think you can know everything there is to know?

Any reality that can be described systematically.

 

[Shane Roach]

We simply are never going to know everything.

But the statement that we can not know everything there is to know within this reality is not necessarily true.

Note the difference between what I said and what you are saying.

 

[buffedstuff]

-------------------------------

 

[TeddyKGB]

Note the difference between what I said and what you are saying.

Technically. Although I had intended our "reality" to entail the limitations of possible knowledge as well.

 

[elman]

Any reality that can be described systematically.

What does that mean? What reality can abe described systematically?

 

[TeddyKGB]

What does that mean? What reality can abe described systematically?

Maybe the one we live in. I don't really know.

 

[Marz Blak]

It seems to me any given event must either be deterministic or random, with no gray zone between.

(This is not to say that *systems* consisting of multiple events looked at as a whole cannot be deterministic with a random or probabilistic components, or vice-versa; but individual events are either caused, or not, fundamentally.)

Free will as commonly described is stipulated to be neither. Thus, the only way it could exist is as an ad-hoc first cause seated in the mind.

This implies some sort of dualistic philosophy of the mind, and unless/until someone shows me a mind separated from a brain, I won't go there. It makes free will something in the realm of the supernatural, where I will not follow it, because even if it's true, it is epistemically out of bounds, with no way to know anything about it that I can see.

 

[Marz Blak]

What does that mean? What reality can abe described systematically?

I don't know about you, elman, but it seems to me that *everyone's* apprehension of reality is systemic.

We *have* to have a model of reality by which we live; otherwise things would, quite literally, make no sense.

 

[elman]

I don't know about you, elman, but it seems to me that *everyone's* apprehension of reality is systemic.

We *have* to have a model of reality by which we live; otherwise things would, quite literally, make no sense.

How is your reality systemic?

 

[Marz Blak]

How is your reality systemic?

Physics. Biology. Economics, politics, and other social sciences. Basically, my understanding of reality is *ALL* based on a systems approach.

Even aesthetics are systemic--the juxtaposition of colors, shapes, textures; the symmetry of a plot line or character arc, or aptness of a simile or metaphor. In music, harmonies and dissonances are fundamentally understandable in mathematical terms; then there is the obvious way in which rhythm is systemic....

Just about everything we understand about reality, I think, we understand by induction. Induction is an epistemological *system,* no?

 

[elman]

Physics. Biology. Economics, politics, and other social sciences. Basically, my understanding of reality is *ALL* based on a systems approach.

Even aesthetics are systemic--the juxtaposition of colors, shapes, textures; the symmetry of a plot line or character arc, or aptness of a simile or metaphor. In music, harmonies and dissonances are fundamentally understandable in mathematical terms; then there is the obvious way in which rhythm is systemic....

Just about everything we understand about reality, I think, we understand by induction. Induction is an epistemological *system,* no?

This discussion began with a post from TeddyKGB where he said: " But the statement that we can not know everything there is to know within this reality is not necessarily true."

I know that was not your statment but I wonder which of the systemic realities could someone know everything there is to know.

 

[warghaha]

Free Will is for God only(at least that was my opinion). Why? Good question..

Because we're only got Free Choice(IMO also). We can choose but the outcome can't always occur according to what we'd planned.

So, what He wills can always happen. But what we choose may or may not be happened.

 

[KCDAD]

Free Will is for God only(at least that was my opinion). Why? Good question..

Because we're only got Free Choice(IMO also). We can choose but the outcome can't always occur according to what we'd planned.

So, what He wills can always happen. But what we choose may or may not be happened.

SO how is will different from choice? It is a prioi assumption that we can not will things to happen, so including that in the definition is pointless. Choice is will as far as I can see. If we are free to choose, then we are free to will something to be. It doesn't mean we will get what we choose or will, but that we are free to intend.

 

[levi501]

It's hard to have discussions with people that have believed for so long in free will. It's like the idea that this belief might've been held incorrectly for so long is too uncomfortable for them to consider. As a result I frequently see points ignored, arguments misrepresented, red herrings and then asserting ad nauseum "we do too have free will".

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's hard to have discussions with people that have believed for so long in determinism. It's like the idea that this belief might've been held incorrectly for so long is too uncomfortable for them to consider. As a result I frequently see points ignored, arguments misrepresented, red herrings and then asserting ad nauseum "we do too lack free will".