Free Will

[Hnefi]

The word love is not about emotional romantic sexual feelings. In the Christian context it is about helping your neighbor when he needs help. It has everything to do with free will. It is a choice. You either chose to help people or you chose to not get involved or you chose to hurt them.

According to the vast majority of English speakers, that is not love, it's compassion or kindness. In the future, please use common words such as these as they are defined according to the language, not according to a special group to which the person you discuss with doesn't even belong. Or explicitly state that you use the word in another meaning than what is normally assumed. It prevents a lot of misunderstanding.

But even this other definition of love does not show free will. Compassion is in principle no different than hate or indifference or any other choice and does not deserve any special treatment in the free will discussion. Please present an actual argument if you are going to argue.

So far you've responded to my attempts at discussion with platitudes and oneliners. Don't take this personal, but I do not consider this a very rewarding discussion since I don't seem to be arguing against anything coherent. So unless you can form a meaningful, well thought-through argument, I'll stop responding.

 

[elman]

=Hnefi;33030456]According to the vast majority of English speakers, that is not love, it's compassion or kindness. In the future, please use common words such as these as they are defined according to the language, not according to a special group to which the person you discuss with doesn't even belong. Or explicitly state that you use the word in another meaning than what is normally assumed. It prevents a lot of misunderstanding.

According to Jesus that is love. Lets stay with His defintion.

But even this other definition of love does not show free will. Compassion is in principle no different than hate or indifference or any other choice and does not deserve any special treatment in the free will discussion. Please present an actual argument if you are going to argue.

I already have. Please look at it before you ask for something else. Love is an action, an action we chose. Therefore love is an actual argument for free will if you get your defintion correct.

 

[quatona]

Love is an action, an action we chose.

God is love, love is an action -> god is an action.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Existence precedes essence. I was condemned into this world to be free. I was condemned to be free and to make my choices as i choose. I am condemned to be free because i was thrown into an existence i did choose to become apart of. I was condemned to free will the moment i realized i have nothing but myself to fall back on. There is no god for me to search for forgiveness. I am condemned to make my own morals, my own rules, and my own agendas. I am my own self.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

Hello Heif

I feel for you, midterms always killed me, my learning curve is slow, I don't learn what the hell the professor is talking about until the last week of the class, made my life miserable, but I would get a great grad point because I would ace the final exam, and get like a C on the midterm. For one class I studied for twenty eight hours over a two day period, passed the final exam, and was done with my master's work. That was the last final exam I ever took. Hopefully, it won't be like this when I go back to school for more education.

Anyways, I really believe that humans, have free will and there is nothing supernatural to the world.

Maybe that randomness that goes into a decision, that randomness gets controlled and directed by the human's free will? To help them make a decision? We are free to choose what we want, whether for better or for worse, we have our opinions, and what is important to us, if we choose to go against our best interest, we are free to do that, because we have free will, it takes the randomness behind a list of choices and guides the human to a decision.

Do you think we don't have free will and are deterministic? Also, do you think rocks and rivers have as much free will as us?

Also, about artifical intelligence, I think one day we will be able to create intelligent robots that will work on making themselves smarter, and smarter as time rolls on, and hopefull they will study philosophy enough to know, they should care for the robots they create and the humans, they are morally obligated to care for, because we would have made them possible.

Sincerely,

Thomas

 

[quatona]

Do you think we don't have free will and are deterministic?

Depends on the definition and conclusions you are about to draw.
If will is free, we are not free. Then will is one of the determining factors beyond our control.

Also, do you think rocks and rivers have as much free will as us?

Rocks and rivers have no will, in the first place.

 

[Hnefi]

Anyways, I really believe that humans, have free will and there is nothing supernatural to the world.

Okay. But as I have said before, I doubt you can give a coherent definition of what free will really is. If you can, please do so. Remember, a coherent definition is not just a collection of negatives; it must contain a way to identify a free will process from an arbitrary collection of phenomena.

Maybe that randomness that goes into a decision, that randomness gets controlled and directed by the human's free will? To help them make a decision? We are free to choose what we want, whether for better or for worse, we have our opinions, and what is important to us, if we choose to go against our best interest, we are free to do that, because we have free will, it takes the randomness behind a list of choices and guides the human to a decision.

If our decisions are random, they are ny definition not determined by anything. Therefore, a random decision is not a decision made by free will. One might say such a decision is free, but it is not willed. On the other hand, a nonrandom decision is, by definition, caused by something - which makes it deterministic. The cause might be internal to the person making the decision, but that state is in turn caused by something else (or random) and the chain inevitably goes beyond the individual which removes the "free" part of the equation.

The only compromise to these two scenarios is a process that is deterministic to a certain degree and has random influences. As I've said before, many decision-making computers are good examples of this. But that's not what most people mean by free will. They are talking about a process that is neither deterministic nor random (and certainly not both), a process that "takes the situation into account" but is "not determined by it". Those two statements are fundamentally inconsistent, as is the entire free will concept.

Do you think we don't have free will and are deterministic? Also, do you think rocks and rivers have as much free will as us?

I believe we are either completely deterministic or a mix of deterministic and random processes. I am unable to determine which is more likely, so I remain agnostic on that particular issue.

As for rocks and rivers, that depends on how, exactly, "will" is defined. But I believe rocks and rivers are just as free in their actions as we are.

 

[elman]

Okay. But as I have said before, I doubt you can give a coherent definition of what free will really is. If you can, please do so. Remember, a coherent definition is not just a collection of negatives; it must contain a way to identify a free will process from an arbitrary collection of phenomena.


If our decisions are random, they are ny definition not determined by anything. Therefore, a random decision is not a decision made by free will. One might say such a decision is free, but it is not willed. On the other hand, a nonrandom decision is, by definition, caused by something - which makes it deterministic. The cause might be internal to the person making the decision, but that state is in turn caused by something else (or random) and the chain inevitably goes beyond the individual which removes the "free" part of the equation.

The only compromise to these two scenarios is a process that is deterministic to a certain degree and has random influences. As I've said before, many decision-making computers are good examples of this. But that's not what most people mean by free will. They are talking about a process that is neither deterministic nor random (and certainly not both), a process that "takes the situation into account" but is "not determined by it". Those two statements are fundamentally inconsistent, as is the entire free will concept.

I believe we are either completely deterministic or a mix of deterministic and random processes. I am unable to determine which is more likely, so I remain agnostic on that particular issue.

As for rocks and rivers, that depends on how, exactly, "will" is defined. But I believe rocks and rivers are just as free in their actions as we are.

You think a rock hits on another out of anger?

 

[quatona]

You think a rock hits on another out of anger?

No, but I don´t know how being driven by anger indicates freedom.

 

[elman]

No, but I don´t know how being driven by anger indicates freedom.

You can be angry and not hit someone or you can be angry and hit someone. You get to chose.

 

[quatona]

You can be angry and not hit someone or you can be angry and hit someone. You get to chose.

Does not follow.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

You are condemned to be free. You always choose. You are responsible for everything. No one else is to blame accept you.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
You can be angry and not hit someone or you can be angry and hit someone. You get to chose.

Does not follow.

Why not?

 

[quatona]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
You can be angry and not hit someone or you can be angry and hit someone. You get to chose.



Why not?

You can get be angry and get a heartattack and you can be angry and not get a heartattack. You get to choose.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Its not a choice to get a heart attack >.>

 

[quatona]

Its not a choice to get a heart attack >.>

It´s not a choice to hit someone.
[ Point: Just because two different things can happen there needn´t be a choice - as elman´s argument suggested. In order to show there is a choice you need more than just pointing to more than one possible outcome).

 

[elman]

You can get be angry and get a heartattack and you can be angry and not get a heartattack. You get to choose.

No I don't get to chose on the heart attack but I do get to chose on hitting you.

 

[quatona]

No I don't get to chose on the heart attack but I do get to chose on hitting you.

But your example meant to demonstrate that you have a choice, whilst it actually didn´t. It just claimed that you have a choice, and added nothing to the previous claim that you have a choice.
The good old circular reasoning:
You have a choice because you can hit or not hit someone.
Because you have a choice you can hit or not hit someone.

 

[elman]

It´s not a choice to hit someone.
[ Point: Just because two different things can happen there needn´t be a choice - as elman´s argument suggested. In order to show there is a choice you need more than just pointing to more than one possible outcome).

That does not make sense. It is a choice weather to hit someone or not. Why do I need to show more than that?

 

[quatona]

That does not make sense. It is a choice weather to hit someone or not. Why do I need to show more than that?

You need to show that it is a choice. So far you have just claimed it is.
While we are at it, you may also want to show that having a heart attack is not a choice.