Is there such a thing as free will?

[elman]

Schopenhauer was dead on. The concept of free will, that is, the ability for an individual actor to act entirely independent from external influence, is the most asinine of the long-lived and nigh-universally-believed philosophical falsities.

Nobody argues free will is being independent from external influence. Free will is the ability to make choices especially to love or not love in spite of external influences.

 

[funyun]

Nobody argues free will is being independent from external influence. Free will is the ability to make choices especially to love or not love in spite of external influences.

Yes, some do argue that definition. In fact, unless you define "in spite of", I'd say you were doing just that.

 

[elman]

Yes, some do argue that definition. In fact, unless you define "in spite of", I'd say you were doing just that.

You could say anything you like but it is not the argument of proponents of free will that this means we can do supernatural things simply because we want to do them. "In spite of" would also be "irregardless of" or "notwithstanding" . It means we chose to be loving and are not forced to do by our environment.

 

[funyun]

"In spite of" would also be "irregardless of" or "notwithstanding" . It means we chose to be loving and are not forced to do by our environment.

Thank you. Yes, you just made exactly the claim I claimed you did. Unless of course you would now like to bait and switch on what you mean by "environment".

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
"In spite of" would also be "irregardless of" or "notwithstanding" . It means we chose to be loving and are not forced to do by our environment.

Thank you. Yes, you just made exactly the claim I claimed you did. Unless of course you would now like to bait and switch on what you mean by "environment".

Explain. That makes no sense. How do you define environment?

 

[funyun]

Explain. That makes no sense. How do you define environment?

You're the one who used the word. You define it please.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Is there such a thing as free will?

I want to vote no, but I'm afraid that if I do I might prove myself wrong . Hey this poll is rigged! What should I do?? Oh crap it! I can't decide

 

[elman]

You're the one who used the word. You define it please.

You are the one that said I did not know what it meant, or at least that is what it sounds like you said. So tell me why you think I don't know what environment is.

 

[funyun]

You are the one that said I did not know what it meant, or at least that is what it sounds like you said. So tell me why you think I don't know what environment is.

I don't know if you don't know what it means, because you haven't defined it. So far, you have not used it in a way which seems to do anything but verify what I said earlier.

Now, are you going to define what you mean when you say "environment" or not? For all I know, you could be talking about any number of things. It's pointless to continue unless you define your terms.

 

[elman]

I don't know if you don't know what it means, because you haven't defined it. So far, you have not used it in a way which seems to do anything but verify what I said earlier.

Now, are you going to define what you mean when you say "environment" or not? For all I know, you could be talking about any number of things. It's pointless to continue unless you define your terms.

No I am waiting for you to explain why my understanding of enviorment is flawed.

 

[PelagiusII]

the only two options are free will or hard-determinism; one of the ways we come to know is through introspection. Our free will is a self-evident truth and we know this through introspection. Even if God knows our free will decisions (which I am not convinced that the future or free decisions are knowable) we still have free will. This is a truth of prositional logic!

Pelagius

 

[funyun]

No I am waiting for you to explain why my understanding of enviorment is flawed.

It's standard practice to define your terms when you make a claim and someone asks you to do so. That way it doesn't lead to confusion later. Otherwise, I'm simply going to have to assume you mean "x" by "environment" when you might actually mean "y". I'm not sure how you expect me to explain why your defintion of environment is flawed if you don't explain it first.

 

[elman]

It's standard practice to define your terms when you make a claim and someone asks you to do so. That way it doesn't lead to confusion later. Otherwise, I'm simply going to have to assume you mean "x" by "environment" when you might actually mean "y". I'm not sure how you expect me to explain why your defintion of environment is flawed if you don't explain it first.

I am not sure why you think my defintion of environment is different from yours.

 

[funyun]

I am not sure why you think my defintion of environment is different from yours.

Are you listening? I can't know that until you give me your defintion. Or is this simply a method of stalling because you don't know what you mean when you say "environment"?

 

[elman]

Are you listening? I can't know that until you give me your defintion. Or is this simply a method of stalling because you don't know what you mean when you say "environment"?

Just go with my defintion being the same as yours until we know it is not. You are the one claiming they are different. I cannot know that unless you define environment. Until you do, I would assume we are talking about the same thing.

 

[Tiphereth]

Yes, I think free will exists, and its confirmation largely comes on an experiential basis. That said however, what kind of free will is there? There two types of free will: compatibilist free will and libertarian free will.

Compatibilist free will asserts that determinism is true (our actions are determined by antecedent events) but we are free in being caused in the right sort of cause: internal causation, the antecedent events being our desires, beliefs, and so on. When we are subject to external causation, then do we lose some of our free will i.e. someone holds a gun to your head and demands that you give them money.

Libertarian free will is an incompatibilist position in that it asserts that determinism is false and so, our actions are completely undetermined. Our beliefs, desires, and so on do not cause our actions and, according to libertarian free will, given the exact same antecedent conditions, it is possible that a person would choose otherwise: in other words, free actions are uncaused.

I personally think the former exists and the latter is logically incoherent. If anyone cares why I think the latter is false, I'd be happy to provide a couple of reasons.

 

[funyun]

Just go with my defintion being the same as yours until we know it is not. You are the one claiming they are different. I cannot know that unless you define environment. Until you do, I would assume we are talking about the same thing.

Environment is constituted by any external force, event, or object which exerts influence, ie if it doesn't exert an influence it is, for all practical purposes, invisible and doesn't exist.

 

[Bakin]

Is there such a thing as free will?

I would say no because we are all slaves to our neurochemistry.