Free will?

  • Thread starter Thread starter schnipdip
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

schnipdip

Guest
In my philosophy class we were dicussing whether or not we have free will.

I believe we don’t have free will. If you think about it for a while and understand the meaning of free will, it is a decission that is made between 2 or more objects or anything else without any prior influences.

I believe that we live under the laws of determinism. Which means that a decission was made based on prior actions.

I can give some examples if needed. I just want to put this out there.
 
In my philosophy class we were dicussing whether or not we have free will.

I believe we don’t have free will. If you think about it for a while and understand the meaning of free will, it is a decission that is made between 2 or more objects or anything else without any prior influences.

I believe that we live under the laws of determinism. Which means that a decission was made based on prior actions.

I can give some examples if needed. I just want to put this out there.
I think that we can’t know whether we have free will or not with our current technologies, but free will is not inconsistent with the world around us. Show me the examples you are thinking of so I can show you what I mean.
 
I think that we can’t know whether we have free will or not with our current technologies, but free will is not inconsistent with the world around us. Show me the examples you are thinking of so I can show you what I mean.
Okay, so lets say that you are taught that A is always right. Later in life you are confronted with B. Well, sinse you believe that A is right then you will never choose B. Now, you may choose A subconsiously and not realize that you have chosen A.
So the prior actions, what you were taught, determined what you were going to choose.

Now, predeterminism is bad. That is saying that action A will determine action Z, no matter what happens in the middle. Determinism says that A effects B, but can’t decide Z. Meaning that X will determine what Y is and then Y will determine what Z is.

This is a rough example, without specifics to avoid problems.
 
Okay, so lets say that you are taught that A is always right. Later in life you are confronted with B. Well, sinse you believe that A is right then you will never choose B. Now, you may choose A subconsiously and not realize that you have chosen A.
So the prior actions, what you were taught, determined what you were going to choose.

Now, predeterminism is bad. That is saying that action A will determine action Z, no matter what happens in the middle. Determinism says that A effects B, but can’t decide Z. Meaning that X will determine what Y is and then Y will determine what Z is.

This is a rough example, without specifics to avoid problems.
But you can, of your own free will, question what you’ve been taught and use research, critical thinking, etc. to make a better decision. A lot of people are just too lazy to do that.

And, of course, one can choose, of their own free will, to be lazy and never come to conclusions for themselves.
 
But you can, of your own free will, question what you’ve been taught and use research, critical thinking, etc. to make a better decision. A lot of people are just too lazy to do that.
Right but that that decision was made off of prior actions and not your own free will.

And you see that all the time, in almost all decisions that are made, you just don’t realize it.
 
Where does law come in, if there is no free will? How could you ever be praised or blamed for your actions? If there is absolutely no free will, then you would simply be an extension of your parents, and they of theirs, and so on, and so your actions would in turn be an extension of them, and they of theirs, and so on. Clearly you are a different being from your parents, and clearly, even though there are manifold influences to your every thought and action, there is something that makes something distinctly your being or your action.

Give this a careful look: newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm

-ACEGC
 
Yep, embezzlers have no choice, thieves, liars, rapists, beheaders, hitler, stalin, pol pot, manson-all helpless robots whose actions we’re completely predetermined, they couldn’t offer even the slightest bit of resistance. Yep, yep. Let’s throw open the prison doors! Wouldn’t want to hold anyone as morally responsible.
 
Where does law come in, if there is no free will? How could you ever be praised or blamed for your actions? If there is absolutely no free will, then you would simply be an extension of your parents, and they of theirs, and so on, and so your actions would in turn be an extension of them, and they of theirs, and so on. Clearly you are a different being from your parents, and clearly, even though there are manifold influences to your every thought and action, there is something that makes something distinctly your being or your action.

Give this a careful look: newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm

-ACEGC
You are right here, but you also have to remember that your parents play a huge role in your actions. You can see, and I have seen that children mimik their parents. So yes we are an extension of our parents.
And yes you could say that you are not to blame because it was determined that you were going to do that.
An example is that you walk into class without your homework. Well, you didn’t hand in your homework because of some action that happened prior to that. Like you were out partying late so you didn’t finish it. That action then resulted in you not handing in your homework. Therefore you are to blame because you were out partying. But you can go further and say that it wasn’t your fault that you were partying. Someone made you go to a party, so therefore it was determined that you were going to the party. Which resulted in coming home late and not finishing your homework to turn it in on time.
 
Yep, embezzlers have no choice, thieves, liars, rapists, beheaders, hitler, stalin, pol pot, manson-all helpless robots whose actions we’re completely predetermined, they couldn’t offer even the slightest bit of resistance. Yep, yep. Let’s throw open the prison doors! Wouldn’t want to hold anyone as morally responsible.
Yes, even though they had no choice in the actions that they did, they are still responsible if affects others in the outcome.
It is hard to fully understand this, but if you think about for a long time and examine things from the prospective of determinism and not free will, it becomes more understandable.
 
In my philosophy class we were dicussing whether or not we have free will.

I believe we don’t have free will. If you think about it for a while and understand the meaning of free will, it is a decission that is made between 2 or more objects or anything else without any prior influences.

I believe that we live under the laws of determinism. Which means that a decission was made based on prior actions.

I can give some examples if needed. I just want to put this out there.
“Free will” is usually defined in the context of being able to make decisions and act on things which are contrary to our “nature.” For example, it is the nature of dogs to bark when they see a cat. A dog can not decide of it’s own will not to bark at the cat (although a human with free will can train it to do such). For humans, made in the image and likeness of God, it is our nature to love God and each other. But God gives humans free will - the ability to act against our nature. Without this capability we would be robots, just like the dog that MUST bark at the cat. We were created to freely choose to act according to our loving nature. And without the possibility of evil, a choice to love is not really love - it’s just being a robot. So for love to exist evil must exist as an alternative.

Dogs cannot decide to ignore cats. Planets cannot decide to stop orbiting the sun and to go off somewhere else. Suns cannot decide to stop shining. The only thing in the universe which can decide to act contrary to, and to change their natures is man.

Or so I’ve heard…
 
“Free will” is usually defined in the context of being able to make decisions and act on things which are contrary to our “nature.” For example, it is the nature of dogs to bark when they see a cat. A dog can not decide of it’s own will not to bark at the cat (although a human with free will can train it to do such). For humans, made in the image and likeness of God, it is our nature to love God and each other. But God gives humans free will - the ability to act against our nature. Without this capability we would be robots, just like the dog that MUST bark at the cat. We were created to freely choose to act according to our loving nature. And without the possibility of evil, a choice to love is not really love - it’s just being a robot. So for love to exist evil must exist as an alternative.

Dogs cannot decide to ignore cats. Planets cannot decide to stop orbiting the sun and to go off somewhere else. Suns cannot decide to stop shining. The only thing in the universe which can decide to act contrary to, and to change their natures is man.

Or so I’ve heard…
What if you were taught from your parents or some other source that good was bad, and bad was good? To you, you are making the right choices that are good and to someone else you are making a bad choice.
 
Right but that that decision was made off of prior actions and not your own free will.
Logically demonstrate this claim.
And you see that all the time, in almost all decisions that are made, you just don’t realize it.
Where did you obtain the divine ability to analyze everyone else’s internal life?
Yes, even though they had no choice in the actions that they did, they are still responsible if affects others in the outcome.
It is hard to fully understand this, but if you think about for a long time and examine things from the prospective of determinism and not free will, it becomes more understandable.
To say that someone is responsible for a matter in which they had no choice is patently absurd. That’s like saying if someone forcibly throws me through a window, I’m responsible for breaking the window. If our decisions are made for us by the collective (name removed by moderator)ut of our environment, then we are not responsible for our actions: the responsibility falls on the chance happenings of nature.
What if you were taught from your parents or some other source that good was bad, and bad was good? To you, you are making the right choices that are good and to someone else you are making a bad choice.
Most people have an instinctive sense of morality. True, it can be drilled out of them, but there’s nothing in the philosophy of free will that says that it can’t be compromised; in fact this is part of the Church’s teaching. Still, there are many people who have had terrible upbringings and grow up to be upstanding people. Others may have had morally lax parents but grew up to be very morally orthodox.

The kind of fatalistic philosophy you’re throwing out makes me think you must be attending a very secular university with a decidedly atheistic professor. Might I recommend you balance that out by reading some pre-modern philosophy, including and especially Catholic philosophy. Some good contemporary sources are Ed Feser and Peter Kreeft. And that Aquinas is required reading should go without saying.
 
I go out to a river. Then I craft a boat, which will be piloted by a young child, and then I sail him down the river. The river carries him downstream - in one basic direction. Is the child predestined to sail down the river? Yes. Is he predestined to dock in a specific place down the river? Not exactly.
Code:
God made us and our surroundings, and He knows everything about us - past, present, and future. Yet He does not force us to do anything - rather He allows us to go down a general path. Think of the above-mentioned child in his boat. He is going down a path with limited options, but if he knows how to steer the boat he can choose where exactly he goes down that path - that's the function of free will. We might be set on a course of sorts (limited via our physicality, language, location, family, and all other circumstances in our lives), but ultimately we are in control of where we will arrive within that course, within our given circumstances. 

I believe God has us on a similar path, and we have the ability to alter our course - to accept or reject Him is simply to steer to the left or to the right, and whatever streamlet we end up in at the end of our earthly time is where we enter into eternity (heaven or hell). The only difference between you watching the child, and God watching you, is that you don't know where exactly the child will land. God knows where we will land though, and even though He does have that knowledge He respects our free wills enough to refrain from directly altering our courses. I contend that He simply plans ahead to account for all that we will do because He exists outside of time. 

For us, time is something that continually moves forward - it cannot be moved backwards or sideways, deflected, or stopped, and all of us are entrapped by it. From the perspective of the child in the raft there is only one direction that the river flows in and, like us, he is being carried along with it - only capable of seeing what's over the horizon. However, from the perspective of the other person (let us say he is hovering above in a helicopter) the river can be viewed in much greater detail. *There's where it starts at the base of a mountain, then there is the main body with its many twists and turns, and then there are the two lakes that it can end in.*

Like the person in the helicopter, God can see what we call "time" from the beginning to its end but He can see the paths we will take within time just as clearly. He can see the beginning and the end because time is something He can look over from an objective point of view - He exists outside of it, hence the reason He had no beginning and will have no end. In this way, God's plans can and will be fulfilled regardless of the choices made by us. He is more than capable of accounting for all the choices we will make, without forcing us to make any of  them. More or less, He builds His plan so as to work in harmony with the decisions He already knows we will make, and these particular aspects of His plan may be considered "predestined" for that fact, though they do not actually affect our free will.

Now, one may object: "because God knows our future decisions and He created us, He's still responsible for our actions." However, there is no real connection to be made with this hypothesis. God is not necessarily any more responsible for the decisions we make than one would be for the decisions that his or her own child makes. The fact that God is the highest "entity," "sentience," or whatever one may consider Him, does not require that He be controlling all of it from a literal perspective. He put us on the river, and He even made the  river itself, but we're the captains of our given vessels.
 
In my philosophy class we were dicussing whether or not we have free will.

I believe we don’t have free will. If you think about it for a while and understand the meaning of free will, it is a decission that is made between 2 or more objects or anything else without any prior influences.

I believe that we live under the laws of determinism. Which means that a decission was made based on prior actions.

I can give some examples if needed. I just want to put this out there.
Try thinking about free will as it actually is in real life.

First. Free will is not a decision.
Second. Free will does consider prior influences.
Ricmat’s post 10 explains one of the benefits of free will.
😃
 
What if you were taught from your parents or some other source that good was bad, and bad was good? To you, you are making the right choices that are good and to someone else you are making a bad choice.
Your parents (and others) have the free will to teach you what is good and what is bad, and they may be mistaken in both cases. But in any case you have the free will to do the opposite of what you were taught.

I think your question is not really about free will, but rather how to determine what is good and what is bad. The question that most of us face is that we know in our hearts that something is bad, but we incorrectly use our free will to do it anyway.
 
In my philosophy class we were dicussing whether or not we have free will.

I believe we don’t have free will. If you think about it for a while and understand the meaning of free will, it is a decission that is made between 2 or more objects or anything else without any prior influences.

I believe that we live under the laws of determinism. Which means that a decission was made based on prior actions.

I can give some examples if needed. I just want to put this out there.
To be taught that good is bad and bad is good is done by ignorant/bad parents.
But there comes a time when the “not so young” child sees/hears differently.
Then he makes a decision whether to continue or to change what they have been taught.

Animals do not have a decision to make because they will always follow what their master
taught them, like Pavlov’s dog. We may be trained as well. But we can also change our
behavior and people have done so.

Just a thought.
 
In my philosophy class we were dicussing whether or not we have free will.

I believe we don’t have free will. If you think about it for a while and understand the meaning of free will, it is a decission that is made between 2 or more objects or anything else without any prior influences.

I believe that we live under the laws of determinism. Which means that a decission was made based on prior actions.

I can give some examples if needed. I just want to put this out there.
Maybe the reason that this is an off base definition of free will is that people forget that human will is an ability or function that is partnered with a complete rational intellect. 🤷
 
In my philosophy class we were dicussing whether or not we have free will.
The only way to know for sure would be to run a test and see. For example, ask someone a set of questions and from the answers determine if she has free will. But it’s impossible to design such a test, or at least impossible to design one which everyone can agree is valid. The reason for that seems to be that we think we know what we mean by free will, but actually it’s a very fuzzy concept in our heads with no adequate definition.

As a result, discussing free will highlights how differently people think about fuzzy concepts but it’s pointless hoping it will ever be resolved, because fuzzy concepts only exist in our heads, they’re not part of the real world.

Imho.
 
The only way to know for sure would be to run a test and see. For example, ask someone a set of questions and from the answers determine if she has free will. But it’s impossible to design such a test, or at least impossible to design one which everyone can agree is valid. The reason for that seems to be that we think we know what we mean by free will, but actually it’s a very fuzzy concept in our heads with no adequate definition.

As a result, discussing free will highlights how differently people think about fuzzy concepts but it’s pointless hoping it will ever be resolved, because fuzzy concepts only exist in our heads, they’re not part of the real world.

Imho.
The obvious solution is to start with the Catholic explanation of the Spiritual Soul.

“Ah,” one says, “scientists, philosophers, and modern technology like the FMRI, have problems locating the Spiritual Soul.”

True.
 
The obvious solution is to start with the Catholic explanation of the Spiritual Soul.

“Ah,” one says, “scientists, philosophers, and modern technology like the FMRI, have problems locating the Spiritual Soul.”

True.
I know you like discussing the soul :), but it doesn’t help provide a solution here. If it did, philosophers would have stopped arguing about free will long ago, but far from it.

To the Catholic Encyclopedia it is very much an open (and complex) problem - "The question of free will, moral liberty, …] ranks amongst the three or four most important philosophical problems of all time. It ramifies into ethics, theology, metaphysics, and psychology. "

As the Stanfield Encyclopedia of Philosophy says “And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top