No free will

[Montie_Claunch]

I am taking an Intro. to Ethics coarse at School and the Professor was discussing some of the views that say that there is no free will. While I did not completely understand I would like to try and replicate the arugments and I was wondering if ya’ll could help me with this as to prove that we do have free will.

1. First argument is that in the process of making an action one has a chance to change ones mind on weather to do it or not. Which would make it to where on had an infinate chance to change ones mind. Therefore there is a gap between choice and action. Which means that the action just happens which means we have no free will.
2. Second argument is, infinate reverse. How did you get to the point make that choice? A previous choice. You Chose to choose. Giving one a infinate reverse of choosing. There is no starting point for choosing and if there were the start would be the chain reaction for those choices hence we do not have free will.

I may not gotten them exactly right. I hope ya’ll can understand what I heard and what I am trying to relate. Do any of ya’ll know how I can defend free will here? Thanks and God bless.

 

[Thal59]

Your professor sounds like the kind of guy that Bishop Sheen referred to as being “educated beyond his intelligence.”

It is like saying, “I always tell a lie.”

(If I say I always tell a lie, then I am lying which means I am telling the truth, but if I told the truth when I say I always lie then I lied but…)

But what “no free will” has to do with a course in ethics is beyond me.

Well, I think i’ll have a peanut butter and jelley sandwich. But should I go for the pineapple or the plum jelley? I think I like pineapple, but snce I have no free will, I might as well just take whatever jelley jar is closest at hand. (Gee, I hope its the pineapple.)

Thal59

 

[Penitant]

I am taking an Intro. to Ethics coarse at School and the Professor was discussing some of the views that say that there is no free will. While I did not completely understand I would like to try and replicate the arugments and I was wondering if ya’ll could help me with this as to prove that we do have free will.

1. First argument is that in the process of making an action one has a chance to change ones mind on weather to do it or not. Which would make it to where on had an infinate chance to change ones mind. Therefore there is a gap between choice and action. Which means that the action just happens which means we have no free will.
2. Second argument is, infinate reverse. How did you get to the point make that choice? A previous choice. You Chose to choose. Giving one a infinate reverse of choosing. There is no starting point for choosing and if there were the start would be the chain reaction for those choices hence we do not have free will.

I may not gotten them exactly right. I hope ya’ll can understand what I heard and what I am trying to relate. Do any of ya’ll know how I can defend free will here? Thanks and God bless.

1. Perhaps you haven’t actually made the choice until you attempt to take action.
2. Not quite. A choice is something that arises due to circumstance. I don’t have to choose to choose. There is simply something that prompts me with an option and I have to choose one or the other (or the other…).

I would hope the prof will give you his answers to these logic problems. If not, he should tell you all to pack up and go home. Ethics (and morals, for that matter) are only applicable if there is Free Will. Otherwise we are not responsible for our actions and thus cannot be held accountable.

-Penitant

 

[john_doran]

1. First argument is that in the process of making an action one has a chance to change ones mind on weather to do it or not. Which would make it to where on had an infinate chance to change ones mind. Therefore there is a gap between choice and action. Which means that the action just happens which means we have no free will.

i’m not sure i understand this argument, since the premise:

1. prior to acting, one has a chance to choose not to act in that way.

simply doesn’t entail:

1. there are an infinite number of opportunities one has to choose not to act prior to so acting.

but even if that was a logical progression, (2) still doesn’t entail:

1. if there are an infinite number of opportunities to choose not to act, then one can never act.

so the argument isn’t even valid, let alone sound.

2. Second argument is, infinate reverse. How did you get to the point make that choice? A previous choice. You Chose to choose. Giving one a infinate reverse of choosing. There is no starting point for choosing and if there were the start would be the chain reaction for those choices hence we do not have free will.

sounds like zeno’s paradox: before i can take a step from A to B, i must necessarily pass over half the distance. but before i can pass over half of the distance from A to B, i must pass over half of that distance. but before i can pass over half of half of the distance between A and B, i must pass over half of that distance. and so on, ad infinitum. but then i will never be able to get started, and thus, i will never be able to take a step.

but i do, in fact, take many steps. so the argument is obviously wrong.

in the same way, i do in fact, make many free choices. so your prof.'s argument is obviously wrong.

more specifically, i simply reject his premise that “every choice must be preceded by a prior choice upon which it depends for its existence”.

why should anyone believe something like that?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think you are missing the “No one ever makes the BEST choice” this is because you lack resources (time) to evaluate every possible scenario and accurately to predict the outcome if you select that choice. Thus all choices are less than ethically pure (in outcome but not intent ).

The reverse would be - As you can not accurately predict all future consequences of today’s action your choice made today may create an opposite affect. So even selecting what appears unethical can have an overall positive ethical outcome.

Be cautious concerning these issues sin involves intent so bad intent is sin even if a positive outcome does occur. This overall game is for enlightenment not practice. You know if you steal the chances of a bad result are significantly higher than if don’t steal.

 

[Tom]

You could make the point that since he isn’t really speaking to you, because he’s somewhere else, his thoughts on the matter art not relevant.
Why is he “somewhere else” and not talking to you?
If he claims to be physically there with you simply prove him wrong.
Ask him if he’s in New York, if he says “no” ask him if he’s in Chicago, if he says “no” ask him if he’s in Dallas, if he still says “no”, give him the proof that he’s not there with you, but is in reality somewhere else,
“If you’re not in New York, and you’re not in Chicago, and you’re not in Dallas, you must be somewhere else!, If you’re somewhere else you’re not here!
Logic can be so illogical

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You could make the point that since he isn’t really speaking to you, because he’s somewhere else, his thoughts on the matter art not relevant.
Why is he “somewhere else” and not talking to you?
If he claims to be physically there with you simply prove him wrong.
Ask him if he’s in New York, if he says “no” ask him if he’s in Chicago, if he says “no” ask him if he’s in Dallas, if he still says “no”, give him the proof that he’s not there with you, but is in reality somewhere else,
“If you’re not in New York, and you’re not in Chicago, and you’re not in Dallas, you must be somewhere else!, If you’re somewhere else you’re not here!
Logic can be so illogical

Excellent, so your “A” is then inevitable and you can not even stop it!

 

[Liberian]

Montie,

The first argument, that one has an infinite number of chances to change one’s mind and does not take advantage of any of them, is reminiscent of Zeno’s Paradox in which a fast runner can never catch up with a tortoise because whenever he gets to where the tortoise was, the tortoise has moved on ahead. It makes a nice conundrum, but the real world does not work that way. (For starters, we cannot change our mind more than once every hundredth of a second, and the true rate is, I am sure, much slower than that. So we do not have “an infinite chance” to change our minds.)

The second argument is actually part of C.S. Lewis’ proof that the material universe is not all that there is. If the material universe is all that there is, then this second argument is right and we have no free will. We also have no rational thought–since our thoughts are strictly the results of the motions of the molecules in our brains–and thus no reason to believe that there is any truth to the idea that the material universe is all that there is.

• Liberian