Does everything past and future already exist?

You have a conflicting view. I never said we could choose what we want and I have never said we are not limited by our circumstance or ability. You are disputing a description I never gave. You want me to argue about your description, a description that is inconceivable in reality or in theory. Free will is a human concept do you want me to invent a creature or a machine that fullfills your concept? Sorry that's impossible.

You have a conflicting view. I never said we could choose what we want and I have never said we are not limited by our circumstance or ability.

I never said you did.

I asked you a question about it.

(…) You want me to argue about your description, a description that is inconceivable in reality or in theory. Free will is a human concept do you want me to invent a creature or a machine that fullfills your concept? (…)

No. I'd like to receive an answer to my question.

We can choose to do what we want, but can we choose what we want?

According to what you said, I think that you agree with the following paragrapgh:

Will cannot be free, if by "free" we mean "independent" and/or "not affected by a given condition or circumstance". Will is influenced by several factors and - considering our current knowledge - is chained to the physical complex phenomena from which it arises.

"The brain, an orchestra without conductor".

You have a conflicting view. I never said we could choose what we want and I have never said we are not limited by our circumstance or ability.

I never said you did.

I asked you a question about it.

(…) You want me to argue about your description, a description that is inconceivable in reality or in theory. Free will is a human concept do you want me to invent a creature or a machine that fullfills your concept? (…)

No. I'd like to receive an answer to my question.

We can choose to do what we want, but can we choose what we want?

According to what you said, I think that you agree with the following paragrapgh:

Will cannot be free, if by "free" we mean "independent" and/or "not affected by a given condition or circumstance". Will is influenced by several factors and - considering our current knowledge - is chained to the physical complex phenomena from which it arises.

"The brain, an orchestra without conductor".

I don't think your reading my posts. You asked for my view on what free will is. I told you and it differes from yours. You are claming we are not free because of conditions and circumstances. I am telling you that is the human concept of free will, the ability to decide within the conditions and circumstances . Your concept of free will is not feasible for god or man. Why should I argue about impossibilities when we are debating the human concept of free will? It's not logical.

Xris, I've red your posts. I have never asked you "what free will is".

You are telling me just now (not before) that by free will you mean "the ability to decide within the conditions and circumstances".

Finally, you agree with me that the relative "free" it's just an illusion.

Xris, as I wrote earlier,My paraphrase of Honderich's defintion of Free Will: Free Will is absolute originator. Absolute origination is impossible for us because all events, mental and physical, are caused events, not original events.

I agree with Honderich. As far as I know only Honderich coined the term 'originator' with regard to Free Will.

Taking the analogy of a prescriptive (human) situation rather than a descriptive (natural) one, is not the difference between Xris's and Ludwig van Drake's beliefs something like this?

[quote="Mother (to child)]Which do you want a cookie or a piece of cake?[/quote]

I think Xris is acknowledging there are no necessary and sufficient conditions present whereby, given complete information of all relevant facts and circumstances, anyone could in principle predict with certainty what the child does.

And I think Ludwig von Drake is acknowledging that in this situation, in principle we can predict with certainty what the child does.

The choice presented to the child is a cookie or a piece of cake. The Mother's intent is the exclusive sense of "or," but the child could choose both (but doesn't get both because of Mother (nature)), or the child could choose the cookie, or choose a the piece of cake, or choose not to choose either, or simply ignore the question and do something else.

Isn't Xris saying we cannot in principle predict what the child does and Ludwig von Drake is saying we can in principle predict what the child does. Nothing fancy is meant by "in principle" -- just that, if all prior circumstances were known and we had a complete and consistent theory of everything.

If I may try and make myself clearer. The choices we are given have to be confronted and we make as informed a choice as we can. We may wish to choose or be given other options but if there are none then we work within the choices we are given. That does not destroy my freedom only inhibits ability. The ability we have accumulated by life can be insufficient or by circumstance bigoted, naive or infact predictable by our human nature. This I accept but I still maintain that this is the human concept of free will. If we believed that the human concept of love was tainted by experience and human desires would we say it was not love? If we claim this is not free will then we must give examples of what free will would or could be. The trouble has arisen by the idea that it was god given and that would imply a perfect gift. Imperfect as we are we exert our will. If it was not so we would have vegetated and become robotic copies of our ancestors. The human condition is unique by it's ability to exert it's free will.

Hi Xris.

I could not have said it better.
All this wrangling about the simple customary use of a word most people use as interchangeable with choice is rather pointless.
We all know our choices are always limited.
Even to think that an imaginary or real deity has no limits is in all likelyhood not true, however its limits would be so far removed from ours that we would think it limitless.

Hi Xris.

I could not have said it better.
All this wrangling about the simple customary use of a word most people use as interchangeable with choice is rather pointless.
We all know our choices are always limited.
Even to think that an imaginary or real deity has no limits is in all likelyhood not true, however its limits would be so far removed from ours that we would think it limitless.

Thanks clogs. I was hoping I had explained myself but you never know.

(...) This I accept but I still maintain that this is the human concept of free will. (...)

Therefore is Hoderich (that defines differently "free will") not human?

Is our dictionary that defines "free" also as "independent" and/or "not affected by a given condition or circumstance" a non-human dictionary?

I'm not talking about determinism or quantum laws, I'm saying that: if though is a product of brain and if brain is submitted to natural laws than though is not the product of an independent mind but a natural event as the motion of the planets. Is the motion of the planets free?

(...) This I accept but I still maintain that this is the human concept of free will. (...)

Therefore is Hoderich (that defines differently "free will") not human?

Is our dictionary that defines "free" also as "independent" and/or "not affected by a given condition or circumstance" a non-human dictionary?

I'm not talking about determinism or quantum laws, I'm saying that: if though is a product of brain and if brain is submitted to natural laws than though is not the product of an independent mind but a natural event as the motion of the planets. Is the motion of the planets free?

I'm not sure what your point is. My thoughts are a product of my brain so what outside force is restraining my ability? If you are denying it's a human condition that we are debating tell me? Tell me what freedom realy looks like and we can compare your perfect freedom of thought with my human concept. No the planets have a path that is beyond their ability to alter but I can sure change my path by logic and reason. We spend our lives trying to make sense of our existence and attempting to unburden the preconceived truths by debate and speculation. We do our damness to be objective and overcome prejudice. Thats the human concept of free will, now can you give me the perfect example of free will? thanks xris

(...) No the planets have a path that is beyond their ability to alter but I can sure change my path by logic and reason. (...)

Therefore, is your brain not subject to the law of nature?

If your brain is submitted to those laws and your thought come from your brain, you are free to think as a planet is free to move: your freedom is just an illusion.

Wooden shoe wrote:
All this wrangling about the simple customary use of a word most people use as interchangeable with choice is rather pointless.
The interesting point about whether or not Free Will exists is that if Free Will does not exist what then happens to personal responsibility?

The disappearance of Free Will in favour of determinism results in merciful and rational sentencing in courts of law.

If the judge can say '"it's not her fault because she was mentally ill, came from a bad family,was too short to see over the wall, could not have known the gun was loaded, was enslaved, was led astray by the Hitler Youth Movement, was poorly educated, had never been taught American values, was under the age of consent," etc ad infinitum.
Then the sentence should be aimed at education, medical treatment, restitution, whatever the crininal needs to make her a good citizen, instead of the traditional, religion-based notions that the criminal should be punished for making the wrong decision simply because she was bad in her Free Will soul.

Personal responsibility is a very practical matter, and there are persons who have more or less personal reponsibility according to how free of slavery, imprisonment, crippling medical condition, quality of education and training in civic and moral duties etc. the person is .

Free Will is by definition free of the person's causal circumstances,surmounts the person's causal circumstances, and if Free Will exists the person who has it is able thereby to make good or bad decisions regardless of his circumstances.

(...) No the planets have a path that is beyond their ability to alter but I can sure change my path by logic and reason. (...)

Therefore, is your brain not subject to the law of nature?

If your brain is submitted to those laws and your thought come from your brain, you are free to think as a planet is free to move: your freedom is just an illusion.

So I am equal to the planets in my capability to exert my will? So are you going to tell me what true freedom is?

Freedom: "The condition of being free of restraints".

Does that freedom exist in our universe?

I don't think so.

In our world, freedom exists only in a relative form.

We perceive our will as free, but it's not: determinism or quantum theories POV don't change the fact.

A different point of view should be just the one of someone who believes that thought come from a mind loosed from the laws of nature.