Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

[Belinda]

M2ouse wrote:

Mcdoodle wrote:

This is to me taking the debate into a different area. What is a belief in freewill for? What is a belief in determinism for?

Just to be argumentative -- this sounds like a teleological question. My position is that history merely unfolds; it isn't directed towards an end, it just 'becomes'. Question for Scott -- should these types of questions be raised in another forum, or can they continue in this one?

It could be teleology sneaking in , as it does. I took the question to refer to which agents the belief serves. The belief in Free Will serves those Right Wing politicians who believe that failure is the agent's own fault; and keepers of the peace who cannot retribute unless either the Free Will belief or cynicism underpins the retribution. The belief in Free Will also serves those ordinary people who like me don't happen to have any power over others and who feel happier in the belief that they can consciously originate control over their choices--unlike me.

The determinist who believes in the absolute web of necessity (please see Indra's net or web for illustrative purposes)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/418 ... 4c2e86.jpg

may view some of the insterstices of the web as more influential than others as having more connections , but the web of necessity is the main thing, not the interstices.

Did your question to Scott refer to the Philosophy of Science forum? I think that teachers of science do have to struggle against teleology perhaps especially when teaching evolution by natural selection.Ot perhaps it refers to the Religion forum since Abrahamic religions posit the God who is a who not a what.

[Leonid]

No, it rather serves Socialists who believe in whim-worship. But does it matter whom it serves? What is matter whether or not it is such a thing as free Will?

[Seremonia]

Yes, there can be both

It's free will in my opinion:

Firstly we must understand the meaning of the boundaries (the limitations in doing something) and from here we can see how far freedom can be expressed. There are two important things should be noted while talking about freedom.

1. Thinking is activities by associating and connecting among associated proportionally, then tracing limits between them. “The will” in the search for opportunities will always be within logical framework. On this understanding will be emphasized that there is no thinking out of the logical framework.

2. The perfect free will is the ability to explore anywhere in a logical framework to determine how far free will can be realized, thus realizing the possibility of free will is by exploring the possibility from the smallest to the widest logical possibility that should never be failed.

Actually we are exploring the possibilities free will to get the whole of the possibilities of free will that exist for us. It’s an opportunity, and we can put the concept of free will here.

Imagine a basketball is being played by an untrained people - people A. This shows the freedom of moving the basketball as far as can be done by an untrained people generally. Now put this person A to another basketball trainer (assuming that person A will be trained by a basketball trainer and person A will get even more expertise in playing basketball). Then the basketball will experience freedom greater than before.

For those who feel they have no free will, then he should link “the will” to something more powerful in the assumption to get more freedom than before.

Do we have a choices in life? Yes, we have a choice as far as on whom we rely, within causality.

[Leonid]

Free Will is a freedom to make choices, any choices including the irrational ones. If Free Will is limited only to the rational choices, that is-if man is unable to make any other choices, then the whole concept of Free Will would be undermined, and Free Will becomes an unerring inherited mechanism of choice, that is-an instinct. However the main difference between man and animal is exactly that-man has no instincts to guide his choices and actions. He has to think. Therefore the primary choice is to think or not. This is not a categorical but hypothetical imperative-if man wants to exist qua man he will make rational choices.

[Grecorivera5150]

If man has no instincts how do w really reconcile the fight, flight or freeze mechanism? Are these responses predicated only on prior thought ? Is this prior thought also mixed with genetic disposition and prior experience as different humans react differently in similar situations. Perhaps thinking is an instinctual imperative of humans and the fight, flight or freeze scenario is an example of how this instinct is brought to bare in reflexive responses to physical stimuli that require an immediate response that does not allow time for extended thought.

[H2ouse]

Did your question to Scott refer to the Philosophy of Science forum? I think that teachers of science do have to struggle against teleology perhaps especially when teaching evolution by natural selection.Ot perhaps it refers to the Religion forum since Abrahamic religions posit the God who is a who not a what.

Whoops -- as someone who tries to argue for accurately use of words according to accepted and clearly defined definitions, I've blown it this time. I did not mean "forum": I meant to ask if we should launch a new topic (or more) within this Epistemology and Metaphysics forum in order to cover some of these spin off questions e.g. What is a belief in freewill for? What is a belief in determinism for? Does history merely unfold,or is it directed towards an end.

[Mcdoodle]

Mcdoodle wrote: Just to be argumentative -- this sounds like a teleological question. My position is that history merely unfolds; it isn't directed towards an end, it just 'becomes'. Question for Scott -- should these types of questions be raised in another forum, or can they continue in this one?

It could be teleology sneaking in , as it does. I took the question to refer to which agents the belief serves. T...

I did mean, as Belinda surmises, to refer not to teleology, but to the function which the respective beliefs have for respective agents. I felt I had reached the end of speculating about the questions in themselves, since for me neither strong nor weak determinism, nor freewill advocacy, are susceptible to empirical investigation. Neuroscientists believe they can draw inferences from their research into brain activity, but for me there are too many potential objections to that, and so far at any rate, great leaps of ideas are being made with a rather modest amount of data.

To be candid, I don't see much of a pattern so far in the functions of these beliefs.

I too feel stuff just happens, and indeed 'history' is a narrative often about the present seeen through the prism of past events.