Free will

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
ALEX PAULO KATTO
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: February 9th, 2018, 5:16 am

Re: Free will

Post by ALEX PAULO KATTO » February 9th, 2018, 5:31 am

For me freedom means not to go against nature, that is physical nature and rational nature.

User avatar
LuckyR
Posts: 2501
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Free will

Post by LuckyR » February 9th, 2018, 2:39 pm

ALEX PAULO KATTO wrote:
February 9th, 2018, 5:31 am
For me freedom means not to go against nature, that is physical nature and rational nature.
Interesting. Could you define terms and go into greater detail. perhaps with examples?

BTW, this thread was originally created to discuss Free Will as a counterpoint to Predetermination, not necessarily the concept of freedom, per se'
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 103
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Free will

Post by jerlands » February 9th, 2018, 4:35 pm

Curiouspaul wrote:
August 26th, 2016, 10:43 pm
Isn't it about time as a society that we come up with a definite definition for free will and decide whether it is real or not.

For a long time I have suffered depression and one of the things that really gets me down is regrets, but since I discovered free will my be an illusion I have not dwelled on regrets so much because if free will is an illusion the nmy life was always going to end up where it is now, so there is nothing I could have done to prevent the things that I regret.

So the discussion of free will could be quite important to people suffering from depression.

Also, we send criminals to prison for life or execute them on the belief they chose their crime. But if free will is an illusion then seeking revenge by executing people or sending them to prison for life is just as bad as when people burnt women alive believing them to be witches, because it was a punishment based on a belief, not a fact.

Humanity needs an answer.


Free will is not an illusion, free will is just a matter of choice. That's really all we have. We chose from our environment this or that for reasons that make us individuals. We all however make bad choices but learning from those mistakes is what I believe important. To learn however requires we admit what we did as wrong and take correct action to right the wrong.

Speaking to depression though... I've heard it said depression is not a prozac deficiency and also stuff about the gut brain axis (the gut now being regarded as the second brain.) I'm not a doctor but you might look into how health of the guts microbiome can influence emotion and behavior.

Syamsu
Posts: 2524
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Free will

Post by Syamsu » February 10th, 2018, 12:05 am

Free will is not an illusion, don't be absurd. Consider the logic of free will.

An object has alternative futures A and B, A is made the present, meaning A is chosen.
What was it that made the choice turn out A?
The answer is a choice between X and Y, where either answer X or Y is equally correct.

That both X and Y are correct answers is the exact same reasoning why it is equally valid to say a painting is beautiful as to say it is ugly.
It means that all expression of emotion, all subjective opinion, is based on free will. Denial of free will is a sure way to destroy emotional life and get depression.

Ideologies which deny free will, are generally cold-hearted and calculating, due to not providing any room for subjective opinion. Nazism heavily relied on predetermination by race, and predetermination by natural law of struggle for survival. Communism relied on predetermination by laws of societal evolution. Denial of free wil alway comes together with regarding it as a fact what is good and evil, because subjective opinion only operates based on free will.

Judaka
Posts: 205
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Free will

Post by Judaka » February 11th, 2018, 1:30 am

Free will as it is defined seems to self-evidently exist but considering the vast and intense biological/social influences on our behaviour, one can hardly consider us to be acting as we do of our own volition. Free will is more like, ultimately you are the CEO and you have the final say but you still need to run your business a certain way. We do have our ability to adjust how we think subconsciously over time through training and so long as you are making a conscious, long-term effort to think or behave in a certain way then I haven't seen anything humans haven't been able to change about themselves within the context of will.

User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1205
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Free will

Post by Present awareness » February 12th, 2018, 6:24 pm

Do humans have free will? I would say yes. Is it possible to prove free will? I would say yes. Look no further then the breath. We breath in and out throughout the day and night, mostly unconsciously. However, I may choose, of my own free will, to hold my breath for a minute or two. If it is not by my own free will, that I choose to hold my breath, then what is it that compels me to do so?
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1589
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Free will

Post by Hereandnow » February 13th, 2018, 7:52 pm

Syamsu:
The concept of free will can only function if the agency of a decision, is regarded as a subjective issue. If agency is regarded as a factual issue, then the concept becomes rigid, and does not allow for freedom in choosing anymore. Then the choice can only turn out in accordance with the fact of what the agency consists of, and cannot turn out any other way.
Trouble is, people want it both ways: to have their freedom and deny it, too. If you consider the apodicticity of causality, then freedom is a bust, a miracle, that is, to have a causeless action (as if the agency of action is not herself caused). But look at this phenomemologically: a person is not a tree or a stone. These latter do not have possibilities, we do. A tree does not stand before an unwritten future and behold what is possible; but a person can withdraw from what compels, what motivates, and review these, select one over others. This is what freedom is. It is not to be held withing the grasp of a rational/natural law. The act of choosing among possibilities is to be described as it appears, and this sets a person off significantly from the "things" of the world.
Now, you can reduce a person to a law of reason (causality), and consider possibilities as causal possibilities, much as a stream may go one way or another, and here, choice is simply an elaborate causality, but it needs to be understood that streams do not choose a path, but are coerced by natural (or cognitive, if you are a Kantian) law. Are we willing to deconstruct choice down to coercion? I think not: for in the act of second guessing what we will do, the inquiry overcomes the causality at every turn, for it stops action, inquiry does, and choice only arises where there is first inquiry. Choice therefore is destructive of causal streams only. After the choice is made, things move along in a "natural" way, but only until choice reasserts itself.

Post Reply