Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On Free Will

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 8:07:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As independent agents, we make decisions; and, indecision is, inescapably, a decision. However, the question remains, how does indecision impact our lives and to what extent. If I were to make no choices, if that were possible, I would by necessity give up all responsibility and in effect become, potentially, the burden or ward of someone else. He, or she, would take on the obligation of keeping me alive. This at least for me sounds like an excruciatingly deplorable state of existence; in fact, it hints of being a vegetable.

So, in considering a state of irresponsibility to such an extreme leads me to conclude decisions, or choice, as a product of agency creates not only accountability but also a desire to live.

Next, I would like to consider choice. What is choice? As I see it, choice is a choosing between two or more stimuli. Further, I believe it's based on values; in other words, I believe one chooses that which he, or she, deems of greater value, or has more meaning, and significance. Yet, with every choice, there is the possibility of making the wrong choice, or a choice that brings negative consequences. So, with every choice, there is a degree of vulnerability.

For me, vulnerability requires courage, at least to some extent. The more significant or life altering a choice is, the greater degree of courage it requires.

However, I believe free will, or agency, is only one side of the equation.
frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 4:22:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
According to me, to produce many choices to any matter shows the person thinks well. But there is a bad side: losing time! And as you said, there is the possibility of making the wrong choice.
As a result, I say that producing choices is good, for deep thinking persons and that to choose the correct fastly, requires experiments which would earn in the course of time.
The God has given the reason in order to using much.
I prefer a friend with deep thinking and free will, than incosiderate and imitator.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 7:31:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 4:22:00 AM, frbnsn wrote:
According to me, to produce many choices to any matter shows the person thinks well. But there is a bad side: losing time! And as you said, there is the possibility of making the wrong choice.
As a result, I say that producing choices is good, for deep thinking persons and that to choose the correct fastly, requires experiments which would earn in the course of time.
The God has given the reason in order to using much.
I prefer a friend with deep thinking and free will, than incosiderate and imitator.

That brings up a good point. Do you believe, for the most part, people lose themselves in the collective in an attempt to defer the burden of thought and to deflect the responsibility of decision making?
computertooter
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 1:42:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My apologies upfront if I have failed to follow protocol as I am new to this website. I find your subject very interesting and would like to add to your discussion.

The answer to your question of whether people for the most part lose themselves in the collective in an attempt to defer the burden of thought and decision making is obliviously yes! All one needs to do is look at how our societies are arranged. Look at our own government. Our government is structured to make decisions for us. To decide whether or not we go to war; to decide who will become our allies; to negotiate treaties.

The more difficult the decision the greater the tenancy to defer to someone you trust and believe is more intelligent. All good leaders know this. Hence one of my favorite sayings is "a King needs his subjects as much as his subjects need him".

Now that I think about it; it is probably why so many do not vote.

So how does this relate to free will? It shows that we can voluntarily give it up, have it restricted, and possibly have it taken completely away. Free will is a precious gift that we need to protect.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 6:20:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 1:42:16 PM, computertooter wrote:
My apologies upfront if I have failed to follow protocol as I am new to this website. I find your subject very interesting and would like to add to your discussion.

The answer to your question of whether people for the most part lose themselves in the collective in an attempt to defer the burden of thought and decision making is obliviously yes! All one needs to do is look at how our societies are arranged. Look at our own government. Our government is structured to make decisions for us. To decide whether or not we go to war; to decide who will become our allies; to negotiate treaties.

The more difficult the decision the greater the tenancy to defer to someone you trust and believe is more intelligent. All good leaders know this. Hence one of my favorite sayings is "a King needs his subjects as much as his subjects need him".

Now that I think about it; it is probably why so many do not vote.

So how does this relate to free will? It shows that we can voluntarily give it up, have it restricted, and possibly have it taken completely away. Free will is a precious gift that we need to protect.

I don't believe free will is ever completely taken away (unless the person is dead,) but I do believe there are degrees of responsibility. I believe in some cases the decision is beyond our capacity to make, and we defer to someone else or a larger more authoritative body. However, I believe we are responsible, to some extent, for our own lives. There needs to be an attempt at balancing responsibilities. I do not advocate abdication of one's responsibilities; neither do I advocate anarchy. I believe there is a dynamic between the individual and the collective, and problems arise as we get too far off center.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 3:08:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 11:51:39 PM, computertooter wrote:
Do you believe we are born with free will or do we acquire it as our ability to reason develops?

I believe the moment we become intentionally responsive free will comes into play.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 5:30:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 8:07:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
As independent agents, we make decisions; and, indecision is, inescapably, a decision. However, the question remains, how does indecision impact our lives and to what extent. If I were to make no choices, if that were possible, I would by necessity give up all responsibility and in effect become, potentially, the burden or ward of someone else. He, or she, would take on the obligation of keeping me alive. This at least for me sounds like an excruciatingly deplorable state of existence; in fact, it hints of being a vegetable.

So, in considering a state of irresponsibility to such an extreme leads me to conclude decisions, or choice, as a product of agency creates not only accountability but also a desire to live.

Next, I would like to consider choice. What is choice? As I see it, choice is a choosing between two or more stimuli. Further, I believe it's based on values; in other words, I believe one chooses that which he, or she, deems of greater value, or has more meaning, and significance. Yet, with every choice, there is the possibility of making the wrong choice, or a choice that brings negative consequences. So, with every choice, there is a degree of vulnerability.

For me, vulnerability requires courage, at least to some extent. The more significant or life altering a choice is, the greater degree of courage it requires.

However, I believe free will, or agency, is only one side of the equation.

This is an interesting exploration. I think the key flaw is the assumption that choice exists in the first place, and that from such choice comes responsibility.

What seems to be choice is a product of our circumstances - we cannot make choices that defy the situation in which we are placed. For example, if you're trapped on the roof of the World Trade Center on 9/11, you cannot just jump off the building and expect to survive...that "choice" is not available to you, and it is because the circumstances in which you find yourself deny you such an avenue (you cannot defy gravity, for one).

What is responsibility then? It is the product of assigning control over circumstances upon an individual, essentially allowing them to make "choices" relevant to their situation by aligning circumstances to allow them to make choices. For example, parents are responsible over children - society deems it proper to assign control over a child's life to those who sire the children. The choice to have children in the first place is the product of circumstances that would allow such childbirthing to occur - if there was malnutrition or some other catastrophe such choices would not be available and so there would be no responsibility for children as well (as there would be no children).

When you view responsibility in such a light, all "choice" becomes is a matter of circumstances being aligned to make optimal decisions, with what is optimal being determined by the specific circumstances of a specific situation (for example, every family has their own choices to make because their own circumstances are different).

Thus, free will does not exist.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
computertooter
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 9:56:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
While it is true that often times we find ourselves in situations beyond our control I will argue that those circumstances were set off by someone exercising their free will. I will use your example of the World Trade Center bombing of 9/11 where 19 men choose to fly a plane into the buildings. If they had never chosen to hijack those planes then people would not be forced into a situation where their choices are very limited. The problem is we all have free will and sometimes how one decides to use their free will impacts negatively on everyone around them. For every action there is a reaction. What you describe above I would say is an example of the free will of men clashing.

If you believe in God, how you use your free will is how you will be judged. By the choices that you make, not when someone else makes choices for you. For instance, take a violent act such as rape. How can God intervene when the attacker is exercising his free will to harm someone else? In this case it is the attacker that will be judged (hopefully harshly).

So every situation is not as random as one would think. Ones free will can be restricted by those around them but just because we are not able to exercise our free will in all instances does not mean we don't have it at all.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 10:54:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 5:30:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:07:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
As independent agents, we make decisions; and, indecision is, inescapably, a decision. However, the question remains, how does indecision impact our lives and to what extent. If I were to make no choices, if that were possible, I would by necessity give up all responsibility and in effect become, potentially, the burden or ward of someone else. He, or she, would take on the obligation of keeping me alive. This at least for me sounds like an excruciatingly deplorable state of existence; in fact, it hints of being a vegetable.

So, in considering a state of irresponsibility to such an extreme leads me to conclude decisions, or choice, as a product of agency creates not only accountability but also a desire to live.

Next, I would like to consider choice. What is choice? As I see it, choice is a choosing between two or more stimuli. Further, I believe it's based on values; in other words, I believe one chooses that which he, or she, deems of greater value, or has more meaning, and significance. Yet, with every choice, there is the possibility of making the wrong choice, or a choice that brings negative consequences. So, with every choice, there is a degree of vulnerability.

For me, vulnerability requires courage, at least to some extent. The more significant or life altering a choice is, the greater degree of courage it requires.

However, I believe free will, or agency, is only one side of the equation.

This is an interesting exploration. I think the key flaw is the assumption that choice exists in the first place, and that from such choice comes responsibility.

What seems to be choice is a product of our circumstances - we cannot make choices that defy the situation in which we are placed. For example, if you're trapped on the roof of the World Trade Center on 9/11, you cannot just jump off the building and expect to survive...that "choice" is not available to you, and it is because the circumstances in which you find yourself deny you such an avenue (you cannot defy gravity, for one).

If I were situated on top of a World Trade Center building during its attack, I would've had the choice of either staying with the building and dying or jumping off of the building and dying. It's a contradiction to present me with choices and then say choices don't exist. I believe free will exists within limits.

What is responsibility then? It is the product of assigning control over circumstances upon an individual, essentially allowing them to make "choices" relevant to their situation by aligning circumstances to allow them to make choices. For example, parents are responsible over children - society deems it proper to assign control over a child's life to those who sire the children. The choice to have children in the first place is the product of circumstances that would allow such childbirthing to occur - if there was malnutrition or some other catastrophe such choices would not be available and so there would be no responsibility for children as well (as there would be no children).

Again, it's a contradiction to say choices exist and then say they don't exist. If circumstances allowed parents the choice of having children, then, circumstances allowed for choice. Circumstances are not dictating the choice; they're facilitating it.

When you view responsibility in such a light, all "choice" becomes is a matter of circumstances being aligned to make optimal decisions, with what is optimal being determined by the specific circumstances of a specific situation (for example, every family has their own choices to make because their own circumstances are different).

Whether the family chooses, optimally, is a matter of choice.

Thus, free will does not exist.

To say one has free will to choose and then say free will does not exist is a contradiction.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:11:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 10:54:14 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:30:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:07:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
As independent agents, we make decisions; and, indecision is, inescapably, a decision. However, the question remains, how does indecision impact our lives and to what extent. If I were to make no choices, if that were possible, I would by necessity give up all responsibility and in effect become, potentially, the burden or ward of someone else. He, or she, would take on the obligation of keeping me alive. This at least for me sounds like an excruciatingly deplorable state of existence; in fact, it hints of being a vegetable.

So, in considering a state of irresponsibility to such an extreme leads me to conclude decisions, or choice, as a product of agency creates not only accountability but also a desire to live.

Next, I would like to consider choice. What is choice? As I see it, choice is a choosing between two or more stimuli. Further, I believe it's based on values; in other words, I believe one chooses that which he, or she, deems of greater value, or has more meaning, and significance. Yet, with every choice, there is the possibility of making the wrong choice, or a choice that brings negative consequences. So, with every choice, there is a degree of vulnerability.

For me, vulnerability requires courage, at least to some extent. The more significant or life altering a choice is, the greater degree of courage it requires.

However, I believe free will, or agency, is only one side of the equation.

This is an interesting exploration. I think the key flaw is the assumption that choice exists in the first place, and that from such choice comes responsibility.

What seems to be choice is a product of our circumstances - we cannot make choices that defy the situation in which we are placed. For example, if you're trapped on the roof of the World Trade Center on 9/11, you cannot just jump off the building and expect to survive...that "choice" is not available to you, and it is because the circumstances in which you find yourself deny you such an avenue (you cannot defy gravity, for one).

If I were situated on top of a World Trade Center building during its attack, I would've had the choice of either staying with the building and dying or jumping off of the building and dying. It's a contradiction to present me with choices and then say choices don't exist. I believe free will exists within limits.

The choices you're presented with are all predicted upon the circumstances you find yourself in. In this sense, you do not have the choice to live or die...you will die in such a circumstance. Free will is irrelevant in such cases.

You can keep going...why were you in that building? Was it due to free will, your choice? Did you need to work that day? Why or why not? Keep digging, and you will see a causal relationship between what looks to be free will and the circumstances that invariably "force" you to make a decision one way or another. Those circumstances dictate your actions, those circumstances dictate "choice". What looks to be "free will" is rather ignorance of why you made a specific choice in a specific situation.

What is responsibility then? It is the product of assigning control over circumstances upon an individual, essentially allowing them to make "choices" relevant to their situation by aligning circumstances to allow them to make choices. For example, parents are responsible over children - society deems it proper to assign control over a child's life to those who sire the children. The choice to have children in the first place is the product of circumstances that would allow such childbirthing to occur - if there was malnutrition or some other catastrophe such choices would not be available and so there would be no responsibility for children as well (as there would be no children).

Again, it's a contradiction to say choices exist and then say they don't exist. If circumstances allowed parents the choice of having children, then, circumstances allowed for choice. Circumstances are not dictating the choice; they're facilitating it.

Circumstances are indeed dictating whether or not you have the choice of raising children. If circumstances do not allow, you cannot. Circumstance trumps free will in every situation...you cannot make choices independent of circumstance. Rather, it is circumstance that dictates the choices you have.

If you believe in free will, you believe that we have the power to simply choose irrespective of circumstance. That does not seem to be what you believe in. Thus, I would say that you do not believe in "free will" but rather "will restricted by circumstance".

What you call "choice" certainly exists, but is not in any way relevant to "free will". Rather it is a result of the decisions we make due to imperfect information..it is upon accumulating more information that we discover whether or not a choice was good or not...had we had that information beforehand (i.e. 20/20), it would not have been much of a choice, and it is circumstance that dictates how much information we have about any situation at any given moment...not free will.

When you view responsibility in such a light, all "choice" becomes is a matter of circumstances being aligned to make optimal decisions, with what is optimal being determined by the specific circumstances of a specific situation (for example, every family has their own choices to make because their own circumstances are different).

Whether the family chooses, optimally, is a matter of choice.

Thus, free will does not exist.

To say one has free will to choose and then say free will does not exist is a contradiction.

Choice exists, but free will doesn't, at least not in the sense that most people associate it with.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:22:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:11:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 10:54:14 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:30:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:07:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
As independent agents, we make decisions; and, indecision is, inescapably, a decision. However, the question remains, how does indecision impact our lives and to what extent. If I were to make no choices, if that were possible, I would by necessity give up all responsibility and in effect become, potentially, the burden or ward of someone else. He, or she, would take on the obligation of keeping me alive. This at least for me sounds like an excruciatingly deplorable state of existence; in fact, it hints of being a vegetable.

So, in considering a state of irresponsibility to such an extreme leads me to conclude decisions, or choice, as a product of agency creates not only accountability but also a desire to live.

Next, I would like to consider choice. What is choice? As I see it, choice is a choosing between two or more stimuli. Further, I believe it's based on values; in other words, I believe one chooses that which he, or she, deems of greater value, or has more meaning, and significance. Yet, with every choice, there is the possibility of making the wrong choice, or a choice that brings negative consequences. So, with every choice, there is a degree of vulnerability.

For me, vulnerability requires courage, at least to some extent. The more significant or life altering a choice is, the greater degree of courage it requires.

However, I believe free will, or agency, is only one side of the equation.

This is an interesting exploration. I think the key flaw is the assumption that choice exists in the first place, and that from such choice comes responsibility.

What seems to be choice is a product of our circumstances - we cannot make choices that defy the situation in which we are placed. For example, if you're trapped on the roof of the World Trade Center on 9/11, you cannot just jump off the building and expect to survive...that "choice" is not available to you, and it is because the circumstances in which you find yourself deny you such an avenue (you cannot defy gravity, for one).

If I were situated on top of a World Trade Center building during its attack, I would've had the choice of either staying with the building and dying or jumping off of the building and dying. It's a contradiction to present me with choices and then say choices don't exist. I believe free will exists within limits.

The choices you're presented with are all predicted upon the circumstances you find yourself in. In this sense, you do not have the choice to live or die...you will die in such a circumstance. Free will is irrelevant in such cases.

You can keep going...why were you in that building? Was it due to free will, your choice? Did you need to work that day? Why or why not? Keep digging, and you will see a causal relationship between what looks to be free will and the circumstances that invariably "force" you to make a decision one way or another. Those circumstances dictate your actions, those circumstances dictate "choice". What looks to be "free will" is rather ignorance of why you made a specific choice in a specific situation.

What is responsibility then? It is the product of assigning control over circumstances upon an individual, essentially allowing them to make "choices" relevant to their situation by aligning circumstances to allow them to make choices. For example, parents are responsible over children - society deems it proper to assign control over a child's life to those who sire the children. The choice to have children in the first place is the product of circumstances that would allow such childbirthing to occur - if there was malnutrition or some other catastrophe such choices would not be available and so there would be no responsibility for children as well (as there would be no children).

Again, it's a contradiction to say choices exist and then say they don't exist. If circumstances allowed parents the choice of having children, then, circumstances allowed for choice. Circumstances are not dictating the choice; they're facilitating it.

Circumstances are indeed dictating whether or not you have the choice of raising children. If circumstances do not allow, you cannot. Circumstance trumps free will in every situation...you cannot make choices independent of circumstance. Rather, it is circumstance that dictates the choices you have.

If you believe in free will, you believe that we have the power to simply choose irrespective of circumstance. That does not seem to be what you believe in. Thus, I would say that you do not believe in "free will" but rather "will restricted by circumstance".

What you call "choice" certainly exists, but is not in any way relevant to "free will". Rather it is a result of the decisions we make due to imperfect information..it is upon accumulating more information that we discover whether or not a choice was good or not...had we had that information beforehand (i.e. 20/20), it would not have been much of a choice, and it is circumstance that dictates how much information we have about any situation at any given moment...not free will.

When you view responsibility in such a light, all "choice" becomes is a matter of circumstances being aligned to make optimal decisions, with what is optimal being determined by the specific circumstances of a specific situation (for example, every family has their own choices to make because their own circumstances are different).

Whether the family chooses, optimally, is a matter of choice.

Thus, free will does not exist.

To say one has free will to choose and then say free will does not exist is a contradiction.

Choice exists, but free will doesn't, at least not in the sense that most people associate it with.

Free will does not mean omnipotence or omniscience. It means that humans are to some extent first movers. If some of our will is free, then we possess "free will". I shouldn't have to explain this.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:24:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:22:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:11:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Free will does not mean omnipotence or omniscience. It means that humans are to some extent first movers. If some of our will is free, then we possess "free will". I shouldn't have to explain this.

The underlined is simply false. What came first, you making a certain choice, or the circumstances that shaped that choice? It is evident that circumstance comes first and that humans are NEVER "first movers".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:24:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 5:30:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

What seems to be choice is a product of our circumstances - we cannot make choices that defy the situation in which we are placed. For example, if you're trapped on the roof of the World Trade Center on 9/11, you cannot just jump off the building and expect to survive...that "choice" is not available to you, and it is because the circumstances in which you find yourself deny you such an avenue (you cannot defy gravity, for one).

What is responsibility then? It is the product of assigning control over circumstances upon an individual, essentially allowing them to make "choices" relevant to their situation by aligning circumstances to allow them to make choices. For example, parents are responsible over children - society deems it proper to assign control over a child's life to those who sire the children. The choice to have children in the first place is the product of circumstances that would allow such childbirthing to occur - if there was malnutrition or some other catastrophe such choices would not be available and so there would be no responsibility for children as well (as there would be no children).

When you view responsibility in such a light, all "choice" becomes is a matter of circumstances being aligned to make optimal decisions, with what is optimal being determined by the specific circumstances of a specific situation (for example, every family has their own choices to make because their own circumstances are different).

Thus, free will does not exist.

Well, Wrich seems to be describing a hypothetical world. Where there is choice but it is so limited that it cannot be free will. Now, ironically if anybody has been to the Third World the vision of Wrichcirw's dystopian world is actually true. The people are just a endless mass that have choices but choices that are 'predictable', that is subtly predicted by elites.

Computertooter wrote:
So every situation is not as random as one would think. Ones free will can be restricted by those around them but just because we are not able to exercise our free will in all instances does not mean we don't have it at all.

What computertooter seems to be saying is that the will-to-power dictates what choices exist.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:26:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:24:36 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:30:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Well, Wrich seems to be describing a hypothetical world. Where there is choice but it is so limited that it cannot be free will. Now, ironically if anybody has been to the Third World the vision of Wrichcirw's dystopian world is actually true. The people are just a endless mass that have choices but choices that are 'predictable', that is subtly predicted by elites.

Your underlined statement is unsupported...it's nothing but a bald assertion. What makes my conception "hypothetical"? You don't explain this, and until you do your point has no merit.

The rest of your statement is empty rhetoric.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:28:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:24:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:22:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:11:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Free will does not mean omnipotence or omniscience. It means that humans are to some extent first movers. If some of our will is free, then we possess "free will". I shouldn't have to explain this.

The underlined is simply false. What came first, you making a certain choice, or the circumstances that shaped that choice? It is evident that circumstance comes first and that humans are NEVER "first movers".

The point is that circumstances cannot completely determine our choice, leaving us with some degree of freedom. At least that is what's meant by free will.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:29:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:28:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:24:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:22:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:11:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Free will does not mean omnipotence or omniscience. It means that humans are to some extent first movers. If some of our will is free, then we possess "free will". I shouldn't have to explain this.

The underlined is simply false. What came first, you making a certain choice, or the circumstances that shaped that choice? It is evident that circumstance comes first and that humans are NEVER "first movers".

The point is that circumstances cannot completely determine our choice, leaving us with some degree of freedom. At least that is what's meant by free will.

Understood, and I will simply say that such an assertion is false. Circumstance does indeed determine choice...that we think otherwise points to our inability to fully understand our circumstances.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:30:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:29:04 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:28:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:24:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:22:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:11:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Free will does not mean omnipotence or omniscience. It means that humans are to some extent first movers. If some of our will is free, then we possess "free will". I shouldn't have to explain this.

The underlined is simply false. What came first, you making a certain choice, or the circumstances that shaped that choice? It is evident that circumstance comes first and that humans are NEVER "first movers".

The point is that circumstances cannot completely determine our choice, leaving us with some degree of freedom. At least that is what's meant by free will.

Understood, and I will simply say that such an assertion is false. Circumstance does indeed determine choice...that we think otherwise points to our inability to fully understand our circumstances.

There's no way to claim that everything is determined, because there's nothing external to the universe that could determine it. Since the universe has the power to self-configure, and since we are parts of the universe, we naturally inherent this "external non-definition" and are therefore capable of self-determination.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:33:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:30:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:29:04 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:28:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:24:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:22:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:11:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Free will does not mean omnipotence or omniscience. It means that humans are to some extent first movers. If some of our will is free, then we possess "free will". I shouldn't have to explain this.

The underlined is simply false. What came first, you making a certain choice, or the circumstances that shaped that choice? It is evident that circumstance comes first and that humans are NEVER "first movers".

The point is that circumstances cannot completely determine our choice, leaving us with some degree of freedom. At least that is what's meant by free will.

Understood, and I will simply say that such an assertion is false. Circumstance does indeed determine choice...that we think otherwise points to our inability to fully understand our circumstances.

There's no way to claim that everything is determined, because there's nothing external to the universe that could determine it. Since the universe has the power to self-configure, and since we are parts of the universe, we naturally inherent this "external non-definition" and are therefore capable of self-determination.

The underlined is unsupported and unsupportable.

Regarding the claim that everything can be determined, have you ever looked back on choices you made and said "gee, had known this, I would have done this instead", or "gee, had this happened instead of that, I would have done this instead"? That points to choice being predetermined, that you would have indeed done something different had circumstance been different...but it wasn't, and so you did what you did.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:41:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 10:54:14 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:30:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
To say one has free will to choose and then say free will does not exist is a contradiction.

The tl;dr version of my reply is that I get what you're saying, and that to say that choice exists but does not exist is contradictory. The thing is, most people equate choice to freedom, i.e. the "freedom to choose" or what not, and that is what I think does not exist. We make choices not out of freedom but out of ignorance of what we would otherwise do without struggle.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:42:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:33:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:30:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:29:04 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:28:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:24:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:22:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:11:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Free will does not mean omnipotence or omniscience. It means that humans are to some extent first movers. If some of our will is free, then we possess "free will". I shouldn't have to explain this.

The underlined is simply false. What came first, you making a certain choice, or the circumstances that shaped that choice? It is evident that circumstance comes first and that humans are NEVER "first movers".

The point is that circumstances cannot completely determine our choice, leaving us with some degree of freedom. At least that is what's meant by free will.

Understood, and I will simply say that such an assertion is false. Circumstance does indeed determine choice...that we think otherwise points to our inability to fully understand our circumstances.

There's no way to claim that everything is determined, because there's nothing external to the universe that could determine it. Since the universe has the power to self-configure, and since we are parts of the universe, we naturally inherent this "external non-definition" and are therefore capable of self-determination.

The underlined is unsupported and unsupportable.

If the universe were not self-configuring, then nothing real would have a cause, in which case competing potential would be self-displacing and would cause the universe to disintegrate due to corruption of its informational boundaries.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:43:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:42:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:33:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:30:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

There's no way to claim that everything is determined, because there's nothing external to the universe that could determine it. Since the universe has the power to self-configure, and since we are parts of the universe, we naturally inherent this "external non-definition" and are therefore capable of self-determination.

The underlined is unsupported and unsupportable.

If the universe were not self-configuring, then nothing real would have a cause, in which case competing potential would be self-displacing and would cause the universe to disintegrate due to corruption of its informational boundaries.

Define "cause".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:45:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:43:33 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:42:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:33:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:30:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

There's no way to claim that everything is determined, because there's nothing external to the universe that could determine it. Since the universe has the power to self-configure, and since we are parts of the universe, we naturally inherent this "external non-definition" and are therefore capable of self-determination.

The underlined is unsupported and unsupportable.

If the universe were not self-configuring, then nothing real would have a cause, in which case competing potential would be self-displacing and would cause the universe to disintegrate due to corruption of its informational boundaries.

Define "cause".

When one aspect of reality is defined relative to another i.e., their mutual definition.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:49:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:33:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:30:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


Regarding the claim that everything can be determined, have you ever looked back on choices you made and said "gee, had known this, I would have done this instead", or "gee, had this happened instead of that, I would have done this instead"? That points to choice being predetermined, that you would have indeed done something different had circumstance been different...but it wasn't, and so you did what you did.

Our choices are influenced by our circumstances, but that's irrelevant to whether or not we have some say in determining our actions.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:49:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:45:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:43:33 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:42:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:33:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:30:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

There's no way to claim that everything is determined, because there's nothing external to the universe that could determine it. Since the universe has the power to self-configure, and since we are parts of the universe, we naturally inherent this "external non-definition" and are therefore capable of self-determination.

The underlined is unsupported and unsupportable.

If the universe were not self-configuring, then nothing real would have a cause, in which case competing potential would be self-displacing and would cause the universe to disintegrate due to corruption of its informational boundaries.

Define "cause".

When one aspect of reality is defined relative to another i.e., their mutual definition.

This act of defining some portion of reality relative to some other portion is irrelevant to a "self-configuring" reality and does not support such an assertion. Rather it is simply you picking portions of reality to compare to other portions of reality...there is no "configuring" involved there.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:50:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:26:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:24:36 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:30:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Well, Wrich seems to be describing a hypothetical world. Where there is choice but it is so limited that it cannot be free will. Now, ironically if anybody has been to the Third World the vision of Wrichcirw's dystopian world is actually true. The people are just a endless mass that have choices but choices that are 'predictable', that is subtly predicted by elites.

Your underlined statement is unsupported..What makes my conception "hypothetical"?

Pertaining to your example:
For example, if you're trapped on the roof of the World Trade Center on 9/11, you cannot just jump off the building and expect to survive...that "choice" is not available to you, and it is because the circumstances in which you find yourself deny you such an avenue (you cannot defy gravity, for one).

It is hypothetical because as computer tooter explained:
While it is true that often times we find ourselves in situations beyond our control I will argue that those circumstances were set off by someone exercising their free will. I will use your example of the World Trade Center bombing of 9/11 where 19 men choose to fly a plane into the buildings. If they had never chosen to hijack those planes then people would not be forced into a situation where their choices are very limited. The problem is we all have free will and sometimes how one decides to use their free will impacts negatively on everyone around them.

So in your example, it is clear it is the will of the hijackers overcoming the will of the (hypothetical) person standing on top of the tower. In terms of will-to-power, the planes hijacker is impinging on the freedom of the victim with a negative externality.

So there is no free will. Free will is indeed a relationship between two dots. Connecting the dots is a power relation. Will thus exists to degrees depending upon who is Active, and who is Submissive. Free will thus depends on the wornout adage of who is pitch-ing, and who is catching?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:50:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:49:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:33:42 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:30:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:


Regarding the claim that everything can be determined, have you ever looked back on choices you made and said "gee, had known this, I would have done this instead", or "gee, had this happened instead of that, I would have done this instead"? That points to choice being predetermined, that you would have indeed done something different had circumstance been different...but it wasn't, and so you did what you did.

Our choices are influenced by our circumstances, but that's irrelevant to whether or not we have some say in determining our actions.

It's completely relevant in determining exactly what we "say", i.e. what we actually choose to do.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:52:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:49:56 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This act of defining some portion of reality relative to some other portion is irrelevant to a "self-configuring" reality and does not support such an assertion. Rather it is simply you picking portions of reality to compare to other portions of reality...there is no "configuring" involved there.

I agree with this. Hypothetically.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:54:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 12:50:08 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:26:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/30/2014 12:24:36 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:30:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Well, Wrich seems to be describing a hypothetical world. Where there is choice but it is so limited that it cannot be free will. Now, ironically if anybody has been to the Third World the vision of Wrichcirw's dystopian world is actually true. The people are just a endless mass that have choices but choices that are 'predictable', that is subtly predicted by elites.

Your underlined statement is unsupported..What makes my conception "hypothetical"?

Pertaining to your example:
For example, if you're trapped on the roof of the World Trade Center on 9/11, you cannot just jump off the building and expect to survive...that "choice" is not available to you, and it is because the circumstances in which you find yourself deny you such an avenue (you cannot defy gravity, for one).

It is hypothetical because as computer tooter explained:
While it is true that often times we find ourselves in situations beyond our control I will argue that those circumstances were set off by someone exercising their free will. I will use your example of the World Trade Center bombing of 9/11 where 19 men choose to fly a plane into the buildings. If they had never chosen to hijack those planes then people would not be forced into a situation where their choices are very limited. The problem is we all have free will and sometimes how one decides to use their free will impacts negatively on everyone around them.

So in your example, it is clear it is the will of the hijackers overcoming the will of the (hypothetical) person standing on top of the tower. In terms of will-to-power, the planes hijacker is impinging on the freedom of the victim with a negative externality.

So there is no free will. Free will is indeed a relationship between two dots. Connecting the dots is a power relation. Will thus exists to degrees depending upon who is Active, and who is Submissive. Free will thus depends on the wornout adage of who is pitch-ing, and who is catching?

Ok, I had not read the other guy's post. The next question though would be "why did the hijackers hijack the plane?" and whether or not they did so out of circumstance, and I would easily argue that they did, that terrorists and suicide bombers don't just magically decide one morning that they are going to blow themselves up, but that there are myriad circumstances that dictated whether or not they would do such an act.

On your point about submissive vs active, you're still assuming the hijackers had free will. I would argue they didn't.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?