Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Free Will an Illusion?

kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 3:31:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
What is free will?

Free: "enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery" (1)

Will: "the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions:" (2)

To have power or control of your mind, to be able to make deliberate actions or choices that are of your own volition; to not be a slave; to act, rather than be acted upon.

A basic argument that free will is an illusion is as follows:

Premise 1: Every Will that we have is based on a desire.
Premise 2: We cannot control the desires we have.
Clarification: No-one has ever chosen to experience physical attraction, or desire for food or drink, or for seeking truth.

Conclusion: Every Will that we have comes from something beyond our choice.

What are your thoughts?

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...

(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 3:54:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 3:31:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is free will?

Free: "enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery" (1)

Will: "the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions:" (2)

To have power or control of your mind, to be able to make deliberate actions or choices that are of your own volition; to not be a slave; to act, rather than be acted upon.

A basic argument that free will is an illusion is as follows:

Premise 1: Every Will that we have is based on a desire.
Premise 2: We cannot control the desires we have.
Clarification: No-one has ever chosen to experience physical attraction, or desire for food or drink, or for seeking truth.

Conclusion: Every Will that we have comes from something beyond our choice.

What are your thoughts?

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...

(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...

A common reply other than compatibilism I've heard is to argue that free will doesn't entail total autonomy. We may not be able to choose to have the desire for food, but this doesn't mean we cannot freely deliberate on everything else.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 4:01:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 3:54:36 PM, n7 wrote:
At 3/9/2016 3:31:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is free will?

Free: "enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery" (1)

Will: "the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions:" (2)

To have power or control of your mind, to be able to make deliberate actions or choices that are of your own volition; to not be a slave; to act, rather than be acted upon.

A basic argument that free will is an illusion is as follows:

Premise 1: Every Will that we have is based on a desire.
Premise 2: We cannot control the desires we have.
Clarification: No-one has ever chosen to experience physical attraction, or desire for food or drink, or for seeking truth.

Conclusion: Every Will that we have comes from something beyond our choice.

What are your thoughts?

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...

(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...

A common reply other than compatibilism I've heard is to argue that free will doesn't entail total autonomy. We may not be able to choose to have the desire for food, but this doesn't mean we cannot freely deliberate on everything else.

So, I have heard it said that you are free to choose what occurs to you, but cannot be free to choose that which does not.

Do you have a link to a good summary of Compatibilism?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 4:12:31 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 4:01:13 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 3/9/2016 3:54:36 PM, n7 wrote:
At 3/9/2016 3:31:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is free will?

Free: "enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery" (1)

Will: "the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions:" (2)

To have power or control of your mind, to be able to make deliberate actions or choices that are of your own volition; to not be a slave; to act, rather than be acted upon.

A basic argument that free will is an illusion is as follows:

Premise 1: Every Will that we have is based on a desire.
Premise 2: We cannot control the desires we have.
Clarification: No-one has ever chosen to experience physical attraction, or desire for food or drink, or for seeking truth.

Conclusion: Every Will that we have comes from something beyond our choice.

What are your thoughts?

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...

(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...

A common reply other than compatibilism I've heard is to argue that free will doesn't entail total autonomy. We may not be able to choose to have the desire for food, but this doesn't mean we cannot freely deliberate on everything else.

So, I have heard it said that you are free to choose what occurs to you, but cannot be free to choose that which does not.

Do you have a link to a good summary of Compatibilism?

https://www3.nd.edu...

That's Frankfurt's theory, which is probably the best compatibilist model out there.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 4:14:34 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
This summery looks shorter
http://www.unc.edu...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 4:29:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 4:14:34 PM, n7 wrote:
This summery looks shorter
http://www.unc.edu...

Awesome, I will read up on this thanks.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Obbe
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 4:48:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 3:31:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
What are your thoughts?

Depends on how we are define free will.

If we look at a compatibilists definition or perhaps the definition we might see used in a court of law, it would read something like "the freedom to do what you will", in other words the sort of freedom you have when you're not locked in a cage or when someone doesn't have a gun to your head. Defining free will in this way is acceptable in my opinion.

That said, free will in the traditional libertarian sense has always been sort of vague and mystical and somewhat hard to define. It basically suggests freedom on a higher level, that we are not only free to do what we will but also that we will whatever it is that we will, that we are the absolute cause of our own desires. There does not appear to be any reason or evidence to believe that this concept is true.

Can you change the laws of physics? Can you alter the past? If you answered no to these questions, then it follows that you cannot have free will in the libertarian sense of the term.

If you pay close attention you should realize that you have no more control over your next thought than you do over my next sentence. Thoughts simply arise in consciousness. You are not authoring your thoughts, for that would require that you think about them before you think about them.

Let's play a game. You are going to make a choice. And before you make this choice, realize that this is as free a decision as you will ever make in your life.

I want you to choose a city. Any city you can think of. Go ahead. Got it? Good.

Now let's examine how free you were in this decision. First, you could not have picked any of the cities which you didn't know existed. There is obviously no freedom in that. Next, there were many other cities which are quite well known to you but for whatever reason you just didn't think of them. Perhaps Cairo did not occur to you, and while you absolutely know that Cairo is a city, for whatever reason your Cairo circuits were not engaged when you made this decision. Now ask yourself this - were you free to choose that which did not occur to you to choose?

Now you probably did think of several cities. Maybe you thought about Tokyo. Maybe you thought about Paris. Perhaps you deliberated between these two cities for a few moments and then decided to pick Tokyo. This is the sort of decision that motivates the idea of libertarian free will, where you have many options to choose from and you're picking between them, and it's just you and your thoughts. But if you examine this process closely you should realize that you are in no position to know why you picked what you picked.

For example, let's say you did pick Tokyo. You may have some additional story to tell us. Perhaps you had been thinking "I had Japanese food last night. I remembered that, and it made me think of Tokyo. That is why I picked Tokyo," and maybe you're right. Maybe that memory is what caused you to choose Tokyo over Paris or some other city. But you don't know why in that moment you remembered eating Japanese food last night, or why that memory had the effect that it did. Why didn't the memory cause you to not pick Tokyo? You could have thought "Well I just had Japanese food last night, let's go with something new, let's go with Paris."

What's important to take from this thought experiment is that you as a conscious entity are not actually making these decisions, you are simply witnessing the process. You no more picked the city you settled on, in subjective terms, then you would have if I picked it for you. Here is an excellent lecture on this subject that explains this much better than I can:

https://www.youtube.com...

I would say that man has the freedom to do what he will, but man cannot will what he will. And accepting this carries with it other implications. For example, the concept of "self" appears to be illusory in light of our lack of freewill. I mean, what is "the self"? Most people tend to think of the self as some interior essence that distinguishes a person from the world around them. But if you think about it, it's fairly obvious that you didn't just will those thoughts you are thinking right now anymore then you willed the words that I typed on this screen. Thoughts just arise in your mind. If the self is not really the author of your own thoughts, what is the self? If we suggest that the self is consciousness, then what is consciousness? A sort of highly evolved awareness, a highly evolved reaction to our environment. It appears to be perfectly reasonable to suggest that the environment is the cause of consciousness, for consciousness (you and me) arose out of this environment and if there were no environment to be conscious of, what exactly would consciousness consist of?

This sort of realization leads us away from an egocentric view of life, and that can be liberating. We are not truly separate. We are linked to each other, and to the world around us, throughout time and space. While you might not take credit for your talents it's still important that you use them. While you might not really be to blame for your weaknesses, it's still important to correct them. What is the value in pride and shame when it would be better to just commit to well being and the improvement of your life and others? Love and compassion make sense. This sort of realization does not diminish the value of political or social freedoms. It just doesn't make sense to believe in free will, and if we want to be guided by reality instead of fantasy, it's probably important that our views on this topic change.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 4:49:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
So I could be way off here, but it seems that if I were to accept incompatibilism then I would have to accept that there is no instance in which people could have acted differently then they do. If that is the case, then there could be no morality, no right or wrong, no accountability.

Is that right?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 4:53:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
That's Frankfurt's theory

Frankfurt \o/

What's your opinion on the matter?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 4:53:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 4:48:51 PM, Obbe wrote:
At 3/9/2016 3:31:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
What are your thoughts?

Can you change the laws of physics? Can you alter the past? If you answered no to these questions, then it follows that you cannot have free will in the libertarian sense of the term.

So it seems Libertarian Free will would depend on having Omnipotence.

I want you to choose a city. Any city you can think of. Go ahead. Got it? Good.

Now let's examine how free you were in this decision. First, you could not have picked any of the cities which you didn't know existed. There is obviously no freedom in that. Next, there were many other cities which are quite well known to you but for whatever reason you just didn't think of them. Perhaps Cairo did not occur to you, and while you absolutely know that Cairo is a city, for whatever reason your Cairo circuits were not engaged when you made this decision. Now ask yourself this - were you free to choose that which did not occur to you to choose?

I have heard this example done with movies before, it seems to imply that Libertarian Free Will would require Omniscience.

What's important to take from this thought experiment is that you as a conscious entity are not actually making these decisions, you are simply witnessing the process. You no more picked the city you settled on, in subjective terms, then you would have if I picked it for you. Here is an excellent lecture on this subject that explains this much better than I can:

https://www.youtube.com...

Ah, this is where I heard that haha... I was wondering who this was.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 4:58:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 4:49:50 PM, kasmic wrote:
So I could be way off here, but it seems that if I were to accept incompatibilism then I would have to accept that there is no instance in which people could have acted differently then they do. If that is the case, then there could be no morality, no right or wrong, no accountability.

Is that right?

Incompatibilism is merely the thesis that free will is not compatible with determinism.
You can be a incompatibilist and a libertarian (not the political kind).

The "we have no free will"-position is usually referred to as hard incompatibilism, determinism or hard determinism.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 5:01:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 4:58:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/9/2016 4:49:50 PM, kasmic wrote:
So I could be way off here, but it seems that if I were to accept incompatibilism then I would have to accept that there is no instance in which people could have acted differently then they do. If that is the case, then there could be no morality, no right or wrong, no accountability.

Is that right?

Incompatibilism is merely the thesis that free will is not compatible with determinism.
You can be a incompatibilist and a libertarian (not the political kind).

The "we have no free will"-position is usually referred to as hard incompatibilism, determinism or hard determinism.

Thanks for the clarification.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 5:05:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 4:53:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
That's Frankfurt's theory

Frankfurt \o/

What's your opinion on the matter?

I think Frankfurt is literally the second coming.

I lean more towards Frankfurt position than any other atm.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 5:05:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 4:58:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/9/2016 4:49:50 PM, kasmic wrote:
So I could be way off here, but it seems that if I were to accept incompatibilism then I would have to accept that there is no instance in which people could have acted differently then they do. If that is the case, then there could be no morality, no right or wrong, no accountability.

Is that right?

Incompatibilism is merely the thesis that free will is not compatible with determinism.
You can be a incompatibilist and a libertarian (not the political kind).

The "we have no free will"-position is usually referred to as hard incompatibilism, determinism or hard determinism.

So Compatibilist theory subscribes to no alternate possibilities?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Obbe
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 5:06:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 4:53:13 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 3/9/2016 4:48:51 PM, Obbe wrote:
At 3/9/2016 3:31:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
What are your thoughts?

Can you change the laws of physics? Can you alter the past? If you answered no to these questions, then it follows that you cannot have free will in the libertarian sense of the term.

So it seems Libertarian Free will would depend on having Omnipotence.

I want you to choose a city. Any city you can think of. Go ahead. Got it? Good.

Now let's examine how free you were in this decision. First, you could not have picked any of the cities which you didn't know existed. There is obviously no freedom in that. Next, there were many other cities which are quite well known to you but for whatever reason you just didn't think of them. Perhaps Cairo did not occur to you, and while you absolutely know that Cairo is a city, for whatever reason your Cairo circuits were not engaged when you made this decision. Now ask yourself this - were you free to choose that which did not occur to you to choose?

I have heard this example done with movies before, it seems to imply that Libertarian Free Will would require Omniscience.

What's important to take from this thought experiment is that you as a conscious entity are not actually making these decisions, you are simply witnessing the process. You no more picked the city you settled on, in subjective terms, then you would have if I picked it for you. Here is an excellent lecture on this subject that explains this much better than I can:

https://www.youtube.com...

Ah, this is where I heard that haha... I was wondering who this was.

I don't know if it would require omnipotence, but it would require you to think and behave in a way that we clearly don't and is likely impossible.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 5:09:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
So, this is alot to take in haha. I am going to have to digest some of this before really engaging in this topic.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 5:12:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 5:05:08 PM, n7 wrote:
At 3/9/2016 4:53:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
That's Frankfurt's theory

Frankfurt \o/

What's your opinion on the matter?

I think Frankfurt is literally the second coming.

On Bullsh1t is my Holy Book.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 5:16:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 5:05:28 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 3/9/2016 4:58:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/9/2016 4:49:50 PM, kasmic wrote:
So I could be way off here, but it seems that if I were to accept incompatibilism then I would have to accept that there is no instance in which people could have acted differently then they do. If that is the case, then there could be no morality, no right or wrong, no accountability.

Is that right?

Incompatibilism is merely the thesis that free will is not compatible with determinism.
You can be a incompatibilist and a libertarian (not the political kind).

The "we have no free will"-position is usually referred to as hard incompatibilism, determinism or hard determinism.

So Compatibilist theory subscribes to no alternate possibilities?

Well compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.
However a compatibilist does not have to believe in determinism, he merely has to hold a view on free will that is compatible with it.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 5:18:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 5:16:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/9/2016 5:05:28 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 3/9/2016 4:58:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/9/2016 4:49:50 PM, kasmic wrote:
So I could be way off here, but it seems that if I were to accept incompatibilism then I would have to accept that there is no instance in which people could have acted differently then they do. If that is the case, then there could be no morality, no right or wrong, no accountability.

Is that right?

Incompatibilism is merely the thesis that free will is not compatible with determinism.
You can be a incompatibilist and a libertarian (not the political kind).

The "we have no free will"-position is usually referred to as hard incompatibilism, determinism or hard determinism.

So Compatibilist theory subscribes to no alternate possibilities?

Well compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.
However a compatibilist does not have to believe in determinism, he merely has to hold a view on free will that is compatible with it.

I see, but Frankfurt himself rejects alternate possibilities. I seem to be conflating Frankfurts theories with the whole of compatibilism .
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 5:25:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 5:18:22 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 3/9/2016 5:16:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/9/2016 5:05:28 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 3/9/2016 4:58:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/9/2016 4:49:50 PM, kasmic wrote:
So I could be way off here, but it seems that if I were to accept incompatibilism then I would have to accept that there is no instance in which people could have acted differently then they do. If that is the case, then there could be no morality, no right or wrong, no accountability.

Is that right?

Incompatibilism is merely the thesis that free will is not compatible with determinism.
You can be a incompatibilist and a libertarian (not the political kind).

The "we have no free will"-position is usually referred to as hard incompatibilism, determinism or hard determinism.

So Compatibilist theory subscribes to no alternate possibilities?

Well compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.
However a compatibilist does not have to believe in determinism, he merely has to hold a view on free will that is compatible with it.

I see, but Frankfurt himself rejects alternate possibilities. I seem to be conflating Frankfurts theories with the whole of compatibilism .

I am not sure what you mean. Frankfurt himself said, his views are neutral with regards of determinism.
What possibilities are you referring to?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 5:33:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 3:31:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is free will?

Free: "enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery" (1)

Will: "the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions:" (2)

To have power or control of your mind, to be able to make deliberate actions or choices that are of your own volition; to not be a slave; to act, rather than be acted upon.

A basic argument that free will is an illusion is as follows:

Premise 1: Every Will that we have is based on a desire.
Premise 2: We cannot control the desires we have.
Clarification: No-one has ever chosen to experience physical attraction, or desire for food or drink, or for seeking truth.

Conclusion: Every Will that we have comes from something beyond our choice.

What are your thoughts?

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...

(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...

First, premise #2 is false, we can and do control the desires we have, and even if we couldn't, there is not a single determined response to a desire; there are multiple ways in which we can freely choose to respond to our desires.

Second, the best argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident.

Third, I'm always looking for someone to debate this "free will doesn't exist" nonsense, any takers?

.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2016 5:59:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/9/2016 5:05:08 PM, n7 wrote:
At 3/9/2016 4:53:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
That's Frankfurt's theory

Frankfurt \o/

What's your opinion on the matter?

I think Frankfurt is literally the second coming.

I lean more towards Frankfurt position than any other atm.

So his argument is that free will exists so long as we are able to consciously direct our behavior in ways that reflect our innermost desires? I don't agree with that. If what we desire, or what we desire to desire, are deterministic functions of physical laws, then they are the opposite of free: they are confined to a single, predetermined outcome that was decided even before you were born. Under determinism, we would be free to desire precisely what the universe dictates we must desire, or desire to desire, etc. You can call that free if you want to, but it's certainly not what I think of as "free".

The example of Black and Jones is, I think, fundamentally flawed. It's meant to show that we can ascribe moral responsibility even when someone couldn't have acted otherwise. It doesn't take into account that we assign moral responsibility not on the basis of someone's actions but rather on the basis of their intentions. If someone's actions are entirely disconnected from their intentions, then we can't fault them for acting immorally. In the thought experiment, Black wasn't free to act morally since Jones would have just stepped in to intervene, but he was free to have initially moral intentions. That those intentions would later be revised to be immoral is irrelevant because that's outside of Jones' control. In other words, an incompatibilist can criticize Jones on the grounds that the action he did undertake freely (his initial desire) was immoral. If, instead, Black was required to intervene in order to undermine Jones' initial moral intention, then we obviously couldn't blame Jones for any immoral desires that came out of that because it was beyond his control.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 4:02:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
For those interested. I started a debate related to this topic.

http://www.debate.org...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 8:07:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/9/2016 4:48:51 PM, Obbe wrote:
At 3/9/2016 3:31:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
What are your thoughts?

Depends on how we are define free will.
...

I would just like to thank you for making the effort to write this amazing post. You express your opinion I in a very comprehensive way, I enjoyed reading it.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 3:48:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 3:38:42 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/9/2016 4:53:10 PM, Fkkize wrote:
\o/

Is this a stickman throwing his arms in the air?

yes :<
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
famousdebater
Posts: 3,940
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 5:03:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/10/2016 4:02:43 PM, kasmic wrote:
For those interested. I started a debate related to this topic.

http://www.debate.org...

Cool, I will definitely be following this.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 5:52:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/9/2016 3:31:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
What is free will?

Free: "enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery" (1)

Will: "the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions:" (2)

To have power or control of your mind, to be able to make deliberate actions or choices that are of your own volition; to not be a slave; to act, rather than be acted upon.

A basic argument that free will is an illusion is as follows:

Premise 1: Every Will that we have is based on a desire.
Premise 2: We cannot control the desires we have.
Clarification: No-one has ever chosen to experience physical attraction, or desire for food or drink, or for seeking truth.

Conclusion: Every Will that we have comes from something beyond our choice.

What are your thoughts?

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...

(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...

Interesting reading it at this level, thanks for this post. I am looking at the question spiritually at this point since that is where my interest is at the moment. I am trying to think of a "spiritual" platform that would be viable to what we observe.

The problem i have reached is this question bc of the two theories of time. One A the other B. My spiritual conjecture works in both, but is very different. If it is the B theory, i would see this world more like a "movie reel," and that we chose to play a character knowing exactly what will happen being this character.

Then there is the A theory, which would be a little more fun. In this case, our source would pick a body to manifest and just go forward. Our source may be able to influence our direction, but it is more free to our surroundings. I also think this role was picked methodically by our source however... like, knowing if i manifest in Africa i would live that type of life.

In conclusion, I think our free will is truly active in our source state (immortal self). Depending on the theory of time, it is either completely already destined or it can be influenced. I would say the influence one is more comparable to free will, but ultimately ... i don't think you are free until death ;p sorry for taking it here lol. It is an interesting question i am trying to make sense of spiritually however.
Obbe
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 1:32:52 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/11/2016 8:07:27 PM, A1tre wrote:
At 3/9/2016 4:48:51 PM, Obbe wrote:
At 3/9/2016 3:31:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
What are your thoughts?

Depends on how we are define free will.
...

I would just like to thank you for making the effort to write this amazing post. You express your opinion I in a very comprehensive way, I enjoyed reading it.

Thanks for reading it, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Do you share my thoughts on free will and "the self"?