Assignment: "Freewill" (Pro/Con)

[seattlegal]

Desire is more related to want than lust, although some desires might be said to be lustful. Will is defined as the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action.

Semantics aside, the question isn't if we have a will, the question is if our will is free? If we are motivated to act by our desires or by what we want most, then I'd say our will (Deliberate course of action) would ultimately be determined by our strongest conscious want/desire.

IF {big "if"} our choices are determined by our wants, AND {once again, big "and"} our the "strongest" "want" is what determines our choice, THEN it is the chooser who makes the judgement call as to which want is the "strongest," since there is no real way to measure "wants" other than the judgement of the chooser.

I don't presume that everyone's mind works this way.

I think there must first be a cause that determines what one wants.

And what are the causes that determines what one wants? {Have we already gone over this several times in this thread or not?}

Then that want/desire determines one's will (Course of action) then comes the act itself.

By which mechanism is a want selected? Is it through an involuntary instinct, an unconscious lust, a conscious moral precept (or a conditioned one?), sympathetic resonance, empathy, compassion, a lust for power, a desire to win, a search for truth, a fear of reprecussions, wanting to please authority, peer/societal pressure, non-conformity or rebelliousness, or something else? Are there different classes of "wants,"--those that petition and those that select? (Again, clarification between desire and volition is needed here.)

(Cause, Desire, Will, Action)

Everything is connected, thus the first cause (God?) dictates the course the rest of existence will take. Like a ripple caused by a drop in a pond, the affects of the first cause of life extends far into the future x infinity, creating a ripple effect that the rest of existence is subject to. Our physical realm is autonomous, as is the Spiritual realm. We as humans, however, are not "self" governing, but are rather governed by both the spiritual realm and the physical realm (Life/existence) which motivates us to act according to our circumstances.


GK

We are restrained {governed, bound} by physical laws. What is the nature of Spiritual government? Is it also restraining, or is it freeing? {doesn't walking on water symbolize being freed from physical constraints? Does this symbolize being freed from worldly desires? Hmm...}

 

[Gatekeeper]

IF {big "if"} our choices are determined by our wants, AND {once again, big "and"} our the "strongest" "want" is what determines our choice, THEN it is the chooser who makes the judgement call as to which want is the "strongest," since there is no real way to measure "wants" other than the judgement of the chooser.

I don't presume that everyone's mind works this way.


And what are the causes that determines what one wants? {Have we already gone over this several times in this thread or not?}

By which mechanism is a want selected? Is it through an involuntary instinct, an unconscious lust, a conscious moral precept (or a conditioned one?), sympathetic resonance, empathy, compassion, a lust for power, a desire to win, a search for truth, a fear of reprecussions, wanting to please authority, peer/societal pressure, non-conformity or rebelliousness, or something else? Are there different classes of "wants,"--those that petition and those that select? (Again, clarification between desire and volition is needed here.)



We are restrained {governed, bound} by physical laws. What is the nature of Spiritual government? Is it also restraining, or is it freeing? {doesn't walking on water symbolize being freed from physical constraints? Does this symbolize being freed from worldly desires? Hmm...}

I've already made the distinction between desire/want and will. You disagree, which is entirely up to you. You want to hold on to the concept of being free and I understand that. To each his own ....

I don't want to argue, so I will digress with the following passage since you brought up walking on water.

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things [is] death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."

 

[seattlegal]

I've already made the distinction between desire/want and will. You disagree, which is entirely up to you. You want to hold on to the concept of being free and I understand that. To each his own ....

I don't want to argue, so I will digress with the following passage since you brought up walking on water.

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things [is] death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."

Scripture now? OK.
Romans 7

On the contrary, sin, in order to be recognized as sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that through the commandment sin might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual; (T) but I am made out of flesh, [e] sold (U) into sin's power. (V) 15 For I do not understand what I am doing, (W) because I do not practice what I want to do, (X) but I do what I hate. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 So now I am no longer the one doing it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. (Y) For the desire to do what is good is with me, but there is no ability to do it. 19 For I do not do the good that I want to do, but I practice the evil that I do not want to do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but it is the sin that lives in me. 21 So I discover this principle: (Z) [f] when I want to do good, evil is with me. 22 For in my inner self [g] I joyfully agree with God's law. (AA) 23 But I see a different law in the parts of my body, (AB) [h] waging war against the law of my mind and taking me prisoner to the law of sin in the parts of my body. [i] 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body (AC) of death? (AD) 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! (AE) [j] So then, with my mind I myself am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh, to the law of sin.​

Phillipians 2

13 For it is God who is working in you, [enabling you] both to will and to act for His good purpose.​

 

[Gatekeeper]

Scripture now? OK.
Romans 7

On the contrary, sin, in order to be recognized as sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that through the commandment sin might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual; (T) but I am made out of flesh, [e] sold (U) into sin's power. (V) 15 For I do not understand what I am doing, (W) because I do not practice what I want to do, (X) but I do what I hate. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 So now I am no longer the one doing it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. (Y) For the desire to do what is good is with me, but there is no ability to do it. 19 For I do not do the good that I want to do, but I practice the evil that I do not want to do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but it is the sin that lives in me. 21 So I discover this principle: (Z) [f] when I want to do good, evil is with me. 22 For in my inner self [g] I joyfully agree with God's law. (AA) 23 But I see a different law in the parts of my body, (AB) [h] waging war against the law of my mind and taking me prisoner to the law of sin in the parts of my body. [i] 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body (AC) of death? (AD) 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! (AE) [j] So then, with my mind I myself am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh, to the law of sin.​

Phillipians 2

13 For it is God who is working in you, [enabling you] both to will and to act for His good purpose.​

And so we come full circle and back to dominant desires again. God (Life/existence) being the one who works [In us] both to will and to do of His good pleasure.

 

[seattlegal]

And so we come full circle and back to dominant desires again. God (Life/existence) being the one who works [In us] both to will and to do of His good pleasure.

Now I can scripturally show how the holy spirit can strengthen us to resist worldly desires, lessening their power over us, and also how we can choose to resist the holy spirit. By this, we are free to choose which desires within us can be resisted. {Scriptures furnished upon request}

Being given this freedom might appear to be a weakness and foolishness from the spiritual side, giving the advantage to the overpowering worldly lusts, but God has chosen the weak things to put the strong things to shame, and the foolish things to put the wise to shame.

1 Corinthians 1

 

[Gatekeeper]

Now I can scripturally show how the holy spirit can strengthen us to resist worldly desires, lessening their power over us, and also how we can choose to resist the holy spirit. By this, we are free to choose which desires within us can be resisted. {Scriptures furnished upon request}

Being given this freedom might appear to be a weakness and foolishness from the spiritual side, giving the advantage to the overpowering worldly lusts, but God has chosen the weak things to put the strong things to shame, and the foolish things to put the wise to shame.

1 Corinthians 1

We make choices daily, thats hardy a defense for freewill, but sure post some scripture.

 

[bob x]

I reckon if there were a way to measure our desires, they would be predictable.

And why do you "reckon" that?
We can measure strengths of electrical and chemical signals; but we know that those only prescribe a range of possible outcomes with varying probabilities, and do not make anything "predictable".

Are you suggesting that given our many conscious desires at any particular moment that the one desire we desire most won't be chosen?

The word "most" DOES NOT EVEN MEAN ANYTHING in that sentence, except in the tautological sense that after the fact we can call the one desire which prevailed the "most" desired.

That we are ultimately driven by desire? Is that really so controversial?

Assuming what you are trying to prove? Your choice of words was dictating the outcome.

the first cause dictated the course the rest would take.

That is precisely what we now know to be false.

 

[wil]

A new movie was made to discuss.....Freewill.

Adjustment Bureau

 

[Gatekeeper]

That is precisely what we now know to be false.

Really? You know this is "false"? Can you "prove" this alleged falsehood, Bob? I doubt very seriously that you can. You seem to have a beef with me using the terms most, strongest, dominant, but on a conscious level we do choose a course of action (Will) accordingly.

There are triggers, then there triggers that trigger those triggers. Everything is connected and dependent on other factors. The first cause of life set everything else in motion, one trigger after another extending into a timeless and infinite future.

Freewill is defined as "freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes". Since our very action, thought, want, etc. is a product of prior causes, then we are not free to choose apart from these prior determinants. When you are anyone else can 'prove' that prior casues have no effect on what we choose, I will gladly abandon my position.

 

[seattlegal]

Freewill is defined as "freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes". Since our very action, thought, want, etc. is a product of prior causes, then we are not free to choose apart from these prior determinants. When you are anyone else can 'prove' that prior casues have no effect on what we choose, I will gladly abandon my position.

From Wiki:

Free will is the putative ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism. The opposing positions within that debate are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus that free will exists (or is at least possible); and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus that free will does not exist.
Both of these positions, which agree that causal determination is the relevant factor in the question of free will, are classed as incompatibilists. Those who deny that determinism is relevant are classified as compatibilists, and offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias).
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent divinity. In ethics, it may hold implications regarding whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.
​

Methinks we need to refine the definition of not only desire and will, but also free will

 

[Gatekeeper]

From Wiki:

Free will is the putative ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism. The opposing positions within that debate are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus that free will exists (or is at least possible); and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus that free will does not exist.
Both of these positions, which agree that causal determination is the relevant factor in the question of free will, are classed as incompatibilists. Those who deny that determinism is relevant are classified as compatibilists, and offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias).
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent divinity. In ethics, it may hold implications regarding whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.
​

Methinks we need to refine the definition of not only desire and will, but also free will

Surely you are not using wiki as a reputable source? Why do you think I need to redefine the definition of desire and will, and also freewill? My definitions came directly from the dictionary. I'm just sayin!

You seem to reject Webster and Merriam as reliable sources for defining desire, will, and freewill, yet you use a source that anyone with an Internet connection can manipulate.

I don't know what else to say.

 

[seattlegal]

Surely you are not using wiki as a reputable source? Why do you think I need to redefine the definition of desire and will, and also freewill? My definitions came directly from the dictionary. I'm just sayin!

You seem to reject Webster and Merriam as reliable sources for defining desire, will, and freewill, yet you use a source that anyone with an Internet connection can manipulate.

I don't know what else to say.

Is Stanford Encyclopedia a reputable source?
Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Gatekeeper]

Is Stanford Encyclopedia a reputable source?
Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Are you still rejecting Merriam - Webster as a reliable source to define desire, will, and freewill? Also, why do you think I need to redefine these terms in relation to Sanford Encyclopedia "of Philosophy"? I'm simply making a case that our will is determined by prior causes, thus it is not truly free.

BUT if you don't care to think about prior causes then sure, we are free to do what we want, as what we want is what we will always do, or at least attempt [to] do.

 

[seattlegal]

Are you still rejecting Merriam - Webster as a reliable source to define desire, will, and freewill? Also, why do you think I need to redefine these terms in relation to Sanford Encyclopedia "of Philosophy"? I'm simply making a case that our will is determined by prior causes, thus it is not truly free.

BUT if you don't care to think about prior causes then sure, we are free to do what we want, as what we want is what we will always do, or at least attempt [to] do.

Merriam-Webster definition:

Definition of FREE WILL

: voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

​

emphasis on the words "voluntary" and "determined" added by me

 

[Gatekeeper]

Merriam-Webster definition:

Definition of FREE WILL

: voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

​

emphasis on the words "voluntary" and "determined" added by me

You choose voluntarily that which you want to do, but prior causes determine what we want, hence no freewill.

Can you give an example of a voluntary choice that is not first determined by a prior cause?

GK

 

[seattlegal]

Merriam-Webster definition:

Definition of FREE WILL

: voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

​

emphasis on the words "voluntary" and "determined" added by me

Here is Merriam-Webster's definition for those learning English:

free will
Function:

noun
Meaning:

[noncount] 1 : the ability to choose how to act ▪ I do this of my own free will. [=I do this because I want to do it; no one is forcing me to do this]
2 : the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God ▪ He argues that all humans have free will.​

 

[seattlegal]

You choose voluntarily that which you want to do, but prior causes determine what we want, hence no freewill.

Can you give an example of a voluntary choice that is not first determined by a prior cause?

GK

I reached into my dresser drawer and grabbed a pair of underwear to put on. No one interfered or caused me to pick out that particular pair. My choosing that particular pair was not driven by desire to pick out that particular pair.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Here is Merriam-Webster's definition for those learning English:

free will
Function:

noun
Meaning:

[noncount] 1 : the ability to choose how to act ▪ I do this of my own free will. [=I do this because I want to do it; no one is forcing me to do this]
2 : the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God ▪ He argues that all humans have free will.​

I don't argue that we are free to do what we want, unless bound by chains, etc. My argument is are we free when it comes to what we want, as in are our wants free from prior causes and not determined by them?

As I stated before, seattlegal, if you don't care to think about prior causes then sure, we are free to do what we want, as what we want is what we will always do, or at least attempt [to] do.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I reached into my dresser drawer and grabbed a pair of underwear to put on. No one interfered or caused me to pick out that particular pair. My choicing that particular pair was not driven by desire to pick out that particular pair.

You were still driven by the want to put on a fresh pair of underwear regardless of the pair you picked up, thus your want was what moved you to open the drawer and choose. Whether consciously or by a seemingly random choice you were still driven by want. Yes? No? Maybe?

 

[seattlegal]

You were still driven by the want to put on a fresh pair of underwear regardless of the pair you picked up, thus your want was what moved you to open the drawer and choose. Whether consciously or by a seemingly random choice you were still driven by want. Yes? No? Maybe?

Not for that particular pair. Please describe the determining mechanisms that caused me to select that particular pair of underwear.