There is no such thing as 'Free Will'

[rodgertutt]

You have perception, and discernment, you have a will. A fine trinity.

I agree

we can also decide.

I agree again.

But we ALWAYS "decide" in the direction of whatever is having the strongest influence on our mind to decide in favor of.

It is not even possible to decide instead in favor of a choice that is having a lesser influence on our mind, because the fact that we choose it demonstrates that we prefer it the MOST.

 

[shawn]

but isn't that the act of choice itself.
if presented with options you will look at them and decide, using your perception and your knowledge and will make the choice that you decide is the best one.
That is a healthy mentality.
If one would chose the lesser option, then people would have good cause to wonder about the psyche of the chooser.
You may delay the actual moment of choice as you have decided that you need to study it out a bit more so that you make an informed choice and that is also a choice.
It seems unavoidable that you choose.
You are seeking to go even deeper into the mechanics of how these choices are done, but this only appears to be straining gnats and splitting hairs as you have gone too far with your defining, past the point of relevance.
This world is a place of choice and yes we are compelled to chose, and even dithering is a choice.

 

[rodgertutt]

Of course it's the issue!
If you want to redefine words according to your whim, then you're living in a fantasy world. The word "free will" is defined as voluntary choice. You admit that we voluntarily choose.

The fact that we choose voluntarily is not the issue for me.

The issue for me is that we could not have chosen differently than we did even though we chose "voluntarily" whatever we preferred the MOST.
And since we preferred that choice the MOST, it is not even possible that we could have chosen differently.

Therefore, IMO, there is no such a thing as "free" will.

 

[rodgertutt]

you have gone too far with your defining, past the point of relevance.

As a universalist Christian, the "relevance" of no "free" will resides in my confidence that God will eventually fit every unique individual into His master plan in a positive way that necessitates their unique temporary involvement in evil and suffering that will enable God to manifest, and glorify, and magnify the many facets of His character in a way that uniquely involves that person, and everyone else involved in that person’s life too.

Then, after God has finished using evil and suffering for the reasons why He allowed them to temporarily exist, He will eradicate them from existence.
THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
evil.html

No "will" can defeat God's intention to bring permanent blessing to all of His creation.

 

[citizenzen]

The fact that we choose voluntarily is not the issue for me.

As I said Rodger, you're free to make up the meaning of any word you want.

You just seem to run into trouble when you try to get other people to agree with your definitions.

I'll bet you run into that a lot.

 

[rodgertutt]

As I said Rodger, you're free to make up the meaning of any word you want.
You just seem to run into trouble when you try to get other people to agree with your definitions.
I'll bet you run into that a lot.

We choose with our will voluntarily what we prefer MOST.
Since we cannot choose anything that we prefer less than what we prefer MOST, I conclude that our will is not "free" regardless of any dictionary definition of "free will."

Every choice we ever made was the only choice we could have made at that particular point in time, all influences considered.
Therefore, IMO, our will cannot ever be perceived as "free."

 

[citizenzen]

Where have I heard that before?

Perhaps it was song lyric from my days of youth.

It seems so oddly familiar.

But I just can't place it.

 

[bob x]

The fact that we choose voluntarily is not the issue for me.

The issue, as far as I can tell, is that you cannot choose two contradictory things at the same time. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Yes, we all know that, but we consider it sufficient "freedom" that we can choose either to eat the cake, or to have it for later. And until after that choice has been made, there is no way to tell which we want more: either could happen.

 

[rodgertutt]

The issue, as far as I can tell, is that you cannot choose two contradictory things at the same time.

Here's another way of putting that.

The issue is that we ALWAYS choose what we want the MOST at any given point in time.
Our will is only "free" to choose what we want the MOST.
We cannot choose anything else at that particular point in time.

Here's how James Coram (blue), and Galen Strawson (red) put it, in case you missed it before.

"Those who advocate “free will” actually mean to stand for by means of this expression is the notion that men have the power of contrary choice: Even though, in fact, we chose as we did, we could have chosen otherwise. That is, we could have done so at that time. It is not contended (nor is it disputed) that, hypothetically and by itself, we might have chosen otherwise. That is not the idea at all. Instead, it is claimed that, notwithstanding the fact that we did choose as we chose, we nonetheless could have chosen otherwise. This, and this alone, is the question to be resolved.

Advocates of this position, which should be called, “the power of contrary choice,” prefer to perpetuate it instead under the innocuous and advantageously ambiguous title “free will.” At once, this gives it the advantage of a respectable-sounding name, and makes those few who are constrained to reject the actual doctrine appear as strange extremists, inasmuch as they reject such a well-accepted, desirable and seemingly reasonable concept.

The advocate of free will actually stands for the position which asserts that man’s choices are uncaused—absolutely devoid of all necessity. And yet he does not realize, or at least he refuses to admit the fact, that the denial of causality will not bring him any closer to what he wants than its advocacy.

Essentially this matter is a simple one: It is impossible to prevent anything that is the product of a cause from coming into existence; and, it is also impossible to prevent anything that is not the product of a cause from coming into existence. If a truly uncaused event were ever to occur (were such a thing even possible), being the product of nothing, uninfluenced and uninfluenceable, it would simply “show up,” appearing “out of nowhere.” While it would not be brought in, neither could it be kept out.

Whether “determinism” (i.e., causality), divine or otherwise, is true or false, we cannot possibly be free either way—that is, in a freewill or contrary-choice sense. If we are caused to choose as we do, we cannot help choosing as we do. And, if we are not caused to choose as we do, we still cannot help choosing as we do."

“We cannot be free agents, in the ordinary, strong, true-responsibility-entailing sense, if determinism is true and we and our actions are ultimately wholly determined by causes which existed anterior to our own personal existence. And we can no more be free if determinism is false and it is, ultimately, either wholly or partly a matter of chance or random outcome that we and our actions are as they are."
Galen Strawson, FREEDOM AND BELIEF, p.25; London: Oxford University Press, 1986

Neither determined nor random will afford any place for free will. Neither determinedness nor randomness (nor any mixture of the two) can give or allow what is wanted, even though between these two the field of possibilities is exhausted. Therefore, contrary choice or “free will” not only does not exist but cannot exist."
James Coram, THE VAUNTED “POWER OF CONTRARY CHOICE”

 

[rodgertutt]

In the same writing quoted in my last post,
THE VAUNTED “POWER OF CONTRARY CHOICE,"
James Coram adds this observation concering why we choose what we choose when we choose it.

"We cannot truly want, in a decisive sense, what we want, simply in an abstract sense, so long as there are other things that we want more, in a decisive sense, than we want the ideals for which we abstractly long."

 

[citizenzen]

The advocate of free will actually stands for the position which asserts that man’s choices are uncaused—absolutely devoid of all necessity.

Classic straw man argument: paint the opposition's position as so extreme that it's easily refuted in an argument.

Rodger, no advocate for free will in this forum has ever said that our choices are uncaused and devoid of all necessity. In fact, we have argued that our choices are made within virtual sea of causes and conditions that help to shape the choices available to us and our ability to make them.

It's as absurd as me claiming that you assert that we're all just puppets manipulated by God and that if you look close enough you can actually see the strings.

Gee, Rodger, that's such a ridiculous position to take.

How can you be so silly to think that it's true?

 

[rodgertutt]

It's as absurd as me claiming that you assert that we're all just puppets manipulated by God and that if you look close enough you can actually see the strings.
Gee, Rodger, that's such a ridiculous position to take.
How can you be so silly to think that it's true?

No we are not puppets because we have emotions and we can choose, albeit only in the direction of what we perceive to be the choice that we prefer the MOST.

But we do share one thing in common wth puppets and that is causality.
Every choice we made is the product of the combined reasons that caused us to make that choice.

At any give point in time, it is not even possible that you could have chosen anything else but what you perceived that you wanted the MOST.

 

[rodgertutt]

I'm posting this again here on page 43 because citizen's response indicates that he didn't even read what James Coram and Galen Strawson wrote.

The issue is that we ALWAYS choose what we want the MOST at any given point in time.
Our will is only "free" to choose what we perceive that we want the MOST.
We could not have chosen anything else at that particular point in time.

Here's how James Coram (blue), and Galen Strawson (red) put it, in case you missed it before.

"Those who advocate “free will” actually mean to stand for by means of this expression is the notion that men have the power of contrary choice: Even though, in fact, we chose as we did, we could have chosen otherwise. That is, we could have done so at that time. It is not contended (nor is it disputed) that, hypothetically and by itself, we might have chosen otherwise. That is not the idea at all. Instead, it is claimed that, notwithstanding the fact that we did choose as we chose, we nonetheless could have chosen otherwise. This, and this alone, is the question to be resolved.

Advocates of this position, which should be called, “the power of contrary choice,” prefer to perpetuate it instead under the innocuous and advantageously ambiguous title “free will.” At once, this gives it the advantage of a respectable-sounding name, and makes those few who are constrained to reject the actual doctrine appear as strange extremists, inasmuch as they reject such a well-accepted, desirable and seemingly reasonable concept.

The advocate of free will actually stands for the position which asserts that man’s choices are uncaused—absolutely devoid of all necessity. And yet he does not realize, or at least he refuses to admit the fact, that the denial of causality will not bring him any closer to what he wants than its advocacy.

Essentially this matter is a simple one: It is impossible to prevent anything that is the product of a cause from coming into existence; and, it is also impossible to prevent anything that is not the product of a cause from coming into existence. If a truly uncaused event were ever to occur (were such a thing even possible), being the product of nothing, uninfluenced and uninfluenceable, it would simply “show up,” appearing “out of nowhere.” While it would not be brought in, neither could it be kept out.

Whether “determinism” (i.e., causality), divine or otherwise, is true or false, we cannot possibly be free either way—that is, in a freewill or contrary-choice sense. If we are caused to choose as we do, we cannot help choosing as we do. And, if we are not caused to choose as we do, we still cannot help choosing as we do."

“We cannot be free agents, in the ordinary, strong, true-responsibility-entailing sense, if determinism is true and we and our actions are ultimately wholly determined by causes which existed anterior to our own personal existence. And we can no more be free if determinism is false and it is, ultimately, either wholly or partly a matter of chance or random outcome that we and our actions are as they are."
Galen Strawson, FREEDOM AND BELIEF, p.25; London: Oxford University Press, 1986

"Neither determined nor random will afford any place for free will. Neither determinedness nor randomness (nor any mixture of the two) can give or allow what is wanted, even though between these two the field of possibilities is exhausted.

Therefore, contrary choice or “free will” not only does not exist but cannot exist."
James Coram, THE VAUNTED “POWER OF CONTRARY CHOICE”

 

[citizenzen]

No we are not puppets because we have emotions and we can choose...

Geeze, Rodger... I wasn't literally saying that you thought that... I was trying to make a point.



If you really took a moment to read my post you might have comprehended that.



Geeze.

 

[Marsh]

When I think of “free” will, the definition of it that I have in mind is the idea, that during the act of making a choice, it is possible to not choose something that is having the strongest influence on your mind.

I maintain that is logically impossible. Thus, no "free will."

Ah, I see now. Basically, what you're saying is that it's impossible not to have chosen the choice that you've made. Of course it's impossible not to choose what you chose, because what you chose was chosen because you chose it. Now if you had chosen differently when you chose to make that choice, then you wouldn't have chose what you chose when you chose it, because the choice you made wasn't actually the choice we were talking about, now was it? So the choice that we choose to make are chosen because we chose to choose them, while simultaneously choosing not to choose choices that were weren't choosing to choose at the time we made the choice.

Makes perfect sense now...

 

[rodgertutt]

Geeze, Rodger... I wasn't literally saying that you thought that... I was trying to make a point.

If you really took a moment to read my post you might have comprehended that.
Geeze.

I read your post. I think the point you were trying to make is irrelevant.

The writings by James and Galen is summed up in the last line which reads

"contrary choice or “free will” not only does not exist but cannot exist."

That is what the writings prove.

That is why IMO the "point" you were trying to make is based on an irrelevant ethical opinion.

 

[rodgertutt]

Ah, I see now. Basically, what you're saying is that it's impossible not to have chosen the choice that you've made. Of course it's impossible not to choose what you chose, because what you chose was chosen because you chose it. Now if you had chosen differently when you chose to make that choice, then you wouldn't have chose what you chose when you chose it, because the choice you made wasn't actually the choice we were talking about, now was it? So the choice that we choose to make are chosen because we chose to choose them, while simultaneously choosing not to choose choices that were weren't choosing to choose at the time we made the choice.

Makes perfect sense now...

So let's simplify what "makes perfect sense" to you.

It is not even possible that you could have made a different choice than the one you made based on what you concluded, after due deliberation, you wanted to choose MOST at that particular point in time.

Your choice was CAUSED by the REASONS that made you want that choice the MOST.

What that means is, “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."

 

[citizenzen]

I read your post. I think the point you were trying to make is irrelevant.

Of course you think it irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant however that you define people who believe in free will in a way that is not only ridiculous, but also directly contradicts the statements made by people in this thread who believe in free will.

Does that bother you at all? Or do you simply choose to not acknowledge these contradictions because it would force you to look more deeply into this subject than you want?

I hate to shake up your neat little fantasy world. No... that's not true. I'm trying to shake up your neat little fantasy world... but very little seems to be getting through.

Have you checked for excessive ear wax build-up lately? Or maybe I should say eye wax... or brain wax.

 

[rodgertutt]

Of course you think it irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant however that you define people who believe in free will in a way that is not only ridiculous, but also directly contradicts the statements made by people in this thread who believe in free will.

Does that bother you at all? Or do you simply choose to not acknowledge these contradictions because it would force you to look more deeply into this subject than you want?

I hate to shake up your neat little fantasy world. No... that's not true. I'm trying to shake up your neat little fantasy world... but very little seems to be getting through.

Have you checked for excessive ear wax build-up lately? Or maybe I should say eye wax... or brain wax.

Free will is an illusion.

Belief in "free" will doesn't make it true.
Our will is only "free" to choose what we want to choose the MOST.
Every choice you ever made was the ONLY choice you could have made at that particular point in time.
You were not "free" to choose anything else but what you perceived to be the "choicest" choice.

Consequently, “free" will not only does not exist but cannot exist."

 

[citizenzen]

Free will is an illusion...

Which sounds a lot like, "LA, LA, LA... I can't hear you."