http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=free%20will
Main Entry: free will
Function: noun
1 : 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
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20will
free will
–noun 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
Let it be known that definition one in both is synonymous with choice and does not make the distinction between "will" and "free will". Definition two appropriately makes that distinction.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=free%20will
Main Entry: free will
Function: noun
1 : 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
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20will
free will
–noun 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
Let it be known that definition one in both is synonymous with choice and does not make the distinction between "will" and "free will". Definition two appropriately makes that distinction.
Where in here do you see "independent of physical determinants"? For example, who would be telling you that you can have free will without having a brain? Who would be telling you that you can have free will without having a body? Who would be telling you that you can have free will without having consciousness?
Where in here do you see "independent of physical determinants"? For example, who would be telling you that you can have free will without having a brain? Who would be telling you that you can have free will without having a body? Who would be telling you that you can have free will without having consciousness?
Umm, basically any major religious sect in the world.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Umm, basically any major religious sect in the world.
Really? Which religions teach you that you can have free-will without the body and without the mind?
I think if you examine theological philosophies, you'll find they're much closer to determinism. Every religious sect ties man's will to his God, the omnipresent and omnipotent being who holds a monopoly on judgment. Few religious sects would tell you to value your choices over the choices of that which created you.
Really? Which religions teach you that you can have free-will without the body and without the mind?
I think if you examine theological philosophies, you'll find they're much closer to determinism. Every religious sect ties man's will to his God, the omnipresent and omnipotent being who holds a monopoly on judgment. Few religious sects would tell you to value your choices over the choices of that which created you.
True that, well, I find the more I talk to individuals about this, the more we start to agree. For example, the Christian dude I work with.
First response "THAT! Is NOT how he MADE us!"
Final response "Well, yea, that's obvious."
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"A man shaves, dons a long-haired wig, makeup, and a dress, and begins to cook and sew. What might a 3-year-old think about these events and why? How is a 7-year-old's understanding likely to differ from that of a preoperational thinker?"
Hmm, well what does the 3 year old think of the "Events"? or the person?
I'm willing to bet money that if the 3 year old doesn't whitness the events, they wouldn't know it was the same person. But if they whitness the events they must be able to infer the causality.
By contrast a 7 year old would be capable of determining, without being whitness to the cause, what the cause was, by causal inference or "operational thought".
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
True that, well, I find the more I talk to individuals about this, the more we start to agree. For example, the Christian dude I work with.
First response "THAT! Is NOT how he MADE us!"
Final response "Well, yea, that's obvious."
The further you explore this the further you'll realize that both free-will'ers and determinists hit a logical brick wall. The problem is that both arguments require their core concepts to be self-evident, which in turn can make either very attractive because they can then in turn explain anything.
I'm a pretty hard-core free-will'er. But that doesn't mean I'll discount the possibility of a deterministic universe (including the "choices" people make). However, a hard deterministic viewpoint requires a complete shift in how you view the actions of men, particularly within a social context. And too often deterministic philosophies are used for the sole purpose of control. Neither of those facts disprove determinism in any way, however.
The further you explore this the further you'll realize that both free-will'ers and determinists hit a logical brick wall. The problem is that both arguments require their core concepts to be self-evident, which in turn can make either very attractive because they can then in turn explain anything.
I'm a pretty hard-core free-will'er. But that doesn't mean I'll discount the possibility of a deterministic universe (including the "choices" people make). However, a hard deterministic viewpoint requires a complete shift in how you view the actions of men, particularly within a social context. And too often deterministic philosophies are used for the sole purpose of control. Neither of those facts disprove determinism in any way, however.
I'm not interested in controlling anyway, simply understanding them.
The major difference between determinism and free-will as far as hitting a brick wall goes. With determinism I have to try to find all the little tiny underlying micro-influences that make up on big influence that ultimately results in a choice. Which is highly improbable in most cases, for their are myriad little variables to go into choice. A meist or free-willer simply needs to assert that he/she "ade the choice" and make no further attempt at explaining it. With further implications that it can not be explained. The brick wall meism hits is explaining just what free-will is and where it comes from. Which is why they assert that it can not be, for no reasons apparent to us.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm not interested in controlling anyway, simply understanding them.
Cool.
The major difference between determinism and free-will as far as hitting a brick wall goes. With determinism I have to try to find all the little tiny underlying micro-influences that make up on big influence that ultimately results in a choice.
Well, yes. That's difficult. But you face a bigger problem:
You have to prove that no other outcome was possible.
A meist or free-willer simply needs to assert that he/she "ade the choice" and make no further attempt at explaining it. With further implications that it can not be explained. The brick wall meism hits is explaining just what free-will is and where it comes from. Which is why they assert that it can not be, for no reasons apparent to us.
That goes both ways. I mean, you're guilty of doing that throughout this thread when you simply tie everything back to deterministic factors. Again, it's a self-evidency which, in both cases, is based on nothing more than faith.
Well, yes. That's difficult. But you face a bigger problem:
You have to prove that no other outcome was possible.
That goes both ways. I mean, you're guilty of doing that throughout this thread when you simply tie everything back to deterministic factors. Again, it's a self-evidency which, in both cases, is based on nothing more than faith.
Yea, ok, but deterministic factors is the point. I can quantify this mathematically.
A + B = (A +
Without knowing what A and B are, the only answer is A + B. That does not mean A and B do not exist. However, we can infer this.
∞ ≡ Everything
And that works for me
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Hilarious! All the bases are covered!
Whoah. Who defines free-will as that?
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=free%20will
Main Entry: free will
Function: noun
1 : 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
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20will
free will
–noun 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
Let it be known that definition one in both is synonymous with choice and does not make the distinction between "will" and "free will". Definition two appropriately makes that distinction.
Where in here do you see "independent of physical determinants"? For example, who would be telling you that you can have free will without having a brain? Who would be telling you that you can have free will without having a body? Who would be telling you that you can have free will without having consciousness?
He does. So it is written. So it is done.
Umm, basically any major religious sect in the world.
Really? Which religions teach you that you can have free-will without the body and without the mind?
I think if you examine theological philosophies, you'll find they're much closer to determinism. Every religious sect ties man's will to his God, the omnipresent and omnipotent being who holds a monopoly on judgment. Few religious sects would tell you to value your choices over the choices of that which created you.
True that, well, I find the more I talk to individuals about this, the more we start to agree. For example, the Christian dude I work with.
First response "THAT! Is NOT how he MADE us!"
Final response "Well, yea, that's obvious."
"A man shaves, dons a long-haired wig, makeup, and a dress, and begins to cook and sew. What might a 3-year-old think about these events and why? How is a 7-year-old's understanding likely to differ from that of a preoperational thinker?"
Hmm, well what does the 3 year old think of the "Events"? or the person?
I'm willing to bet money that if the 3 year old doesn't whitness the events, they wouldn't know it was the same person. But if they whitness the events they must be able to infer the causality.
By contrast a 7 year old would be capable of determining, without being whitness to the cause, what the cause was, by causal inference or "operational thought".
The further you explore this the further you'll realize that both free-will'ers and determinists hit a logical brick wall. The problem is that both arguments require their core concepts to be self-evident, which in turn can make either very attractive because they can then in turn explain anything.
I'm a pretty hard-core free-will'er. But that doesn't mean I'll discount the possibility of a deterministic universe (including the "choices" people make). However, a hard deterministic viewpoint requires a complete shift in how you view the actions of men, particularly within a social context. And too often deterministic philosophies are used for the sole purpose of control. Neither of those facts disprove determinism in any way, however.
I'm not interested in controlling anyway, simply understanding them.
The major difference between determinism and free-will as far as hitting a brick wall goes. With determinism I have to try to find all the little tiny underlying micro-influences that make up on big influence that ultimately results in a choice. Which is highly improbable in most cases, for their are myriad little variables to go into choice. A meist or free-willer simply needs to assert that he/she "ade the choice" and make no further attempt at explaining it. With further implications that it can not be explained. The brick wall meism hits is explaining just what free-will is and where it comes from. Which is why they assert that it can not be, for no reasons apparent to us.
Cool.
Well, yes. That's difficult. But you face a bigger problem:
You have to prove that no other outcome was possible.
That goes both ways. I mean, you're guilty of doing that throughout this thread when you simply tie everything back to deterministic factors. Again, it's a self-evidency which, in both cases, is based on nothing more than faith.
Yea, ok, but deterministic factors is the point. I can quantify this mathematically.
A + B = (A +
Without knowing what A and B are, the only answer is A + B. That does not mean A and B do not exist. However, we can infer this.
∞ ≡ Everything
And that works for me