Free Will - Page 2

Piers · #11 10-24-2007, 08:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When put in these stark terms it is easy to see that free will apologists can not provide a rational answer. The ramifications of this are troubling, to say the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, so "causality", yet another humen based invention along the same lines, correct?

doucy · #12 10-24-2007, 09:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also if you truly believed free will didn't exist why the hell would you try to argue your point? Everyone's views have already been pre determined.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. A lack of free will does not automatically imply determinism.

EDIT: although it would depend on your definitions of free will and determinism. so i suppose you could set up an argument for a lack of free will to lead to determinism.

MiloMinderbinder · #13 10-24-2007, 10:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Also if you truly believed free will didn't exist why the hell would you try to argue your point? "

Don't you see, I have no choice in the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

luckyme · #14 10-24-2007, 10:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: although it would depend on your definitions of free will and determinism.

[/ QUOTE ]

A definition would wash away most argument. then what.

luckyme

scorcher863 · #15 10-24-2007, 12:58 PM

My argument against free will is based on the fact that we make decisions with information previously gathered. To have free will would almost be godlike. My Def. of free will - the ability to make an infinite amount of decisions. An illusion of control is created when making decisions. However, life is lived in a linear path in regards to the axis of time. What control do you have over the information(stimuli) existing in those instances when they are gathered? Example: What control do you have at this moment over whether or not you agree with this argument? You may say i disagree with this argument because of X, but if X never existed in your life, how would you make that decision?

Sry if this doesn't make clear sense. I have to leave and don't have to time to focus my argument.

soon2bepro · #16 10-24-2007, 01:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What could possibly provide consciousness?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
Also if you truly believed free will didn't exist why the hell would you try to argue your point? Everyone's views have already been pre determined

[/ QUOTE ]

Going with that reasoning, what point would it be to care whether there's a point? All the points have been predetermined, or maybe not, but in either case, you can't change it.

Then again, there's no such thing as "you" or "me"... Reality is one system, wholly interconnected and dependant on the rest of itself. It's not a number of different systems. At least not as far as we know.

In fact, asking why you should do or don't do something, is only relevant when there's intention. So you see, the "point" in doing something is because you have purposes, desires, and each action that you take, whether directly or indirectly, helps you get what you want, or to avoid what you don't want. Or at least you believe it will at the moment you take the action.

Bottomline is, freewill believers are, in every case I've encountered, either one of the following two (though in some cases it can be both):

1) A person who holds a belief in a mystical, non-physical force, unaffected by reality, that guides the actions of living beings (usually just humans). This is a wishful thinking, or rather "feeling-thinking" based concept, and as such, holders of this belief will not listen to reason nor evidence in regards to the abovementioned belief. It's not a surprise that most people who believe in this are also theists.

2) A person who has a different definition the term "free" and/or "will" than the one traditionally used, and especially the one used by people in 1). These people usually do listen to reason and evidence, since the dispute between them and the non-believers is a semantical one.

soon2bepro · #17 10-24-2007, 01:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The most powerful argument against free will is also the simplest; what could provide it?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo

ALawPoker · #18 10-24-2007, 01:52 PM

This reminds me of the "is beauty biological or cultural" argument.

We do not have free will, but it seems like we do, so we effectively do. That is my basic position.

soon2bepro · #19 10-24-2007, 01:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We do not have free will, but it seems like we do, so we effectively do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the creator of the universe, but I'm crazy so I feel like I am. So effectively I am.

NOT

ALawPoker · #20 10-24-2007, 04:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We do not have free will, but it seems like we do, so we effectively do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the creator of the universe, but I'm crazy so I feel like I am. So effectively I am.

NOT

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh... if you're determined to respond to what I said, do you have anything better than "NOT"?

If you legitimately felt like you were the ruler of the universe and if after all your actions and reflections you maintained that belief, then yes, you "effectively" would be even though you "actually" aren't. Thank you for highlighting my point.

Definition of 'effectively': "For all practical purposes."

Go put some more thought into the view I was offering before trolling further.