Free Will, free to make a choice thats all it means.

[rdventen]

If you answer this you have free will, if you don't answer this you have free will.
Its your choice.

[Angel]

I agree with Choasborders to a degree in that all of the factors he mentions play a role in our decisions but I'd wonder to what degree. Are all of the above mentioned factors account for all that are decisions are or just part of our choice-making while we still have some independence from them or at least some dualistic mitigating component.

If they aren't the entire reason, then what completes the list of factors? Whatever that may be then functions in the same manner as those mentioned byChoasborder. The only alternative is that randomness, utter and complete randomness, governs our actions (physical and mental), in which case our independence is no more real than if our actions are wholly deterministic. So, either determinism rules our lives or randomness does, and from what we know, determinism is the winner.

The only alternative is not randomness but can be a component that is free to not be "completely" under the influence of neuro, biological, and chemical factors. In a sense we can shape all of these factors and we already override them mentally by coming up with concepts such as free-will, although to physically do it may take genetic engineering based on the liking or want that the person prefers. That's more of an indirect free-will in a sense. We can already change who we are mentally (personality, thinking, certain emotional responses) with proven psychological therapies such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Rational Behavioral Therapy, etc.

[Miles]

I agree with Choasborders to a degree in that all of the factors he mentions play a role in our decisions but I'd wonder to what degree. Are all of the above mentioned factors account for all that are decisions are or just part of our choice-making while we still have some independence from them or at least some dualistic mitigating component.

If they aren't the entire reason, then what completes the list of factors? Whatever that may be then functions in the same manner as those mentioned byChoasborder. The only alternative is that randomness, utter and complete randomness, governs our actions (physical and mental), in which case our independence is no more real than if our actions are wholly deterministic. So, either determinism rules our lives or randomness does, and from what we know, determinism is the winner.

The only alternative is not randomness but can be a component that is free to not be "completely" under the influence of neuro, biological, and chemical factors.

Not sure what you mean here (I suspect a typo is the cause), but as I understand you, you're saying that randomness is a component of something, to which I have to ask, a component of what?

In a sense we can shape all of these factors and we already override them mentally by coming up with concepts such as free-will, although to physically do it may take genetic engineering based on the liking or want that the person prefers.

All what factors? And by what operation does one at arrive at this overriding? Is it a result of choosing to do so? If so, then what what factors precipitated this particular choosing? Either they were deterministic or utterly random.

That's more of an indirect free-will in a sense. We can already change who we are mentally (personality, thinking, certain emotional responses) with proven psychological therapies such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Rational Behavioral Therapy, etc.

And again, what is the operative behind this changing? It has to be either deterministic or utterly random. There is no third alternative.

[Adamoriens]

And again, what is the operative behind this changing? It has to be either deterministic or utterly random. There is no third alternative.

Are there no deterministic factors coupled with a modicum of free will? For the sake of argument, is this not the third alternative? Or is the concept of free will by definition random?

[Angel]

I agree with Choasborders to a degree in that all of the factors he mentions play a role in our decisions but I'd wonder to what degree. Are all of the above mentioned factors account for all that are decisions are or just part of our choice-making while we still have some independence from them or at least some dualistic mitigating component.

If they aren't the entire reason, then what completes the list of factors? Whatever that may be then functions in the same manner as those mentioned byChoasborder. The only alternative is that randomness, utter and complete randomness, governs our actions (physical and mental), in which case our independence is no more real than if our actions are wholly deterministic. So, either determinism rules our lives or randomness does, and from what we know, determinism is the winner.

The only alternative is not randomness but can be a component that is free to not be "completely" under the influence of neuro, biological, and chemical factors.

Not sure what you mean here (I suspect a typo is the cause), but as I understand you, you're saying that randomness is a component of something, to which I have to ask, a component of what?

I was saying that "randomness" is not the only alternative to non-determinism. It doesn't have to be a factor at all but that is at least one potential explanation. In God's case, His character (the "will" included) is part of His character and they simply always were - they were never caused. That is not random because the "will" does not exist in a vacuum and it is part of His character of goodness, loving, etc and the actions from that which also make up character/behavior. When it comes to us, our experiences

In a sense we can shape all of these factors and we already override them mentally by coming up with concepts such as free-will, although to physically do it may take genetic engineering based on the liking or want that the person prefers.

All what factors? And by what operation does one at arrive at this overriding? Is it a result of choosing to do so? If so, then what what factors precipitated this particular choosing? Either they were deterministic or utterly random.

That's more of an indirect free-will in a sense. We can already change who we are mentally (personality, thinking, certain emotional responses) with proven psychological therapies such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Rational Behavioral Therapy, etc.

And again, what is the operative behind this changing? It has to be either deterministic or utterly random. There is no third alternative.[/quote]

[Miles]

And again, what is the operative behind this changing? It has to be either deterministic or utterly random. There is no third alternative.

Are there no deterministic factors coupled with a modicum of free will?

Well, first one would have to make a decent case for existence of FW, and so far this has yet to be done.

For the sake of argument, is this not the third alternative? Or is the concept of free will by definition random?

Do you mean, "by definition a random activity?" I wouldn't think so. Most definitions I've seen hedge on the definition by using nebulous terms or concepts. In the FW vs. determinism debate most often the definition takes on a negative aspect, saying that FW is not a determined will. Or it may take the form of something like "when rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, or choices." But how "exercising control" works without bringing cause into the equation is never explained. What generally happens is that FW proponents end up with nothing more than their claim: "We do have free will." No evidence, no argument, just a claim.

[Goat]

And again, what is the operative behind this changing? It has to be either deterministic or utterly random. There is no third alternative.

Are there no deterministic factors coupled with a modicum of free will?

Well, first one would have to make a decent case for existence of FW, and so far this has yet to be done.

And I have yet to see a case for determinism that is not pure metaphysical either. The arguments of both sides are pretty making a lot of untestable assumptions.

[Miles]

And again, what is the operative behind this changing? It has to be either deterministic or utterly random. There is no third alternative.

Are there no deterministic factors coupled with a modicum of free will?

Well, first one would have to make a decent case for existence of FW, and so far this has yet to be done.

And I have yet to see a case for determinism that is not pure metaphysical either. The arguments of both sides are pretty making a lot of untestable assumptions.

Considering the issue is philosophical rather than scientific I doubt testing of any kind would ever be possible. Unlike free will, which is rarely well defined--often it's couched in terms that position it as opposite of determinism--determinism almost always is. What I would like to see is a good definition of free will that stands in direct opposition to determinism without relying on determinism.

"Free will" is _________________fill in the blank__________________ .

[Goat]

"Free will" is _________________fill in the blank__________________ .

As far as I can see, the blank is 'metaphysical nonsense that can mean anything to any one and therefore means absolutely nothing except for an excuse to say that God is not responsible for the 'evil' in the world.

[Adamoriens]

Do you mean, "by definition a random activity?" I wouldn't think so. Most definitions I've seen hedge on the definition by using nebulous terms or concepts. In the FW vs. determinism debate most often the definition takes on a negative aspect, saying that FW is not a determined will. Or it may take the form of something like "when rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, or choices." But how "exercising control" works without bringing cause into the equation is never explained.

By random I suppose I meant "spontaneous." If the concept of free will were true, we would be able to make [spontaneous] decisions for which there were no causes.

Apparently some study found that decision-making is largely unconscious: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 145705.htm

Is that at all relevant?

[Coldfire]

By random I suppose I meant "spontaneous." If the concept of free will were true, we would be able to make [spontaneous] decisions for which there were no causes.

Apparently some study found that decision-making is largely unconscious: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 145705.htm

Is that at all relevant?

I do not sense that you are trying to prove or disprove either side, only trying to understand yourself or bring light on the subject to others, but I could be wrong.

I will not claim to know all the answers on this subject. I don’t know of anyone who does, but the idea that determinism is not considered by all to be a scientific fact… it’s just very amusing to me. It should be common sense to realize that everything: our thoughts, actions and even our choices are determined by a previous cause whatever that cause may be.

Adamoriens, I’m not picking on you, yours just happened to be the last comment. As I mentioned, I don’t feel that you are arguing against either side. If that is true, I strongly agree with you challenging determinism as there seems to be enough of the “free will� concept being challenged. Regardless of the seemingly obvious effects explained by determinism, some thinkers need some solid proof and challenging the theory could help lead to this proof.

My question in response to your quote above is for anyone: Is there any examples of us being “able to make spontaneous decisions for which there were no causes?�

I will predict that no; not one example can be provided. The very question doesn’t make sense to me because decision making is an action of the brain caused by something and in turn causes another action.

After reading the article I would say that it is relevant pending the legitimacy of the scientific test performed, I was not there, and I don’t believe in something just because “a team of scientists� from such and such University have studied it. If true however, it is nice to see that scientists are indeed attempting to make it a scientific fact that there is no free will. That before any decision is made final in the mind, there was an electrical signal that fired off to cause it.

For those that feel their beliefs being challenged, please understand that just because your choices are not made by your own “free will,� it doesn’t mean you can’t choose, it just means there’s a reason for your choice.