Do We Have Free Will?

Depending on whether you believe in fate or not, I suppose...

 

are you fated to quit pmo or was it predetermined? does it matter?

 

Does it matter to you? That is the most imporyant question.

If you fail to quit was that predetermined? If you became addicted was that predetermined?
if you stop, start, stop,start.... on and on was that predetermined?

 

If God knows what we are going to do beforehand, that doesn't mean he forced us to act a certain way. We are responsible for the things that we choose to do. I could choose to do whatever I could, it's up to me.

Preknowledge on God's part doesn't mean we aren't responsible for our decisions. God may know what we will choose, but the choice is always ours (for things we can control). I could turn on a dime and live a different way tomorrow if I really, really wanted to. You can't blame your environment for doing dumb things.

If I record a football game and then watch it later with my brother, even though I know the outcome, I didn't determine it.

 

Hey, man. This is a topic I've gotten interested in lately...

It seems to me that so long as the mind makes circuit selections in preference over other choices, we have de facto free will. I've been told that "well, the fact that one choice is selected over another only shows that you are predetermined to react to this series of stimuli this way, but to other stimuli another way," but so what? We act in the vein of free will.

If I punch you in the mouth, you don't sue my fist, or the physical forces that allowed my hand to move through the air -- or the neural network that facilitated the response of my brain to flex my muscles. The instinct is to perceive the entire entity as self-possessing. We have evolved to identify other human beings as islands of themselves. Whether this is technically the case seems irrelevant. We make choices against other possible choices, and judge others on the basis of those choices. That seems enough.

I've been reading about the topic off and on. This viewpoint seems to be the most consistent and coherent. I'll let you all know if my mind changes on any of these points...

 

Oh, okay. Cool. I've probably heard all the determinism arguments, anyway. If free will is defined as "making certain choices versus making any other possible choice(s)" then I would say we, by definition, have free will. The defined terms really matter when you talk about free will. You never get past the "possibility" side of the argument either (other choices are possible), and, in the end, we behave and respond as free will agents.

 

Lol, I've always thought so, as well. If anyone cares about free will, then state power is an immediate threat to free will, in the sense that it can dictate what is or is not "free enough" for individuals to partake in. A simple example is "hate speech"; does the state know better than you what should or should not be said in a public space? Even if it is a majority vote, the question is "is some degree of discomfort, disdain, agitation, etc., enough to justify physically preventing someone from speaking words in their language?"

I would disagree with @lookslikei'mbrokenbeyondrepair here, in that any restriction of freedom leads to the slippery slope dilemma of "what is enough freedom to allow to individuals?" You could lock people up in cages, force them to exercise, eat healthy, watch fascinating documentaries, listen to elevating lectures, listen only to classical music, teach their children about honor and loyalty, take educational classes to better their skills, etc., all in the vein of totalitarian control -- taking all of their earned resources so as to recycle them in a perpetual state of equilibrium. Some would not call that freedom, yet others would not care so long as it serves its self-improving purposes. That is the problem of state authority: "who as enough experience and morality to decide what is best as a freedom or a restriction to human interaction?"

I say to leave people alone to make whatever decisions they want. Self-defense and group cohesion can regulate any threats of "licentiousness" arises from a population.

 

Well, you're presupposing that not only is morality objective, but that it is universal as a single model, i.e., there is only one set of moral actions that can be called moral. The problem with that is that people have seemingly infinite degrees of moral conviction, and that societies cannot always ensure that people with a selected moral system will hold seats of power. Morality can influence legality, but legality usually influences morality, in that if you hold legal power as a guiding force in your moral system, your system will naturally fit to accommodate the allocation of wealth and influence you are generating from your political dominion. That is how corruption begins.

 

"Do We Have Free Will?" is not the right place for the discussion of the politics behind free will? Lol.

Naw, man, it's cool. If you want to continue the conversation, just post a link to wherever you want to redirect the thread. I think this stuff is fascinating. Thanks, too, for your contributions. It's all good.

 

You still have free will. You can freely choose to break the laws and accept the consequences of doing so