Personally, I don’t equate will with what a person wants. Although they may be closely related in the sense that one applies one’s will to obtain what one wants. But to me, will is not dependent on wants, just as electricity is not dependent on light bulbs, nor are light bulbs dependent on electricity. Per the definition of “will” from dictionary.com (“the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions”) will is more of a potential (a “faculty” or “power”) than a product of something. It exists independently regardless of whether it is being “applied”. In other words, the potential/faculty/power exists, regardless whether anything is wanted or not.

Now I would have to agree with “… no choice is or can be made without some form of influence from the will ” because choice is necessarily the product of will. But everything following that I completely disagree with. Particularly “…one cannot voluntarily decide to change their favorite foods or colors or sexual preferences, etc.” As far as I’m concerned, that sentence is completely false, despite the weight of authority and majority agreement that it seems to have behind it.

Moreover, there had to be some decision as to favorite food/whatever in the first place. So if one decides what one’s favorite food is (i.e. decides what one wants) then one has in fact voluntarily (i.e. willfully) changed their favorite food (from nothing to something).

In short, it is my view that one does “freely choose personal preferences”. The very fact that they are personal preferences requires that they be chosen freely – otherwise they would not be one’s own preferences, they would be someone (or something) else’s preferences.

And again I don’t agree. I don’t think all “new ideas” necessarily arise exclusively through inference. But then, there’s another semantic swamp there, which I don’t relish slogging through. Suffice it to say that I consider decision to be the source of new ideas, not the other way around.

And here we run into our conflicting views on the difference between “choice” and “decision”. To me, decision requires will – choice does not. (One could “choose” by tossing a coin, but deciding to carry out the choice determined by the coin toss requires will.)

In the interests of brevity, see my replies regarding the difference between “choice” and “decision”, and the “personal preference” issue.

Ummm…. I admit that view is held to (often vehemently) by many, but it is not an assumption that I agree with.

No argument there.

Well if the decision is being made “about” something, then yes, the perception of that thing must come before the decision about it.

Since the belief system (or a portion thereof) is the “frame”, then yes, it necessarily is a factor in the interpretation of perception.

If there were a way to prove that, I’d be very interested. But as far as I can see, there isn’t, so I’ll hold to my existing opinion that original belief system is freely chosen.

However, just so I clearly understand what you mean by “freely choosing a belief system”, if a person freely chooses to go to a hypnotist and receive a hypnotic command that changes his belief system, does that constitute “freely choosing to change one’s belief system”? In other words, must the “free choice” be direct, or can it be indirect in the sense of freely choosing to place oneself in a situation where external factors could affect one’s belief system?

I have to disagree on several points.

First, as far as I’m concerned, free will does exist (although, admittedly, what I think of as free will may not be the same thing as what you’re saying doesn’t exist.)

Second, determinism, by definition, says that all things are the effect of something else. But saying “Determinism allows for the human factor” implies that “the human factor” is somehow deterministically different from, say, billiard balls. Other than complexity, what’s the difference between the determinism in billiard balls and the determinism in “the human factor”. Both are either deterministic or not. (Unless you’re talking about differences in degree and not category. In which case ignore this point.)

Third, I’m having a tough time with the “volition” thing”. Is volition deterministic? Is it the effect of some other cause? If so, then the statement “Free will therefore necessarily presupposes a creature capable of volition. ” seems self-contradictory – “Free will therefore necessarily presupposes a [deterministic factor].” But if volition is not deterministic, then it seems to me that it is/must be the defining factor of free will, and the statement is effectively an identity – “Free will therefore necessarily presupposes a creature capable of [free will].”

It seems that the problem is in the necessary conclusion (from the statement “Free will does not exist.”) that choice is deterministic. But if that is so, then either there are instances where the exact same causes acting on the exact same subjects result in different effects (and all of science flies out the window) or determinism must reduce to pre-determinism. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Lastly, regardingIn common usage, this would be true. However, that statement starts in the middle of the cycle, not at the beginning. The beginning of the whole cycle is at the point where a decision is made regarding the existence of “A”. That is, one must decide that “A” exists before one can choose “A”. And that is where free will enters the picture. The act of deciding that something exists (or not) is the purest manifestation of free will.

JMHO

Well, that's a valid point for sure.

But then (playing devil's advaocate again here) supposing you own the largest company (measured in number of employees) in a rural southern community where racial discrimination is the norm. The combined takes paid by you, your company and your employees represents the majority of the taxes paid in the entire community. And if you and all the employees are racists, then racism would be representataive of those taxpayers who are helping you exist. So by not being racist, you would fact not be representing those taxpayers.

From my own personal experience I would say that there are a lot of unreasonable employers out there.

The key problem with this whole discrinination concept is "where does one draw the line?"

Should discrimination against a candidate because they have too much experience be legal?

What if you, as an employer, don't like their hair color? Should you be allowed to discrininate against that? And what if it's pink with purple and green stripes?

Shouldn't "the public image of the company" be a valid criteria for evaluation of a candidate? Which then leads to the obvious question "What sort of image should be allowed for the company, if any, and what sort of image should the employer be allowed to reject a candidate for?



The whole problem to me is the creeping intrusion of group think being forced on the everyday life and activities of individuals. The reductio ad absurdum of this is everyone thinking and acting the same.

("Resistance is futile.")

Some good stuff in this thread.

Personally, when I think of what free will applies to, I have to separate out two distinct categories.

"The Physical" is absolutely determinisitic.
"The Spiritual" has absolute free will.

JMHO

It seems to me that there must be some impetus or driving force behind behavior. So I don’t think of instinct as being “memory” per se. To me “memory” is a static thing – like pictures hanging on a wall – whereas behavior is dynamic – an action. As I see it memory more akin to knowledge than behavior.

For all practical purposes, I think Creative’s question about “certainty” comes the closest.

Can we know anything with absolute certainty? (Other than “I AM” of course.)

It seems to me that knowledge must be a gradient scale of certainty. Any concept of absloute certainty is too impractical for use as far as I’m concerned.

And the simple fact that knowledge/knowing is a subjective state makes it pretty difficult to quantify objectively anyway.

Wouldn't that mean that learned behavior is behavior with knowledge and instinctual behavior is behavior without knowledge?

That could go an insteresting direction.

No, I don't.

No, I didn't.

It's not a matter of degree, it's a matter of category.

With murder, its taking away someone else's property (their body), but with the hiring, it's taking away your own property (your money) as an employer.

In other words, you make a comparison, I don't see how that comparison applies, but I'm supposed to explaing how it does apply???

No thanks. I don"t see any benefit to be derived from the attempt.

Well if you think "taking a life" and "not hiring someone" are either ethically or categorically equivalent, then it's no wonder you and I disagree so often.

Yeah, there are some problems with the concept of "knowledge". But if we use dependable to mean "workable", as in being useful in applying to the problems and issues of life, then I'm in total agreement.

Well of couse. But being an absolute, I don't think "all wrong from the beginning" was really a valid assesment of anyone's viewpoint. I took it as being meant rhetorically and used it in the same rhetorical sense.

Abra saidExcellent point.

Creative saidWell you have to admit that if one is to judge by track record, there is some merit to that argument.

Just sayin.

Now don't get me wrong here - I'm totally in favor of equal pay for equal work. I'm just not in favor of making it a criminal offense to discriminate. Doing that is no less taking away freedom of choice.

Just to play the Devil's Avocate here...

Shouldn't (for example) an employer have the freedom to choose whomever he wants for a particular job and/or pay them whatever he wants to pay them? If we force him into paying someone more (or even less for that matter) than he wants, aren't we then forcibly impinging on his "freedom of choice"?

<ducking and covering>

Neither. You'll need to make them run progressively faster to compensate for the time dilation from the acceleration. Or maybe it's prograssively slower? Pick your frame of reference and adjust accordingly.

Ok, I get it now. Thanks for clearing that up.

The place where I hang up on this is that intelligence is assumed to be either an inherent trait(A) or an emergent property(B) of “stuff” - as if intelligence can’t exist without “stuff”.

Personally, I think of intelligence as being independent of “stuff” and that the creation/manipulation of “stuff” is the result of intelligence.

And as you said: ”Hence, intelligent design."

JMHO

As best I can tell, all definitions of "design" depemd on some sort of intention or purpose to manipulate components. That seems to be the only difference between "design" and "happenstance".

If nobody wanted it to happen, it was just "happenstance". If someone wanted it to happen, it was "designed".

And even then, if what happened was not what was intended, it is not considered "design" but "accident".

There just doesn't seem any way to remove the concept of intention/purpose and still have "design". Once you do, it is no longer design. It's accident or randomity or happenstance.