In several other threads, I have seen the term 'free will' be used to justify the existence of 'wrong' or 'evil' existing in the world...

I have made it clear exactly why I do not believe in 'free will', I believe in determinism... cause and effect... action and reation... etcetera etcetera.

Layed out below is why I make this claim...


******* Free will is something I do not believe in. *******


How does 'free will' exclude itself from the law of cause and effect?

One must know better to choose better. One also must have some type of experience which introduces better in order to be able to choose better.

One has free will when one wants what one wants to want?

This is indeed problematic... because it's not clear how wanting what one wants to want (i.e. making an all things considered judgement or identification with a desired want) is even possible considering that one may have already internalized a concept as truth that will not allow a better choice to be entertained, let alone chosen.

How am I free to want what I want to want if what I want to want is governed by some feature of my psychology that I don't necessarily want to have, but I do not understand that I do not want to have this feature.



1.) One can only choose that which is available within the given parameters of one's life experience...

2.) Initial internalizations are determined by primal acceptance needs. One has no choice but to accept very early teachings as truth...

3.) Further internalizations are determined by experience and previous internalizations... a snowball effect supporting the foundation which was not chosen by one...

4.) Knowledge is supplied by furthered experience and governed by reasoning capabilities which decifer truthes based on previous internalizations...



THAT is not 'free will'... that is cause and effect.

Sorry to tell you, but that is called fatalism, and usually is characterized by the self-fulfilling prophecy. Nice try, though.

Free will is the ability to choose. Maybe you just like to make things complicated? Use big words? Of course, you have the right to believe you don't have free will. That is a great example of the fact that you have it!

I would suggest a more thorough understanding of both sociology and psychology before pursuing this further.

I am all ears lilith...

All ears...

How does 'free will' exist within parameters?

I don't think that is fatalism.

Fatalism is more that things are out of our control, that they're going to happen as they are supposed to happen.

Buddy here is saying that all our experiences shape who we are and influence our choices, thus we don't have true free will.

I know it is anything other than fatalism... that is beside the point really...

No harm...

No foul...

I wonder how one comes to the decision that choice = free will?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will


If you make the choice, you have free will. If someone else makes this choices for you, then you don't. This is not a matter of what your choices are, or how you come about determining what that list of choices is to start with. This is a matter of WHO chooses. If you believe you have the option to decide if you even believe in free will, then you HAVE IT.

This is really quite simple. Hope that clarifies things. I chose not to be pedantic in my post, for that's just being deliberately facetious.

It is easy to come into a thread and tell someone that they are wrong, and need to study up more with a condescending 'tone' as it were...

Without making a valid refutation of what has been presented...

Perhaps a better understanding is indeed necessary...

Lillith:

So then because I chose to eat breakfast cereal instead of scrambled eggs this morning, I exercised my 'free will'...

Sure I will agree... and I had those options...


But what if I had no options of eggs... and eggs were good...

Then what? I still had 'free will'?

To choose better one must be able to know better...

You are completely complicating this beyond belief!
The concept of free will means you have the ability to make a choice. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your question of the parameters of those choices or who determines that list in the first place is subjective and philisophical. But the point is, if you can choose, you have free will. If someone other than you makes these choices, or determines these lists or parameters for you, then you do not have free will. If you believe that you yourself have been provided with information based on experiences you've had in the past, then that implies you also made choices about that.

What you are doing is obfuscating this point, or rather deliberately complicating an extremely simple point in an effort to be distracting or complicating matters for other unknown reasons.

Ok then... what is your explanation of the difference between 'free will' and choice?

Better yet... what decides what is 'right' and 'wrong' in a person? Apparently, I need a lesson here.

I would like to here your explanation...




Do you realize what you just said?

Yes, I do. It is apparent that you do not.

I think what the issue here is a complication of semantics. If you do not understand a word exactly and entirely, then others that do will take issue with it.

Your question was philosophical, not religious. That is a subjective opinion.

Ok...

Allow me to remind you... again what YOU just said...



What determines one's internalizations Lillith?

I have free will to buy a coke or a pepsi. I choose the coke. I suppose i wouldnt have true free will if i wanted tea but they didnt offer it

Your perceptions of your experiences. This is NOT soley based on what your perceived options are or prior offerings were, but rather your ability to define your world and the way in which you choose to see it.

Creative...

Your premise leaves out much. How you describe it is also pretty circular in its logic too.

This statement alone is reliant on validation of one part with the other then back again. It's somewhat like saying: A is true because B is true and B is true because A is true... When A and B are not really even related.

Circular logic is usually false logic. In my industry it is akin to a phenomena called 'infinite loop'. Or a string of code that has no terminating condition. We've all seen it. It is where your computer just sits there using all available resources, doing the same thing over and over until either the user ends the process artificially or hits the off button.

Also.. If causality is the determining factor and free will is not a part of it... Then man should have never got off the ground. Flight would still be impossible. Because our previous experience was we cannot fly. The Wright brothers would have not chosen to fly because they have never had experience with flight. At the very least.. they would have tried to replicate the locomotion of a bird...and failed.

Your theory for just one example, completely removes the variables of imagination and creativity. We are constantly writing and rewriting the rules of physics. If what you are saying is true.. We would be circled around a pile of wood right now having this discussion.. cold and hungry... waiting for lightening to strike so we could light a fire. Despite one of us making a spark by whacking a few rocks together and not realizing the correlation simply because it is not in our experience.

I asked what determines one's internalizations... you answered:





Are you saying that the ability of perception is chosen by one?

I think you're onto something!

I'm going to infer that you are asking if a person can choose their perceptions. My subjective opinion is: partly. There are those that can perceive openly and without measure. There are those who choose to limit and restrict their world. There are those that are so selfish that it is only within their experiences and desires that they seek and get into a "rut".

There are those that have a brain chemsitry issue and cannot perceive things the way others do. This is physiological and psychological and not completely within out control. However, the choice you make with this information is a marked example of free will. The fact of the matter is that we all choose what to do with information we receive and experiences we have. We also choose to do nothing with it.

To copy and paste my entire post is easy...

Point out individual pieces which fall apart or are 'circular'.

I have no idea what part you are refuting unless you refute it specifically...

Explain to me why you have said what you did, using my words as examples...









Surely you cannot be serious here and think this somehow confirms the existance of 'free will'.