"Matter does not think, yet water does not flow into arbitrary directions.
If opting for something you do not deem reasonable you're not acting rationally."

Reason may not be reasonable. Supposing, by analogy, that our psychological grounds for holding an opinion are inescapable. One makes defective judgments constantly, however, only against the measure of new judgments, supposed to be more true, or true simpliciter.

Dear person who forgets that Mies van der Rohe’s design of Alois Riehl’s house in Neubabelsberg was simple, though, rather charming. Quite unlike yourself! while, likely, you have conceived a perpetual endowment within your body, in the form of hate for Sophie Jung, because she looks like a junger Chus Martinez (at least in one roaring photo), this is only due to your neighing essence, which, according to Pascal, is la pensée. However, this essence is useless, though everything in the world is useful in its own way.

"What is this "law of thought" that you refer to, is it a law of your own making?"

Sometimes this is called a part of prima philosophia. Or, the basic rules of classical logic as the fundamental ground of classical philosophic discussion. However, it is a raising to awareness of the ordinary claim that if someone at one time says, the earth stands still, and in the next breath, it moves!, they say the-thing-that-is-not, i.e., they lie according to the view that contradiction and lie are the same.


“No: As I see it, you lack the freedom to do anything other than that which you do.”

I call something freedom. For instance, sending this post.


“What does any of this mean? Are you drunk? Speak or write in plain english and make your point if you have one.”

The genius of lazy logos is leaden in the depths of your body and soul.

“That is not a philosophical statement it is perhaps a 'spiritual' one.”

Sophia means as much wisdom as knowledge for the Greeks, dear simple one. There is no “spiritual” in ancient Greece. Or, what would it be? Surely not cultic practices and muthos? Neither is there belief nor religion. Remember, Socrates, who most take to be a philosopher, defined the human essence as investigation, saying, whoever does not investigate lives no human life. Ergo, we would have to ask, is investigation questioning?

Holy jaysus!

The essence of enlightenment is the choice between alternatives, and the inescapability of this choice is that of power.

Horkheimer, Adorno: Dialectic of Enlightenment

I suggest that a person riding a roller coaster is not truly free since he feels elation, terror and delight at points prepogrammed by the roller coaster topology and his pre-determined reactions to stimuli.

Exactly, we need drugs or other means to control which emotions might feel and thus gain absolute souvereignity over the flesh to totalize our freedom by complete subjuagtion of the piece of nature that we are ourselves.

"What is choice?

I undersand it's a road crossing. There is more than one path to take and, if we have free will, we can choose, unaffected by any factors, to travel down any one of those paths."

It is problematic to say free will choices are "unaffected by any factors." Choices are the product of factors ( e.g. beliefs, objectives, desires, whims, perverseness...). What you're missing is that there is an agent who is responsible for the ultimate choice.

A computer program is not responsible for the outcome of following a decision tree. A human is responsible because the decision is based on factors of his own choosing - even if he chose to follow a scripted decision tree. i.e. we own our choices.

A computer program is not responsible for the outcome of following a decision tree. — Relativist

Yet the everyday conception is satisfied with something being a "computer failure".

Wouldn't this computer program look like it is making free will choices? — jajsfaye

That’s what I’m trying to show. Choice making can be programmed as in a computer. That voids the ability to make choices as a method to ascertain the existence of free will. I mean let’s take free=red and flower=will/ability to make choices. So free will = red flower. Since will/ability to make choices can be programmed deterministically it follows that the flower is no longer a useful means of distinguishing free will from no free will. In other words the flower is not worthy so no point in discussing whether it is red (free) or not.

Now, why would knowing about something in my past, rather than if they were not known, make them more free? That part of your definition seems bizarre. — InternetStranger

We can only free ourselves of the influences we are aware of know. In short we must know what’s affecting our decisions before we can say we’re acting on our own free will or not.

This is when it's free will, as it is free and rooted in pure reason, is at the same time it's duty. — Heiko

This is another problem with the idea of free will. Rationality is a guideline for thinking and as such constrains our choices. To act in a rational way is to limit one’s choices. In short to be rational is not to be free.

If indeed we had a choice we would not continue to ask the same question, and in this case philosophy and reason would rule the world. — Marcus de Brun

But answers may change form as time passes and new knowledge is gained.

The question of free will is not settled in my view. Schopenhauer had his views but even the greatest make errors.

So, at a very basic level, the idea of free will is flawed for the reason I outlined above. — TheMadFool

I agree entirely. Free will is incredibly flawed in both a realistic and religious sense (Not to sound condescending).

Free will is the idea that we have the power to make our own decisions of which cannot be influenced by anything but our own infliction. But logically speaking, we have no choices at all. In linguistic terms, even the word 'choice' is incredibly flawed. The definition of 'choice' is an act of choosing between two or more possibilities. Breaking this down logically, doesn't this suggest that we have already been given said possibilities otherwise there would be no choice to make. Having the possibilities there just shows that our choice has either been influenced or already made for us. It's like your parents asking you what you want for your birthday but limiting your choices down to a space toy. That is your decision being influenced because you haven't had the full control over the situation and therefore, you do not have free will over any situation where you must make a decision because they are preemptively made for you.

In terms of religion, the idea of free will is paradoxical and is somewhat illogical. To those religious believers that believe in the afterlife, being heaven and hell, how can you justify free will? If God is all-loving and benevolent, then he would most definitely not take away your precious gift of free will in the afterlife, would he? If he does then he is stripping you of your own decisions, therefore, stripping himself of his omnibenevolence. So, God should let you keep your free will whether you go to heaven or hell. Now, let's say you get into heaven. How do you justify bad thoughts or bad actions? Because we have the free will to do them in heaven so is it still heaven if bad exists? Also, the same for hell. People would still have the desire to do good things in hell, so is does hell exist if good exists within it? I am fully aware that my analogy only applies to the afterlife but the applications to real life are incredibly strong. Free will cannot exist in the world because decisions are already made for us before we even do them. There are psychological studies proving that our brain makes a decision 5-10 seconds before we consciously realize, hence, who is making the choice?

This is another problem with the idea of free will. Rationality is a guideline for thinking and as such constrains our choices. To act in a rational way is to limit one’s choices. In short to be rational is not to be free. — TheMadFool

Formally the number of potential choices increases when thinking about which things one should not do in any case. Nor is an "objective" decision tree an adequate model for the experience of everyday decision-making neither can be a process guided by reason be deemed to come to arbitrary decisions.

There are psychological studies proving that our brain makes a decision 5-10 seconds before we consciously realize, hence, who is making the choice? — GreyScorpio

Is this that important? Won't the quality of the biases produced that way depend largely on how you approach things on a daily basis? Sometimes on weekends I wake up just at the time when the alarm-clock would ring on weekdays. May be an analogy.

Is this that important? Won't the quality of the biases produced that way depend largely on how you approach things on a daily basis? Sometimes on weekends I wake up just at the time when the alarm-clock would ring on weekdays. May be an analogy. — Heiko

This is incredibly important because it is and empirical falsifiable truth that we can depend on. The fact that our brain already knows what we are going to do before we are even conscious of the decision that we make, shows entirely that we are not in control of our decision. Of course this is important. In terms of daily approaches, it shouldn't make a difference.

So when I play a game of chess and think, say, 10 minutes about my next move, don't you think the thought-process that I am aware of is a significant contribution to the deciding factors which move I actually take?

Free will is the idea that we have the power to make our own decisions of which cannot be influenced by anything but our own infliction. — GreyScorpio

Will has to be free because otherwise it would not be "will" but an effect. It's nature is purely ideal. No one can decide if you do something out of free will, but you. It easy to make up situations and say that you somehow must have wanted to do something. - He who wants the purpose must also want the means. - This is a contradiction.

Everything either has it's price or it's dignity. (Kant)
Only dignity makes something unconditionally valuable, a value in itself. Free will is free because it does not focus on lower purposes, but on such values-in-itself, making it at the same time your duty as well as the duty of all human beings as a whole.

So when I play a game of chess and think, say, 10 minutes about my next move, don't you think the thought-process that I am aware of is a significant contribution to the deciding factors which move I actually take? — Heiko

The thought process is a factor, but as I said, it is an unconscious occurrence. Hence, you may think that you haven't yet made the decision, but it already has been made for you. Furthermore, is it not possible that the possibilities that you have been given in the game of chess (moves that you can make) were already put in hand, which would therefore imply that our choices have been limited. From this point you have to ask yourself. Are we really free?

Will has to be free because otherwise it would not be "will" but an effect. It's nature is purely ideal. — Heiko

The very definition of 'Will' is the faculty by which a person makes a decision. However, a decision can be free OR forced. Not every will is free. Decisions are limited as it is, we don't yet understand the concept of free I believe. If you really consider it. Do we even know what free is?

You're thinking of choice in a binary manner ... human free will is identified with higher consciousness, the choices are drawn from a void of infinite potential. You're assuming that the range of human choice can be determined by environmental factors, no... human consciousness transcends the surroundings, there is an aspect to consciousness that is not info-cognitive but purely abstract. In that abstract void there is infinite potential because there are no material constraints. It is something like imagination that corresponds to reality and can be applied to reality.
Computers do not have an imagination, and no infinite void that they draw choices from. Their choices are determined by the informational structure inwhich they are operating.
In the transcendent sense "choice" is not a binary decision it is the application of will to manifest potential; and choice is a cognitive process and not merely an observed outcome.

The very definition of 'Will' is the faculty by which a person makes a decision. However, a decision can be free OR forced. Not every will is free. Decisions are limited as it is, we don't yet understand the concept of free I believe. — GreyScorpio

Will aims at purposes, not means. It is different from the action itself as well as the choosing of means.
I do not really want to get up and walk to the fridge, I merely want something to drink. Not even that: I do not want to feel thirsty. I want absolute and total satifaction, felicitousness, wellness and sure a few other things else I can not imagine right now.
See, if you ask me if I really want to do the things I'm doing the answer is generally "no". I only want the true, good and beautiful.

you may think that you haven't yet made the decision, but it already has been made for you. — GreyScorpio

You mean by my-self, right? I wonder why this should be a problem?

you have to ask yourself. Are we really free? — GreyScorpio

Are we? Of what? Of yourself? Of others? Of fear, dread and sorrow?

Are we? Of what? Of yourself? Of others? Of fear, dread and sorrow? — Heiko

Free to make our own choices, evidently.

If the use of the words "I" and "have"

were banned from this particular topic we might "have" some hope of at least aspiring towards the truth of the matter.

It is the worship of the "I" and the primal lust towards the 'having' that mires the will into a paralysis of self serving misunderstanding.

Let them go (if you dare) and see what happens?

M