The phenomenon in question is the thought, "I intend to do x" for example. So that's your thought?

The phenomena in question is the thought, "I intend to do x" for example. So that's your thought? — Terrapin Station

God gives command that at certain point in time, in certain situation, you have a thought "I intend to do x." And then you do have such thought. In a way, you are executing God's command.

Right, so it's your thought.

Right, so it's your thought. — Terrapin Station

Who owns the code in a piece of software? Software or programmer?

Maybe I wasn't clear. There is no choice in you whether you will do the command or not. You do execute it.

Who owns the code in a piece of software? Software or programmer? — Henri

"Your thought" is simply another way of saying "it occurs of (or we could say 'in') you."

Maybe I wasn't clear. There is no choice in you whether you will do the command or not. You do execute it. — Henri

Whether anyone is making a choice is irrelevant to what I was responding to as well as my response.

"Your thought" is simply another way of saying "it occurs of (or we could say "in") you. — Terrapin Station

That's fine. A thought given to you without an option to deny it, but which you can then call yours, doesn't make you have free will.

Re the post in question, it was asking, and I was answering, whether there even is such a thing as will and whether it's our will. That bit wasn't about the issue of whether it's free.

Your DNA didn't exist until it was set by a process external to you. Just because your DNA is very similar to the DNA of your parents, you are not your parents and there was no you until you were conceived by them, which is a process external from you, since you didn't even exist at the initiation of conception. Or is it something else? — Henri

I don't understand why you would call this process "external from you". Weren't you internal to your mother, in her womb? That was you in there, in that act of conception, and all those processes going on, which you say, "set' your DNA, were internal to you. When these processes are internal like that, it doesn't make sense to refer to them as "external from you".

Why do you think that it's more rational to think of the cause of your existence as something external to you, than to think of it as something internal to you? Consider that the self, the "being", is a very specific spatial-temporal perspective, and internal/external are spatial terms. It does not make sense to restrict "cause" to necessarily external, when causes could equally be internal. And, if you can separate an external cause, as distinct from the thing caused, why not also separate the internal cause as distinct from the thing caused?

If free will is a willful act of a conscious being which ultimately originates within that being, then a being has to be eternal, without being created at certain point in time, in order to have free will. — Henri

This is a mistaken premise because it assume that a "cause" must be external to a being. That it is mistaken is evident from Newton's first law, inertia. Newton takes inertia for granted, as if there is no cause of it. However, once you accept the reality that mass is the cause of inertia, then mass is an internal cause, the cause of a body's inertia. And if you accept the reality of an internal cause, then the premise stated here is false.

There you go buddy. I add a bit more logic and reason to my test but it is as KIS as yours.

Regards
DL

Choose is the operative word. The future can see what you chose. It cannot see why you decided to chose, unless it can follow your reasoning right to birth.

Regards
DL

Your thinking is sound, but better to ask our friend who used numbers for his test, and let him answer for it.

My test does not have numbers and it has the subject actually give up his free will to do my bidding.

His test, to me, has one stage while mine has two and that makes a difference.

Regards
DL

I don't understand why you would call this process "external from you". Weren't you internal to your mother, in her womb? — Metaphysician Undercover

You know how babies are made. There is a specific action man does to a woman, before sperm even comes into contact with the egg. That action is part of the process of making you, and you are at that time non-existent.

This is a mistaken premise because it assume that a "cause" must be external to a being. — Metaphysician Undercover

It doesn't assume, generally, that cause must be external. If a being is eternal, cause is internal, within that being. If you are created in time, then the cause is always external, even if the cause is, theoretically, randomness. Clearer way to look at it is not as external but as prior in time. External here means an element of reality which existed prior to creation of x, including (theoretical) quality within reality to produce randomness.

You know how babies are made. There is a specific action man does to a woman, before sperm even comes into contact with the egg. That action is part of the process of making you, and you are at that time non-existent. — Henri

Yes, now what is the proper "cause" of existence of that baby? Is it the internal activity which happens within the sperm and the egg, or is it the external activity which happens between the man and the woman. Notice that the activity between the man and the woman doesn't necessarily produce a baby.

If a being is eternal, cause is internal, within that being. — Henri

This is incorrect. If a being is eternal, then it does not have a cause. So it is contradictory to say that an eternal being has an internal cause.

Notice that the activity between the man and the woman doesn't necessarily produce a baby. — Metaphysician Undercover

Neither does activity between the sperm and the egg. Everything what man does and what sperm "does" and what woman does and what egg "does" is part of causal chain. And not one of those is the root cause, which is prior to man, and woman, and sperm, and egg.

If a being is eternal, then it does not have a cause. So it is contradictory to say that an eternal being has an internal cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was talking about an action of eternal being, not the cause of eternal being. So we can say, in keeping the theme of root cause, that the root cause of an action of eternal being is eternal being, and not something prior to eternal being. If one wants to say that there is actually no root cause, or no cause, of an action of eternal being, that's ok too. Eternal being is different category of being than us, so some translation of terms is necessary one way or the other.

I assume that you mean that Christian God exists? I am sceptical of that claim, as I am of all sorts, for lack of the better word, "supernatural" claims that I'm being told impact my will or actions.

Perhaps the best way of thinking about free will is to put it on a spectrum, in survival terms. Let's use the Rule of Three.

Without air you can survive for 3 minutes.
Without shelter (hot or cold weather) you can survive for 3 hours.
Without water you can survive for 3 days.
Without food you can survive for 3 weeks.

In practical terms you can do whatever you want within those time frames at the end it does not matter whether god or chaos or both or neither are true... You die.

Thus free will exists within certain boundaries. It can wax and wane but ultimately all possibilities come to an end at the moment of death.

Neither does activity between the sperm and the egg. Everything what man does and what sperm "does" and what woman does and what egg "does" is part of causal chain. And not one of those is the root cause, which is prior to man, and woman, and sperm, and egg. — Henri

Well that's not the case, a lot of things are unrelated and some are incidental. We are looking for a causal chain for the existence of the baby, examining to determine whether it is internal or external. We follow the sperm and the egg, and see where they come from. Exactly what the man and woman are doing, is incidental, so long as the egg and sperm are brought together and supported under the right conditions. I agree that external factors play an important role as causal factors, what we are arguing though is your denial of internal causes.

I was talking about an action of eternal being, not the cause of eternal being. So we can say, in keeping the theme of root cause, that the root cause of an action of eternal being is eternal being, and not something prior to eternal being. If one wants to say that there is actually no root cause, or no cause, of an action of eternal being, that's ok too. Eternal being is different category of being than us, so some translation of terms is necessary one way or the other. — Henri

I don't follow you. Before you seemed to be talking about a cause of eternal being, which I explained is contradictory. Now you are talking about "an action of eternal being". But it's not clear to me what you mean by this. First, this requires the assumption of "eternal being". I believe that "eternal being" refers to something which never ever changes in time. If it changed, it would become other than what it was, and therefore be a different being. So it's arguably the case that eternal being cannot change and therefore it is also contradictory to talk about an action of eternal being. So I am really not following what you mean by "an action of eternal being".

The person who came to be your grandfather might have eaten some bad shrimp and fell out of mood for lovemaking that day. As a result, it happened a couple days after, and because of that, it was not your father who was conceived but a baby girl. And you never existed.

I am sceptical of that claim, as I am of all sorts, for lack of the better word, "supernatural" claims that I'm being told impact my will or actions. — Avro

If God doesn't make your life and actions, then your life is made and acted, ultimately, by randomness. Isn't that something to be sceptical about?

I don't belive your claim that God exists. Since your argument requires that part to be true to function, I don't see a way for me to engage with it any other way but sceptically... Willing to listen to a line of argument that is predicated on a false statement is nice mental excercise. However, no matter how intricate or interesting that may be will always lead to false conclusions, therefore I am sorry to say but I don't belive that God had anything to do with the cup of my morning joe.

The main claim of the OP is that human cannot have free will, even without considering existence of God. So, main claim doesn't require your belief. You didn't answer the question, though.

As you've demonstrated, to determine is a verb relating two objects; namely a process called a determinator and an object determined through the actions of the determinator.

What if these two objects are considered as constituting a single object? Doesn't the relation of determination disappear?

Suppose that a process we have no understanding of, i.e. an oracle, produced a sequence of a hundred numbers that we do not recognise as following a mathematical law. In which case we might identify the sequence with the oracle's actions. For to say "the oracle determined the sequence" wouldn't say anything over and above the fact that it outputted the sequence. We could have equally said that the oracle performed a miracle. In other words, it would make no sense to say at this point in time that the sequence of numbers that the oracle produced was either random or non-random.

Suppose that we later recognised the sequence as being the Fibonacci sequence. Then the sentence "The Oracle determined the first 100 numbers " has a sense it previously did not have. For in this case we are indicating that we are interpreting the oracle's outputs using at least one additional external process, such as a calculator, that is independent of the oracle's actions and that we might externally appeal to if predicting the oracle's future actions. In which case we might then say that our calculator determines the oracle's actions, or equivalently, that the numbers the oracle produced are non-random.

But what if we considered the calculator and oracle as constituting a single object? Does it now make sense to say that the joint outputs of the calculator and oracle is either random or non-random? The answer is yes, assuming we live in a culture of mathematics that interprets this joint system using external criteria for 'checking' the answer.

But what if we considered all of that together with the oracle? Now the answer is no. For the concepts of determination and randomness are purely representational concepts that are relational and have no universal applicability.

Again if basis of your argument require a God I don't see how we can go around that. But randomness is something to be sceptical about yes, but you have not demonstrated that either randomness or God are a necessary condition. Could you elaborate on point?

So, the conclusion is that even the act of making a cup of coffee, for example, is a direct decision from God for you to do at specific point in time. — Henri

Not so,@Henri. All though I don't completely agree with 'Christian' views, I have extensively studied their religion, and have come to this conclusion concerning it. Their God already knows what choice they are going to make, but the choice is theirs's to make. Let's say you ask me if I prefer yellow over orange, but you already know which one I'm going to pick. I consider the colors and say orange, and you already knew I was going to say that. That doesn't mean you chose for me, but you already knew.
If you don't understand I can explain this further.

Obviously there isn't "free-will", any more than a Roomba has free-will. What you choose is determined by your (hereditary or acquired) preferences, and your surroundings. "Your choices" are thereby made for you, and your role is merely to make a good guess about which option best accords with those preferences and circumstances.

Not all Theists believe that God created this physical universe. For example, since medieval times or before, the Gnostics haven't believed that.

And the notion of creation is anthropmorphic.

Michael Ossipoff

13 W
1859 UTC

What you choose is determined by your (hereditary or acquired) preferences, and your surroundings. — Michael Ossipoff

Are they? Are you telling me that if I am standing next to a tree, that tree choses what I do? Or possibly what I think? Does a rock have the brain capacity to influence me as well?

Are they? Are you telling me that if I am standing next to a tree, that tree choses what I do? — OpnionsMatter

No. But your preferences, and your circumstances in the context of your preferences, determine your choices.

Or possibly what I think? Does a rock have the brain capacity to influence me as well?

Your circumstances don't have or need brain-capacity, to determine "your choices" for you.

Like all animals, you're a biologically-originated purposefully-responsive device. ...a purposefully-responsive device like a Roomba, a refrigerator lightswitch, a thermostat, or a mousetrap. You don't have any more free-will than they do.

Your job is guessing what courses of action best accord with your preferences and circumstances. ...circumstances, and hereditary built in or acquired preferences, that determine your choices for you.

Michael Ossipoff

13 W
1950 UTC

You are wrong. I can prove it in this single comment. I have many, solid preferences, yes. But I am also very spontaneous. One day, even though no one in my family likes shrimp, and neither do I, I bought a kebab at the market. Now, beside this vendor was a shop that had my favourite snack, and for an amazing price. Yet I chose the shrimp, because I could. Explain this to me. Or not, because you might be so struck be the thought of "OMG I'm Wrong!" that you can't answer.

Now, beside this vendor was a shop that had my favourite snack, and for an amazing price. Yet I chose the shrimp, because I could. Explain this to me. — OpnionsMatter

Easy. You are a person who for whatever reason, is convinced that free will exists. Therefor, just like most of us, you bend the evidence to fit your perspective. Since you are so convinced of "free will" you will occasionally make an abnormal decision just to prove to yourself that you have free will. With enough information, everything would be predictable (I am not sure I am entirely convinced of this, but enough so, for me to doubt free will).

That being said, I also disagree with much of the OP.