There are others in this discussion who seem to think that ‘free will’ must be defined as a concept, but I disagree with this, and regret not making this clearer at the outset. I think you need to define ‘will’ and ‘free’ separately first and foremost, and then discuss whether or not the will IS free. — Possibility
There are often people registering here and posting that ‘free will is an illusion’. When I can be bothered, I ask if if they did so voluntarily. If they claim they didn’t, then I say discussion is pointless as they cannot be persuaded to change their minds. If they say they did, then they don’t have a case. — Wayfarer
I do believe that our will is not entirely free — Andreas Greifenberger
I don't think it is meaningful to speak in terms of absolutes — Wayfarer
many of those who deny the possibility of free will, seem to me to deny free will simply because it's not absolute — Wayfarer
Sure, the will is not *absolutely* free, but the degree of freedom we have is still very meaningful. — Wayfarer
I don't think it is meaningful to speak in terms of absolutes
— Wayfarer
Agreed.
many of those who deny the possibility of free will, seem to me to deny free will simply because it's not absolute
— Wayfarer
Okay, but I do believe that it is useful at times to recall in what ways we are not free, and don't have an entirely free will. It is, I am inclined to believe, similar to the question whether or not we are objective in our judgements. — Andreas Greifenberger
Another simple example of free will is the question, whether I get myself some coffee or tea now. My free will may be reduced by the fact that I am thirsty now, and so I have no choice but to get something to drink. But I have a free choice as to what I will drink. — Andreas Greifenberger
But regardless of how we currently define ‘will’, perhaps we can agree on a few statements before we continue (and please feel free to suggest edits here):
1. We are at least capable of CHOICE: an ACT of choosing a particular OPTION from a VARIETY or range.
2. Limitations and/or constraints on choice appear to occur at any or all of the above three points.
3. Some of these limitations/constraints on choice are considered to be SELF-IMPOSED at various levels of consciousness.
4. Other limitations/constraints are the result of EXTERNAL power, influence or control.
5. The current question of FREE WILL cannot be taken as an absolute yes or no, because of the four statements above. — Possibility
Nevertheless, I must point out that a reduced free will is not free. Also, ‘choice’ and ‘will’ are not interchangeable terms.
I’m not trying to be difficult here — Possibility
At least at first sight I see nothing here to disagree with. — Andreas Greifenberger
Ok. So if we go back to the definition of WILL (from earlier in this thread) - the faculty by which one decides on and initiates action - then it seems to me that deciding on and initiating an action is not the same as the act of choosing.
I’m getting the impression that it’s problematic to use the term ‘choice’ in a discussion about will. Because at the moment you choose, the act of choosing has already been decided on and initiated. Therefore the will must be an underlying faculty that initiates the act of choosing. — Possibility
But then it seems we reach the dilemma of an ‘uncaused cause’. Something decides on and initiates an action in time from a position beyond time. In my view that’s not ‘God’ - it’s human consciousness. But as an evolving capacity, not as some special ‘gift’ that sets us apart. — Possibility
In my view, this is the WILL: before we choose, before we think, before we act, there is a point (outside time) at which the human mind is at least potentially capable of freely structuring (ie. initiating and deciding on) the causal conditions of any action. — Possibility
You may have also noticed by now that I keep re-wording this theory as I go. Many of the contributions here have been extremely helpful in helping me to articulate how it all already fits together in my mind. — Possibility
Now distinguishing between the act of initiating a choice, which would then be unconsciuous, and the conscious realization of the choice may perhaps by some people be seen as splitting hairs, but I can say, that I do find it useful, especially is the one, as I see it, is unconscious whereas the other is conscious. — Andreas Greifenberger
If the fourth dimension is a relation of time, then what is a fifth dimension a relation of? — Possibility
So, we see that the 5th dimension is all of your possible futures—in a kind of a superposition, I suppose. — PoeticUniverse
5D: value, significance; events across time. — Possibility
The way I see it, it boils down to one assertion: I have and can make a choice. — Terrapin Station
For instance, if I bought a watch (one watch) and chose and bought a Berghammer watch and a Rolex watch, then there would be separate histories happening in time concurrently. That is not happening, so when you set out to buy one watch, your choice is always one watch of the kind that you choose. — god must be atheist
I think the reason it is important to question 'free will' is the elimination of retributive justice. Proponents of 'free will' are more likely to see purpose in punishment for the sake of punishment, whereas others find that logic ridiculous. — ZhouBoTong
For me the only problem with 'free will' is the 'free' part. I don't spend much time questioning the existence of will (what purpose would it serve?) — ZhouBoTong
How could an unfree will even exist? That notion seems contradictory to me. Perhaps Possibility might could also share some thoughts about how it would make sense to call something that's merely part of a causal chain a "will". — Echarmion
But why couldn't the universe just have infinite possibilities in any given moment, but only some actually occur?
I would point out, I am against the idea of free will. But I don't view the fact that we only know of one reality, as a reason to eliminate choice as a possibility. We can't know for sure this was the only possible reality (in fact believers in free will would automatically assume today would be different if people made different choices). — ZhouBoTong
To do that, I need to go back to the definition of ‘will’: the faculty by which one decides on and initiates action - which precedes the act of choosing. Anytime the action in question is decided on (determined) and initiated without bringing awareness, connection and collaboration into a conscious act of choosing, then the will (the faculty by which this action is decided on and initiated) still operates as such, but does NOT do so freely.
In my view, the will - the faculty by which action is determined and initiated - operates at a fundamental level in all interactions of the universe, but operates FREELY only in a self-conscious and creative human mind. One that can interact on a fifth dimensional level. — Possibility
Does this mean you have 'free will' or just 'will'? — ZhouBoTong
If the will operates in all interactions of the universe, how does it differ from causality? — Echarmion
You say that the will "decides", but deciding is a conscious action that actors make. In what sense, then, can that will be said to decide? — Echarmion
It doesn’t, not really. — Possibility
As causality, we’re blind to our capacity to choose different actions when we look back on unbroken causal chains. As ‘free will’, we tend to be blind to how past experiences affect our actions looking forward. The way I see it, it’s only when we look at both concepts together as ‘the will’ that we get a clearer picture in either direction. — Possibility
So let’s say that the WILL is the faculty by which one determines and initiates an action by structuring the causal conditions that bring it about. This occurs through the awareness, connection and collaboration of all elements involved - in a fifth dimensional relation of experiences hierarchically structured beyond time. Most elements contribute predetermined causal conditions: their past interactions have already determined whether or not they initiate or reject the awareness, connection or collaboration which determines the part they play in an event before any action takes place. A self-conscious and creative human mind, however, can (with conscious attention) develop the capacity to not only become aware of their own awareness, but also to freely initiate OR reject any awareness, connection or collaboration that determines the part they play before any action takes place. — Possibility
In other word, what determines how the un-determined develops? — Echarmion
That’s why I believe every action I commit, whether it is sitting down, breathing, even every single heart beat, is self-caused because it is performed by me and only me, and therefor not determined by anything else. — NOS4A2
Free will. Because of the choice part. — Terrapin Station
But your 'choice' is severely limited, right? "Free" means unrestrained. — ZhouBoTong
"Free" in this case means "not causally determined." If you can choose between two options you have a free--that is, not a causally determined--choice. — Terrapin Station
The problem I have with this approach is that it leaves the "developing" part kinda up in the air. I am a compatibilist, so it seems odd to me to juxtapose pre-determined elements with a non-predetermined ability to develop. Because if it's not pre-determined, then what is it? In other word, what determines how the un-determined develops? — Echarmion
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.