Free will vs determinism

[Shol'va]

except for compatabalists, who do seem to realize that there really isn't any room for free choice

Not so sure about that. Isn't it the case that compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics?
Personally I see both sides of the issue as holding value and I've been able to reconcile depending on situations.
Anyways it already sounds to me like a repeat of the discussion.

[Philosofer123]

I've never spent any time worrying about whether we have free will or not, because it doesn't seem to matter.  The things that happened happened.  Tomorrow will unfold however it does, regardless of my personal stance on the issue.

I'm wondering, does it actually matter?  I probably have a lot to learn on this subject so if you simply want to link me to an article that would be great.

In my view, whether there is free will does matter.  To see my take on free will--and why it matters--please see the top of page 3 and the middle of page 6 of my philosophy of life, available at either of the following links:

//https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byh6JnTg3RMecHhxV0pYeklqV0U/edit?usp=sharing

//http://www.scribd.com/doc/183418623/My-Philosophy-of-Life

For an excellent article on the subject of free will by a professional philosopher, please see:

//http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014

My only significant difference with Galen Strawson is that I do not couch the debate in terms of moral responsibility, as I am a moral skeptic.  Strawson, by contrast, is a self-described "naive moral realist".

[SGOS]

Personally I see both sides of the issue as holding value and I've been able to reconcile depending on situations.

Thank God!  Someone finally said it.

[aitm]

Personally I see both sides of the issue as holding value and I've been able to reconcile depending on situations.

Thank God!  Someone finally said it.

Not only did I know someone would say that, I also assumed it would be you.

[Solitary]

A tree falling in a woods and killing a baby is still responsible for killing the baby----Does it have free will?  We are conscious beings when conscious, but are controlled by unconscious things we are unaware of. If we had freewill we could will ourselves to do, or be, anything we wanted to do, right or wrong, that wasn't impossible. :roll:  Solitary

[SGOS]

Personally I see both sides of the issue as holding value and I've been able to reconcile depending on situations.

Thank God!  Someone finally said it.

Not only did I know someone would say that, I also assumed it would be you.

I could not have articulated it so concisely.

[Passion of Christ]

It matters in the ultimate sense of whether life has any meaning but if you had no freewill it's a still better to assume you do anyway. In order to have freewill you will of course require something beyond the determined nature of the laws of physics.

[Sal1981]

It matters in the ultimate sense of whether life has any meaning but if you had no freewill it's a still better to assume you do anyway. In order to have freewill you will of course require something beyond the determined nature of the laws of physics.

Now you're just bullshitting your way into saying that it's better to live life in a comfortable "still better to assume you do anyway" lie and just ignore physics. How is that working out for ya?

[Passion of Christ]

Now you're just bullshitting your way into saying that it's better to live life in a comfortable "still better to assume you do anyway" lie and just ignore physics. How is that working out for ya?

If you don't believe you have freewill you will cause yourself some cognitive dissonance and general state of existential despair. You avoid that quite easily by getting some in God on the go. Even if it's the Quran or something arguably even the Book of Mormon but I'm not sure how would get freewill from their concept of God who lives on the planet Kolob with all his wives and Jesus. You're not ignoring the laws of physics but believing in the entity that created the laws of physics in the first place (where else did they come from?), and allows you to have freewill which of course you will want to have. You can have it just fine (if you believe in God) so there's no problem there.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

If you don't believe you have freewill you will cause yourself some cognitive dissonance and general state of existential despair.

I don't believe in free will, and my cognitive and existential states are just fine.

[Passion of Christ]

I don't believe in free will, and my cognitive and existential states are just fine.

So you're not free to believe what you just said you believe? At least I believe I am free to make up my own mind even it's technically possible hypothetically that I'm not. Therefore I have the ability to think freely as far as I'm concerned while you would deny that you yourself have such a capacity. You have to do whatever your brain tells you to do and that's all chemical reactions and reactions to stimulus. So on this debate I have come out on top as only I can possibly think freely and have my own opinions if what I claim is true while if what you believe would render you as some kind of machine incapable of independent thought.

So now that you have lost the debate on freewill by default you will have to do two things.

1) Believe in freewill.

2) Believe in something that is independent from the physical laws of the universe (i.e God) that will grant you this freewill.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

So you're not free to believe what you just said you believe? At least I believe I am free to make up my own mind even it's technically possible hypothetically that I'm not. Therefore I have the ability to think freely as far as I'm concerned while you would deny that you yourself have such a capacity. You have to do whatever your brain tells you to do and that's all chemical reactions and reactions to stimulus. So on this debate I have come out on top as only I can possibly think freely and have my own opinions if what I claim is true while if what you believe would render you as some kind of machine incapable of independent thought.

You're just as bound by the laws of physics as I am. You possess no special capacity that I do not. The only difference between you and I at this point is that I do not operate under the delusion that I am exempt from how the universe works.

So now that you have lost the debate on freewill by default you will have to do two things.

1) Believe in freewill.

2) Believe in something that is independent from the physical laws of the universe (i.e God) that will grant you this freewill.

Your entire argument was to say, "I have free will because I say so." My argument is that physics is set in an unknown direction which, while giving us the perception of free will, is nevertheless set into a pre-determined sequence of events. Given that my argument has an actual explanation in science, I would say you're the one who is "losing" this discussion.

[Sal1981]

Now you're just bullshitting your way into saying that it's better to live life in a comfortable "still better to assume you do anyway" lie and just ignore physics. How is that working out for ya?

If you don't believe you have freewill you will cause yourself some cognitive dissonance and general state of existential despair. You avoid that quite easily by getting some in God on the go. Even if it's the Quran or something arguably even the Book of Mormon but I'm not sure how would get freewill from their concept of God who lives on the planet Kolob with all his wives and Jesus. You're not ignoring the laws of physics but believing in the entity that created the laws of physics in the first place (where else did they come from?), and allows you to have freewill which of course you will want to have. You can have it just fine (if you believe in God) so there's no problem there.

You're hopelessly deluded if you think I have to assume a god to exist for your convoluted definition of free will to work. I don't even believe in free will but I am perfectly capable to think and act just fine; no free will needed.

[Passion of Christ]

You're hopelessly deluded if you think I have to assume a god to exist for your convoluted definition of free will to work.

You're claiming that you are hopelessly deluded if you claim you have no capability of independent free thought of your own. You would be purely a byproduct of a biological process and have no ability to form your own genuine opinions as a result. I can claim I have freedom of thought seeing as this would be sourced from God beyond the natural world. I'm the only one of the two of us who can be right and have freewill, you will only have freewill if you're wrong and if you're right then everything you think is void as it is pre-determined for you and beyond your control. You have to use your free choice to believe in God as you don't have the free choice to do otherwise if you have it and have no other source for it.

I don't even believe in free will but I am perfectly capable to think and act just fine; no free will needed.

You do whatever you're programmed by your brain/society/evolution to do as a biological machine if you're right and if you're wrong you lack any real understanding of yourself and reality. So you automatically forfeit the argument and lose by default. Therefore freewill must exist and by extension so must God.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I can claim I have freedom of thought seeing as this would be sourced from God beyond the natural world.

You can make claims until you're blue in the face. Until you have evidence, this is all you'll accomplish.

You do whatever your programmed to do as a biological machine if you're right and if you're wrong you lack any real understanding of yourself and reality. So you automatically forfeit the argument and lose by default. Therefore freewill must exist and by extension so must God.