• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Question to free will skeptics

Robin said:
I agree.
Click to expand...

Then why are you disagreeing with me? By my definition, the only thing which can produce free will is something which is neither phyiscal nor random. If such a thing cannot exist, then free will cannot exist.

Where is the disagreement?
 
Lord Emsworth said:
I'll start in reverse order.

B) The ability to make decision that has NEITHER a chance of p = 1 or p = 0 of being made (i.e. is predetermined) NOR has a chance of 0 > p > 1 of being made (i.e. is random). Since that is impossible
A) has to be answered with: Yes, nobody has, can have free will.
Click to expand...
ie Libertarian Free Will.
 
quixotecoyote said:
you gave a hypothetical about the laws of supernaturalism. You'll have to do better than that.
Click to expand...
The supernatural is a hypothetical suggested by you. I only pointed out what would be necessarily true about the supernatural, if there was such a thing.

If there was a supernatural realm and we were able to think in that realm it would have an underlying order. If the supernatural realm had no underlying order then we would not be able to think at all - so no free will. No other possibility.

So my statement was a logically necessary consequence of your hypothetical.

So if you say "free from the laws of physics" then either there is no supernatural, in which case the concept is meaningless, or there is a supernatural in which case freedom from one set of constraints would not entail freedom.

In any case the average man or woman on the street who believes in free will surely do not intend it to mean "graduates of Hogwarts".
 
Is there anybody here that can satisfy both the below conditions?

a) You believe that nobody has free will

Yes I believe no one has fee will.

b) You can state what you mean by free will

I cannot use my will to do what I want with my body and my life.
 
Robin said:
The supernatural is a hypothetical suggested by you. I only pointed out what would be necessarily true about the supernatural, if there was such a thing.

If there was a supernatural realm and we were able to think in that realm it would have an underlying order. If the supernatural realm had no underlying order then we would not be able to think at all - so no free will. No other possibility.

So my statement was a logically necessary consequence of your hypothetical.

So if you say "free from the laws of physics" then either there is no supernatural, in which case the concept is meaningless, or there is a supernatural in which case freedom from one set of constraints would not entail freedom.

In any case the average man or woman on the street who believes in free will surely do not intend it to mean "graduates of Hogwarts".
Click to expand...


Except you can't only give 2 possibilities for the supernatural because it is an unknown. Once you accept it's existence all bets are off and your analysis is meaningless. Thus 'rules of the supernatural' is not an argument against my definition.
 
Robin said:
On what evidentiary basis do you suggest I wanted a silly discussion? Anythiing.

Check back. It was you and Marquis that injected silliness and childishness into the debate.

So if you find such things distasteful then why did you do it? It seems a bit self-defeating to me.
Click to expand...


:popcorn1

Sorry to have reminded her of your existence, Marquis.
 
Last edited:
Marquis de Carabas said:
Whoa. BTFU. I injected nothing into any debate. I answered a yes or no question in the affirmative.
Click to expand...
It sounded smart alecky. I apologise if you did not intend this.

I thought people would realise that I intended you to identify who had this definition and what it was.
 
Complexity said:
:popcorn1

Sorry to have reminded her of your existence, Marquis.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... for somebody who does not want to be part of the debate your comments are tiresomely ubiquitous.

You enter a debate to tell us you don't want to enter debate.

You make a silly comment and then announce loftily that you find silly comments tasteless.

Look, here is something I do when I don't want to be in a debate. I don't enter the debate.

It is simple.

You have nothing pertinent to add. You have nothing remotely intelligent to say. You don't want to be in this thread. I don't want you in this thread.

So don't be in this thread.
 
While I think free will is nonexistent, I think our current model of judging people's actions based on "free will" is the best model since there are more factors than we can account for people's actions.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Except you can't only give 2 possibilities for the supernatural because it is an unknown. Once you accept it's existence all bets are off and your analysis is meaningless. Thus 'rules of the supernatural' is not an argument against my definition.
Click to expand...
I can, because they are logical possibilities. I suppose that the supernatural might be beyond even logic.

But even if you are right, then on what possible basis can you link the concept of "exempt from the laws of nature" with the concept of "free". When you have absolutely no idea what exempt from the laws of nature would mean?

So slice it and dice it every way you choose, you still have defined nothing about free will.
 
Taffer said:
Then why are you disagreeing with me? By my definition, the only thing which can produce free will is something which is neither phyiscal nor random. If such a thing cannot exist, then free will cannot exist.

Where is the disagreement?
Click to expand...
Well for a start the concept I was agreeing with was that no-one could define spiritual free will. You appear to be suggesting that you have done just that.

Now with this "neither physical nor random", are you suggesting something cannot be both physical and random? If so then something physical and random would qualify as free will under your definition.

Do you mean something that is neither determined nor random.
 
Robin said:
I can, because they are logical possibilities. I suppose that the supernatural might be beyond even logic.

But even if you are right, then on what possible basis can you link the concept of "exempt from the laws of nature" with the concept of "free". When you have absolutely no idea what exempt from the laws of nature would mean?

So slice it and dice it every way you choose, you still have defined nothing about free will.
Click to expand...


Sure I have, you just don't like it because the way I've defined it precludes its existence. It doesn't make it a bad definition.

eta:It doesn't matter what 'exempt from the laws of nature' means. The only relevant bit is that as humans we are subject to the laws of nature.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Sure I have, you just don't like it because the way I've defined it precludes its existence. It doesn't make it a bad definition.
Click to expand...
I agree you have framed it in a way to make it impossible and that doesn't make it a bad definition. But it can't be the only basis for your definition. You have not suggested any way in which "exempt from the laws of nature" might have even a tenuous link to the concept of "free".
eta:It doesn't matter what 'exempt from the laws of nature' means. The only relevant bit is that as humans we are subject to the laws of nature.
Click to expand...
Yes, we are subject the the thing that makes us possible in the first place. Makes anything possible.

So "x is free" means "x is exempt from everything, including the things that make it possible for x to continue existing"

That seems to suggest that "x is free" means "x does not exist"
 
Robin said:
I agree you have framed it in a way to make it impossible and that doesn't make it a bad definition. But it can't be the only basis for your definition. You have not suggested any way in which "exempt from the laws of nature" might have even a tenuous link to the concept of "free".

Yes, we are subject the the thing that makes us possible in the first place. Makes anything possible.

So "x is free" means "x is exempt from everything, including the things that make it possible for x to continue existing"

That seems to suggest that "x is free" means "x does not exist"
Click to expand...

:clap::cs::j1::bowl::yahoo



Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! You got it!!

Will is necessarily constrained by the physical/biological, external/internal factors which influence and control the decision. Saying that a given choice is free of controlling factors is placing it in a fantasy world.
 
Robin said:
Well for a start the concept I was agreeing with was that no-one could define spiritual free will. You appear to be suggesting that you have done just that.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I have define the conditions for free will to be considered. I have said nothing about "spiritual free will", other then it is the only way to get around my definition.

Now with this "neither physical nor random", are you suggesting something cannot be both physical and random? If so then something physical and random would qualify as free will under your definition.

Do you mean something that is neither determined nor random.
Click to expand...

Have you been reading my posts? I said nothing entirely phyiscal nor random can be considered free will. I never once suggested that such things could not exist.
 
Robin said:
Hmmm... for somebody who does not want to be part of the debate your comments are tiresomely ubiquitous.

You enter a debate to tell us you don't want to enter debate.

You make a silly comment and then announce loftily that you find silly comments tasteless.

Look, here is something I do when I don't want to be in a debate. I don't enter the debate.

It is simple.

You have nothing pertinent to add. You have nothing remotely intelligent to say. You don't want to be in this thread. I don't want you in this thread.

So don't be in this thread.
Click to expand...


Try not to be too silly.

Your OP asked a yes/no question.

I answered. I suspected you were using that to provoke an argument and indicated that I have disdain for the kinds of discussions that you seem to enjoy.

Thank you for your kind suggestions. I'll give them all due consideration.

Why are you so hell-bent on the existence of free-will?

It isn't a very intelligent position to take.

I wonder what other threads you've started... I know I've seen you sneaking around here.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! You got it!!

Will is necessarily constrained by the physical/biological, external/internal factors which influence and control the decision. Saying that a given choice is free of controlling factors is placing it in a fantasy world.
Click to expand...
Sure, show me the part where I said or implied anything even remotely like that???

Spitting out a desperate straw man is "getting me"? It is you who are living in a fantasy world mate.

Read a little more carefully. I was characterising your definition. So you "got" yourself.

"Free from controlling factors" is an incoherent concept, but it is one on which your definition depend.

I had already given the definition that I agreed with:
The other strand is compatibilism where it essentially means that we can make choices that are relatively independent of influences external to our conscious thought processes. Daniel Dennett, for example, describes this type of free will, calling it "the only free will worth having".
Click to expand...
and I am not sure what part of it your didn't understand or could have possibly misconstrued to thnk that I meant "free from controlling factors".

Still, I suppose with sufficient practice you could misconstrue anything to mean anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom