• 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

Penultimate Amazing
Robin
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
14,971
Is there anybody here that can satisfy both the below conditions?

a) You believe that nobody has free will
b) You can state what you mean by free will


Both conditions mind you. Another 12 pages of arguing whether or not we have eight letters and a space is pretty useless.
 
a. By any meaningful definition, free will is a supernatural concept and thus woo.

b. A meaningful definition of Free will: The ability to make decisions counter to what the physical and biological limitations of your body and environment dictate as possible.
 
Robin said:
Is there anybody here that can satisfy both the below conditions?

a) You believe that nobody has free will
b) You can state what you mean by free will


Both conditions mind you. Another 12 pages of arguing whether or not we have eight letters and a space is pretty useless.
Click to expand...


If anyone wants to talk about us having free will, let them both define it and provide evidence for it. Until such time I remain skeptic.
 
quixotecoyote said:
a. By any meaningful definition, free will is a supernatural concept and thus woo.

b. A meaningful definition of Free will: The ability to make decisions counter to what the physical and biological limitations of your body and environment dictate as possible.
Click to expand...
I should have stated meaningful definition. But I don't see how yours is meaningful.

You are saying that a free choice is a choice free even from the very thing that makes choice possible in the first place.

Even the supernatural, if there were such a thing, would not achieve that, it is simply a logical impossibility.

[edit]Or else you may be saying that freedom is the ability to do more than we are able to do[/edit]
 
Last edited:
OK, so at least one so far. (given that Marquis, Complexity and Strathmeyer might all have been referring to quixotecoyote).
 
Robin said:
OK, so at least one so far. (given that Marquis, Complexity and Strathmeyer might all have been referring to quixotecoyote).
Click to expand...


Considering that I posted nearly two hours before quixotecoyote's first post, I don't think so.

I was responding to your post, Robin, and letting you know that I don't believe in free will, I can discuss the issue intelligently, and I don't want to discuss it.

I haven't found these types of discussions on this forum to be productive or something that I wish to read or take part in.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
Is there anybody here that can satisfy both the below conditions?

a) You believe that nobody has free will
b) You can state what you mean by free will


Both conditions mind you. Another 12 pages of arguing whether or not we have eight letters and a space is pretty useless.
Click to expand...

Yes.

a) No-one has free will given the definition of free will below
b) Free will is the situation whereupon if one made a decision, then was presented with the same choice a second time, and all material factors that played a part in the first decision were completely identical as before, they could make a different decision.
 
Taffer said:
Yes.

a) No-one has free will given the definition of free will below
b) Free will is the situation whereupon if one made a decision, then was presented with the same choice a second time, and all material factors that played a part in the first decision were completely identical as before, they could make a different decision.
Click to expand...

Would you mind pointing out where your 'b' is different from my 'b'? Yours is indeed the more common statement, but I think mine is a clearer rephrase.
 
Robin said:
I should have stated meaningful definition. But I don't see how yours is meaningful.

You are saying that a free choice is a choice free even from the very thing that makes choice possible in the first place.

Even the supernatural, if there were such a thing, would not achieve that, it is simply a logical impossibility.

[edit]Or else you may be saying that freedom is the ability to do more than we are able to do[/edit]
Click to expand...


<shrug> What else could free-will be. We are our bodies. Between our bodies and the material world around us, all factors are accounted for in our behavior, even if we cannot name them specifically. Thus, if some free will would enable us control beyond the vagaries of genetic and environmental circumstance, it must be something beyond our bodies and the material world. As there is no evidence of anything beyond the material world, there is no evidence for free will.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Would you mind pointing out where your 'b' is different from my 'b'? Yours is indeed the more common statement, but I think mine is a clearer rephrase.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I posted this before I saw your post. Secondly, I like to be very specific when I give definitions. I find my definition more exact.
 
Taffer said:
b) Free will is the situation whereupon if one made a decision, then was presented with the same choice a second time, and all material factors that played a part in the first decision were completely identical as before, they could make a different decision.
Click to expand...

I see the freedom, but where is the will? Something that made decisions by flipping coins (or some kind of measurement of atomic decay, if your going to be a stickler about what the environment means) would qualify even though it is just a random walk.

Personally, I think the idea of free will is incoherent.
 
Jekyll said:
I see the freedom, but where is the will? Something that made decisions by flipping coins (or some kind of measurement of atomic decay, if your going to be a stickler about what the environment means) would qualify even though it is just a random walk.

Personally, I think the idea of free will is incoherent.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Note I specify exactly the same physical states. That is, even if the decision is made by flipping a coin, the exact-same result will be returned. Similarly, if the decision is made by atomic decay, then we must assume that the particle decays at exactly the same time in both situations. The question is then, is it possible for the person making the choice to make a different choice each time?
 
Taffer said:
Yes.

a) No-one has free will given the definition of free will below
b) Free will is the situation whereupon if one made a decision, then was presented with the same choice a second time, and all material factors that played a part in the first decision were completely identical as before, they could make a different decision.
Click to expand...
Correct. Obviously, it is easy to create a definition of Free Will that makes it an impossible phenomenon. For one thing, it is impossible to have any situation where all material factors are completely identical. The continuity of time rules that out, since the universe is in constant change.
 
I usually stay out of this, but according to my definition we have free will.

My definition is that free will is the ability to choose between more than one decision, given the same set of external influences.

Our body has a set of inputs (present sense stimuli, past experiences, etc). From these we choose a behaviour. While in much tighter control from the input thant we like to imagine, we are nevertheless able to consciously influence our behaviour.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
I usually stay out of this, but according to my definition we have free will.

My definition is that free will is the ability to choose between more than one decision, given the same set of external influences.
Click to expand...
Similar to mine. To me, Free Will (or more simply, Will) is synonomous with the ability to choose. So what's the big deal?

However, Hans' definition might open up another semantic debate about what 'external' means.
 
Tricky said:
Correct. Obviously, it is easy to create a definition of Free Will that makes it an impossible phenomenon. For one thing, it is impossible to have any situation where all material factors are completely identical. The continuity of time rules that out, since the universe is in constant change.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Further, even if we assume a magical "rewinding" of time, and that all possible factors are identical, without the invocation of some supernatural force or entity, it is still impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom