Is Free Will really free?

[blazeofglory]

I doubt. This is a timeless question. At one end there are arguments for free will and that draws a line between sinners and saints.

I have a question. Forget about the Biblical Devil who was a rebellious angel.
Most do not become sinners or murderers or culprits out of choice. Indeed there are reasons why people choose to be evil doers.

Nobody is strong to resist himself under a particular situation. In practice all are vulnerable. Imagine you are in a bureocracy. Okay you are morally guided person. But you will be surrounded by crooks. There are chances almost 99 % you can fall.

All human beings have weaknesses and against some temptations we can not fend off ourselves. In theory or in some idyllic moments we become idealists but once reality befalls us we will share the fruit of the forbidden tree.

I subscribe to the fact that what we do or when one indulgest in sinful deeds it is not out of choice. Or to put it differently, it is out of the circumstances one is in one commits crimes.

That is why we must be realistic. For we tend to be idealists under a favorable condition and once plunged into a difficult or insurmountable situation one becomes realistic.

All these statements, therefore entails the fact that there are flaws in presupposition, a presupposition born of bookish ideas that there is Free Will that shapes the course of life. It is not predetermination or fate or God's will that influences or governs his or her course. It is indeed the environmnet that moves him or her or the rest of beings.

[Morten]

If we don't believe in some form of free will, then all is lost. Democracy is a lie and determinism becomes an excuse to do anything we want.

[B-Mental]

I firmly believe we have the will to resist temptation. The exercise of this will is up to the individual.

[PeterL]

I think that it is doubtful that free will exists, but the tangled skein of cause and effect is so tangled, that we can't tell. I also think that it is quite possible, likely even, that activity in the physical plane may be predetermined by cause and effect,especially by preprogramming by DNA, over which we have no power; but action in the universe of ideas may be partly free, because it was not predetermined by DNA.

As noted, those are opinions, not assertions of fact.

[blazeofglory]

If we don't believe in some form of free will, then all is lost. Democracy is a lie and determinism becomes an excuse to do anything we want.

In fact what we call free will is something we fabri cate, but man is conditioned. Democracy can not be a lie just because we believe in free will.

Nobody becomes a culprit at will, and nobody commits sins just because he wills. There are plenty of reasons why one does the way he does.

I do not think capital punishment ever solves the prboblem of crimes just because it is the will of the criminal to commit crimes. We forget the circumstances one is under. We can change his heart and indeed it is not his will that he will do it.

No child wills to do sins at birth, and of course it is his circumstances.

[dzebra]

I disagree with your last sentence. Children are selfish, and selfishness leads to sin, so children naturally will sin.

[blazeofglory]

I disagree with your last sentence. Children are selfish, and selfishness leads to sin, so children naturally will sin.

Dear friend, you are confused. For children's being selfishness has to do with the question of survival and indeed their needs are primeval ones.

Can you say animals sinful? In the same vein if children are sinful it is all out of necessity, not out of other motives.

If you see anything graver like children gunning down others they are simply mimicking their counterpart adult beings.

[blazeofglory]

We label human beings as sinfu and saints.

No human beings are by nature sinful and sins are not their basic natures, and sinfu acts are not their real and natural behaviours. These are externals, veneers and they indeed can be clean of such proclivities.

We never consider animals as sinful. If they kill other beings we take their acts as natural and their behaviours as congential or insticntive.

Free Will?

Consciousness is oftentimes likened to Free Will.

Most acts of crime or criminal behaviours crop up when a particular circumstance befalls a being, man or animal.

Ordinarily man uses his free will or the choice he is given and of course beyond a certain circumstance he can not connot trol himself.

We see more acts of crimes in a war ravaged domain than in the domain where peace prevails. Why? It is not the free will but the circumstance that accounts for what man does.

[mayneverhave]

We see more acts of crimes in a war ravaged domain than in the domain where peace prevails. Why? It is not the free will but the circumstance that accounts for what man does.

This is tricky. One could think up numerous situations and circumstances in which traditionally morally suspect actions like murder and theft could be considered "right actions". This is an illusion however.

Although dire situations can be said to compel and influence our behavior, the actions and responsibility are still entirely our own. Rationalizing away the freedom of your decision is just a sad way of shifting responsibility off of yourself. Although a situation may present itself that requires a decision that seems to contradict freewill, it is still a decision.

Of course, the above logic is merely philosophical. As for lawful jurisdiction, circumstances should be taken into consideration.

[islandclimber]

We label human beings as sinfu and saints.

No human beings are by nature sinful and sins are not their basic natures, and sinfu acts are not their real and natural behaviours. These are externals, veneers and they indeed can be clean of such proclivities.

We never consider animals as sinful. If they kill other beings we take their acts as natural and their behaviours as congential or insticntive.

Free Will?

Consciousness is oftentimes likened to Free Will.

Most acts of crime or criminal behaviours crop up when a particular circumstance befalls a being, man or animal.

Ordinarily man uses his free will or the choice he is given and of course beyond a certain circumstance he can not connot trol himself.

We see more acts of crimes in a war ravaged domain than in the domain where peace prevails. Why? It is not the free will but the circumstance that accounts for what man does.

I agree for the most part... but saying circumstance accounts for man's corrupt and violent actions is making an excuse for those actions... I mean murder is murder... rape is rape... there is no reason for either... Stealing food because one is starving and poor is no crime in my book... but murdering someone in cold blood, or raping someone, or torture... there is no excuse for that... circumstance is no excuse...

however, with regard to free will, I think we have entire free will to do whatsoever we please, explaining alot, as I don't believe in a personal creator god, a superhuman type god who relates to us and with us on a human level with our terms and definitions and forms... so I do believe we do have complete free will to do as we please, but the fact that some of us can go on to discover things such as our buddha natures, our infinite natures, our timeless natures, without believing in a god, it shows that within all of us there is this infinite, timeless love... and that is it... that will always overcome these crimes in the end... love and faith...

[Redzeppelin]

If free will doesn't exist, then truth doesn't exist, because truth cannot be the function of deterministic processes; truth cannot be the function of biological, neuro-chemical, psychological, sociological forces over which we have no control. If we cannot freely choose, then our words contain no truth whatsoever. It fascinates me that those who claim that free will doesn't exist seem to assume that they are themselves immune to the problem of their own "truth" being deterministic in nature.

[PeterL]

If free will doesn't exist, then truth doesn't exist, because truth cannot be the function of deterministic processes; truth cannot be the function of biological, neuro-chemical, psychological, sociological forces over which we have no control. If we cannot freely choose, then our words contain no truth whatsoever.

That is an interesting assertion. How do you define "truth" so that it must include free will? Isn't it enough for truth to be true for it to be truth?



It fascinates me that those who claim that free will doesn't exist seem to assume that they are themselves immune to the problem of their own "truth" being deterministic in nature.

I have encountered people who seemed to think that, but most people who deny that will is free accept that their wills are not free.

[Lote-Tree]

If free will doesn't exist, then truth doesn't exist, because truth cannot be the function of deterministic processes; truth cannot be the function of biological, neuro-chemical, psychological, sociological forces over which we have no control. If we cannot freely choose, then our words contain no truth whatsoever. It fascinates me that those who claim that free will doesn't exist seem to assume that they are themselves immune to the problem of their own "truth" being deterministic in nature.

Reddy Define "Truth"...?

[blazeofglory]

If free will doesn't exist, then truth doesn't exist, because truth cannot be the function of deterministic processes; truth cannot be the function of biological, neuro-chemical, psychological, sociological forces over which we have no control. If we cannot freely choose, then our words contain no truth whatsoever. It fascinates me that those who claim that free will doesn't exist seem to assume that they are themselves immune to the problem of their own "truth" being deterministic in nature.

Here the question is not one of deterministic; it has nothing to do with the present state of mind or the way individul tends to behave.

Free Will has to do with value systems. Values are in essence rooted in the systems or values one grows up with in one environmental setting. Values are societal or tribal arttributes. They are environment centric and varies from place to place.

Free Will is totally the product of values and what one chooses between the alternatives one feels part of.

How can a will be free when one becomes circumscribed by a particular setting of environment. When one becomes hungry, extremely hungry and food is hard by, one can not help getting tempted, and he takes the foods despite the fact that he chooses not to guided by his moral and conscious being.

There are genetic factors, DNA that shape how one behaves. Free Will is something that ihas nothing to do with how one takes to the course of life.

This is a counterargment against the biblical notions of determinism advanced by some christians. It has no logical or scientific backings.

[wisemidnighthag]

I once heard a philosopher talk about this point, and he dismissed the whole discussion. Each of us knows that we think (most of the time) about decisions, and we have no idea what exactly is going to happen the next day.

If the world is deterministic, it has been deterministic all along, and that argument has never justified crimes. Just because you decide to yourself that you live in a world without choices doesn't give you complete moral immunity.

The general point being that the only thing that changes if you believe we live in a deterministic world is the knowledge in your own mind. You'll make a choice either way. If you believe in free will, you'll think it's a choice, and if you believe in determinism, you'll trick your mind into thinking it was your only option.

Whatever you decide to claim, it doesn't change any phenomenon or course of events in the world at large, so though it might be interesting thing to ponder, it's also a paradox, since those who lived in a deterministic world wouldn't realize it.

[hellsapoppin]

As I said in another discussion on this topic, I will believe in free will when anyone can prove to me that an abortion victim can negate the force that is killing him/her.

[Oniw17]

Maybe it is, and maybe not. We definitely have will, and if it weren't free, that would explain ridiculously stubborn people who don't believe in logic. Even it will were somewhat fre, it would still have to be influenced by things outside of yourself. I'm pretty sure that free will is illogical without going into metaphysical discusssions. Either way, it's inconsequential. Individuality exists even if we are all just a collect of instinctual thoughts, genetic memories, anecdotal experience, and reflection. Nobody has lived the same life as someone else after all, even twins with the same genetics who were raised in the same family in isolation probably haven't always eaten the same amounts of the same kind of food. Surely what you eat affects your brain chemistry. Anyway, free will...unlikely.

[NikolaiI]

If there is not free will, there is at least a very powerful illusion of it. If there is not free will, we still have to answer for our karma. I think there is free will...at the same time I understand how you can imagine things to be fatalistic...since everything in the past has already happened and cannot be changed, we say it is fixed. Since the present moment only exists for us because...that's where we are... we could say that the past, future and present are all fixed. But still our lives are the results of actions and choices we made throughout our lives. And it would be very illogical to say it were not possible that we could have made a different choice along the way. I could turn left or right, or any varying degrees, but I can never trick fate. So it is like there is infinite possibility and no possibility; it is a paradox, yet both are true.

[blazeofglory]

What I really mean to say is there are factors that contribute to the making of consciusness. Consciousness leads to judgement and free will is rooted in consciousness.

Values change with time and space. It is different from community to community.

[NikolaiI]

What I really mean to say is there are factors that contribute to the making of consciusness. Consciousness leads to judgement and free will is rooted in consciousness.

Values change with time and space. It is different from community to community.

Indeed this is true and it is a point I thought of but neglected to make. We always have the choice to choose something better, but if we are very strongly conditioned, it may be difficult. We can break free of our conditioning and take up habits that make consciousness, and then we can act much more freely. Even if we are very strongly conditioned, however, when we act accordingly, we are acting falsely. Our true selves are liberated, it is our natural and our eternal state. Ideally we will act in knowledge, instead of ignorance; and when we act in ignorance, we are being false to our true selves, and so, added to the fact that we are not acting in best interests, is the additional strain and stress that we are "acting," that is, "pretending."

This is a nice excerpt from a wonderful book by Alan Watts, "The Joyous Cosmology":


" The more prosaic, the more dreadfully ordinary anyone or anything seems to be, the more I am moved to marvel at the ingenuity with which divinity hides in order to seek itself, at the lengths to which this cosmic joie de vivre will go in elaborating its dance. I think of a corner gas station on a hot afternoon. Dust and exhaust fumes, the regular Standard guy all baseball and sports cars, the billboards halfheartedly gaudy, the flatness so reassuring—nothing around here but just us folks! I can see people just pretending not to see that they are avatars of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, that the cells of their bodies aren't millions of gods, that the dust isn't a haze of jewels. How solemnly they would go through the act of not understanding me if I were to step up and say, "Well, who do you think you're kidding? Come off it, Shiva, you old rascal! It's a great act, but it doesn't fool me." But the conscious ego doesn't know that it is something which that divine organ, the body, is only pretending to be.* When people go to a guru, a master of wisdom, seeking a way out of darkness, all he really does is to humor them in their pretense until they are outfaced into dropping it. He tells nothing, but the twinkle in his eye speaks to the unconscious—"You know....You know!"

[brakeonthroo]

There is a psychological sickness that causes people to themselves

[andrew23]

no comment.

[DapperDrake]

I subscribe to the fact that what we do or when one indulgest in sinful deeds it is not out of choice. Or to put it differently, it is out of the circumstances one is in one commits crimes.


I can't agree, the obvious conclusion of what you're saying is that any person would behave the same given the same set of circumstances.
That is patently untrue, different people behave differently in the same situation and do so be cause we are different.

At a higher level I suppose what you're getting at here is the view that nothing original comes out of the human mind - that every decision we make and every idea we have is a direct consequence of the sensory input we have had throughout the course of our lives.
That's an interesting philosophical contention that I have come across before, I don't think it necessarily implies fate though.

I would say that we do have free will, in so much as free will is possible. If you drop a rubber ball it doesn't have any choice but to bounce, and from a similar perspective we are also bound by the laws of physics (whatever they may be) and that I suppose can be taken right down to the level of the atoms, molecules, impulses etc in the brain - Are we just an extremely complicated automata? set in motion and playing out an inevitable end?
Perhaps, but physics doesn't seem that simple, and although its extremely likely that the rubber ball will bounce there is also a slim possibility that it will do just about anything else - turn into a pot of petunias perhaps, or just disappear altogether.
What is the mind? I suppose that's the ultimate question, is it a complex chemical soup and nothing more, or is our mind self propelling - some sort of abstract effect that hovers above the base matter of the brain and can drive the brain, rather than just being driven by it.

[blazeofglory]

What we call freewill is the upshot of the circumstances we fall into in point of fact. It is a reflex action of what we see or remain hemmed in. It is response to a stimulus. If we touch an insect it is bound move forward.

What we call free will is a biblical invention and in theory, in fact in a biblical theory it holds true, but in practice it is untrue.

Any man is capable of doing sins given he falls into a particular circumstance. He will be vulnerable to circumstances. He will be forced into doing the unthinkable and even to the extent of indulging in theft and other ethically wicked things.

[DapperDrake]

What we call freewill is the upshot of the circumstances we fall into in point of fact. It is a reflex action of what we see or remain hemmed in. It is response to a stimulus. If we touch an insect it is bound move forward.

What we call free will is a biblical invention and in theory, in fact in a biblical theory it holds true, but in practice it is untrue.

Any man is capable of doing sins given he falls into a particular circumstance. He will be vulnerable to circumstances. He will be forced into doing the unthinkable and even to the extent of indulging in theft and other ethically wicked things.

Yes but in any specific set of circumstances there is a choice, certainly circumstances may make it more likely that a person will choose one way over another but they are not forced to do so. So a person confronted with an evil society has the capacity to do good, just as the person confronted with a good society has the capacity to do evil.
It may be true that for every person there is a particular formula of circumstance that will lead them to sin - but what has that do do with free will? no body is saying man is capable of perfection. In this scenario it isn't that fact that man has no free will but rather that his will has changed and he's acted accordingly.

[blazeofglory]

You have a good example of the circumstance wherein man may be virtuous against the circumstance he is presently in, a bad man behave badly even in a good circumstance and vice versa. Yet we have to see the previous cirucmstance the man has undergone.

[andrew23]

no comment.