Does Man Have Free Will?

[Lote-Tree]

{edit}

Well, have you watched movie named Lord of the Rings?

None of the characters have free will. Only will that they have is the will of the author/narator.

[Scheherazade]

Warning

Please do not personalise your argument; it is the ideas that we discuss, not other members.

[Turk]

None of the characters have free will. Only will that they have is the will of the author/narator.

Well, i didn't mean that. Knowing what will happen next doesn't mean there's no free will. I've watched this movie, so i would know what will happen next if i'd watch it for second time. Does it means i am controlling actors? God knows everything happened in future, it's in his knowledge. Also i didn't say that book is never changeable. In fact many Islamic scholars says prayers can change Levh-i Mahfuz, so future is changeable.

[Lote-Tree]

Does it means i am controlling actors?

Author created the characters he knows everything about them including the choices they will make. Yes, it is the author that controls them.

God knows everything happened in future, it's in his knowledge.

Also i didn't say that book is never changeable.
In fact many Islamic scholars says prayers can change Levh-i Mahfuz, so future is changeable.

This is contradictory.

[NickAdams]

In fact many Islamic scholars says prayers can change Levh-i Mahfuz, so future is changeable.

To know that the future was altered, they would first need to know the future. They believe the future was changed, but its faith not fact.

It's like someone prays for money and 5 years later they recieve it from hard work, and credits the prayer.

[Pendragon]

That's not close to what I said and you tend to misuse the word "logically."

Could both of you be a little more articulate, I can't understand much of what you wrote. And please spare me the italics and bold.

I beg Scher's patience just once, I promise not to be harsh.

My friend, verbosity is no indication of intelligence, as computers have built-in spell-checkers, grammar checkers, and thesauruses. I have not “misused” any word, if it doesn’t match your personal definition of the word that is not my problem. I gave an accurate summary of your statement, if your own medicine becomes bitter; I suggest you make no more of it. You expect us to accept what you say without question. I do not bow at your altar; I live my own life. And since you want to get in my face about this: Have a nice day!

This assumes all brains are identical.

{edit} The human brain is the most misunderstood organ in the body. Bigger is not always more intelligent. I recall reading of one genius whom, upon his death was discovered to have virtually no brain at all, just cells lining the skull cavity.

[Turk]

To know that the future was altered, they would first need to know the future. They believe the future was changed, but its faith not fact.

It's like someone prays for money and 5 years later they recieve it from hard work, and credits the prayer.

Yeah, i agree first line, it's faith. Like many things in life. But i don't think second line is related to this.

This is contradictory.

No, it's not. God able to do anything. And if he wants for prayers of good people he may change the future.

Author created the characters he knows everything about them including the choices they will make. Yes, it is the author that controls them.

Well, he have high will (Kulli İrade=Total Will) but we do have little will, so he creates concept of good and choices, but we choose 'em. He creates every action and thing but we choose them. For example concept of death created by God, just like concept of goodness or life, but you are the one who choose one of choices, for example if you kill someone you choosed it if you help and give good things to someone, then it's you choice too. Also he knows everything happened, but that doesn't mean he forced you to do something.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I beg Scher's patience just once, I promise not to be harsh.

My friend, verbosity is no indication of intelligence, as computers have built-in spell-checkers, grammar checkers, and thesauruses. I have not “misused” any word, if it doesn’t match your personal definition of the word that is not my problem. I gave an accurate summary of your statement, if your own medicine becomes bitter; I suggest you make no more of it. You expect us to accept what you say without question. I do not bow at your altar; I live my own life. And since you want to get in my face about this: Have a nice day!

{edit}

Logic roughly refers to the crude science of thought, arriving at demonstrable certainties. I recall you once used the phrase "logically assume" and proceed to build an argument on it; the phrase is oxymoronic. The argument is pretty nonsequitur as well, just saying.

I admit that I often become tired after reading the same use of "choose" and "decide" throughout replies to my more mathematical and rigorous posts. Even your buddy Descartes mentions that words used in everyday speech have no license to be used in logic and reason. Using these palpably sophistical words during an intelligent discussion actually impedes progress. I will state my argument once more, though much more tersely.

Spinoza uses rigorous and airtight logic to show that there can only be one substance in reality, which destroy's Descartes' idea of the mind acting separately from the body. Spinoza proceeded to build a mountain of incredible philosophy based on this idea that there can be no plurality of substances.

Furthermore, Einstein famously demonstrated, through mathematics, that atoms may be converted into a combination of potential and kinetic energy (E=mc^2 in a nutshell). He and a team of badass scientists then created an atomic bomb; a similar phenomenon called nuclear fusion is constantly used in trillions of stars. In short, all that exists is energy, and that is pretty much final. There can be no dualism between God and humans because all that can be is one substance, hence Spinoza's famous summary "God or nature," as they are not logically discernible. The same method of reasoning is used to show that there cannot be four sides to a triangle.

[Redzeppelin]

You, sir, have twisted my argument and then attacked it. Of course determinism is not a function of truth; this is a red herring. Whether or not the particular atoms which comprise my body "utter truth," they by no means change truth. In reality, there must be unchangeable axioms and principles on which to base existence; objective truth must exist.

I have dealt with your argument as best I understand it - and don't feel too insulted that I "attacked" it - I thought that was kind of expected in a discussion forum. My language was inexact: no - truth is not a function of determinism - but determinism negates the idea that our expressions can contain truth because truth must be arrived at through a discrimination between competing ideas (because not all truth is mathematical in nature and requires interpretation and context to properly evaluate); some truths can only be arrived at by examination and evaluation - but if freewill doesn't exist, then it seems that any conclusions we would arrive at about the "truth" of a matter would be purely arbitraray, having been arrived at through deterministic processes that do not allow for any true consideration of the facts at hand.

Everything we know comes to us through our senses, and we make inferences about the world we live in via those senses; these inferences lead us to more detailed conclusions; as such, all possible knowlege depends upon the validity of our reasoning (that with with we make inferences); if the certainty we express by words such as must be, therefore and since is a real perception as to how things outside our own minds must be, then all is well and good. But, if this sense of certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into the realities beyond them - if it merely represents how our minds work (determinism) - then we can have no knowledge at all (liberal borrowing from CS Lewis, Miracles).

In other words: our perception of the reality of the world cannot be true if determinism is correct, because our vision of what the world is merely a result of how our minds work electronically/chemically, rather than a conscious appraisal and system of inferences we make using our reason.

You seem to think that truth is a pure mental construct, which I disagree with. Geometry and mathematics are based on a few axioms which are true regardless of human interpretation of them, such as the relationship between circumference and diameter (as opposed to history, literature, etc). In other words, if Earth were completely destroyed tomorrow, the relationship between a circle's circumference and diameter will exist because they do not depend on anything but themselves. Although the word "truth" is often used as a mental construct in everyday speech, this crass definition isn't suitable for reasoning.

Truth is not purely a mental construct; but neither is all truth empirically arrived at by mathematical means. You keep quoting mathematical proofs as if that's all reality is founded upon: what mathematical proofs can you offer me that any of your posts contain any truth whatsoever? Aren't your posts merely a result of the random electronic/chemical processes in your brain over which you have no say or control?

Perhaps you should let your syntax show which words are emphasized. Italics and bold hardly have style.

Perhaps you should get over my writing style - I don't need a composition lecture, thank you.

[UltimaHybrid]

i have to say yes Man does have free will .. in the sport i am involved in >>>Parkour. they teach me that through every obstacle there is a path...use what you have (the human body) in any case.. man can do whatever the hell he wants right??? nope he cant i'll let someone finish what i'm saying

[NickAdams]

i have to say yes Man does have free will .. in the sport i am involved in >>>Parkour. they teach me that through every obstacle there is a path...use what you have (the human body) in any case.. man can do whatever the hell he wants right??? nope he cant i'll let someone finish what i'm saying

But in a fixed future, every "spontaneous" action, to counter an obstacle has been determined. If the future is not fixed, then free will doesn't exist, because free will relies on a fixed future to alter.

[UltimaHybrid]

bravo bravo bravo.. kudos.. i have no idea what that word means....

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I have dealt with your argument as best I understand it - and don't feel too insulted that I "attacked" it - I thought that was kind of expected in a discussion forum. My language was inexact: no - truth is not a function of determinism - but determinism negates the idea that our expressions can contain truth because truth must be arrived at through a discrimination between competing ideas (because not all truth is mathematical in nature and requires interpretation and context to properly evaluate); some truths can only be arrived at by examination and evaluation - but if freewill doesn't exist, then it seems that any conclusions we would arrive at about the "truth" of a matter would be purely arbitraray, having been arrived at through deterministic processes that do not allow for any true consideration of the facts at hand.

Determinism does not negate the idea that our expressions can contain truth. The term refers to the idea that everything is causally determined based on the preceeding laws. Anything but that is speculation. Whether or not you truly consider facts at hand anymore, it will have been causally determined to be that way.

Everything we know comes to us through our senses, and we make inferences about the world we live in via those senses; these inferences lead us to more detailed conclusions; as such, all possible knowlege depends upon the validity of our reasoning (that with with we make inferences); if the certainty we express by words such as must be, therefore and since is a real perception as to how things outside our own minds must be, then all is well and good. But, if this sense of certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into the realities beyond them - if it merely represents how our minds work (determinism) - then we can have no knowledge at all (liberal borrowing from CS Lewis, Miracles).

In other words: our perception of the reality of the world cannot be true if determinism is correct, because our vision of what the world is merely a result of how our minds work electronically/chemically, rather than a conscious appraisal and system of inferences we make using our reason.

This was interesting, I will give you credit. How the mind works biochemically and the conscious appraisal and reasoning are very similar. The conscious appraisal and reasoning is merely the result of biochemistry and ultimately physics which my brain uses during its lifetime. Ultimately everything is a bunch of energy moving around, so you could say that we don't really know anything; there's only one substance and thus no comparison.

Truth is not purely a mental construct; but neither is all truth empirically arrived at by mathematical means. You keep quoting mathematical proofs as if that's all reality is founded upon: what mathematical proofs can you offer me that any of your posts contain any truth whatsoever? Aren't your posts merely a result of the random electronic/chemical processes in your brain over which you have no say or control?

How does one empirically arrive at something by mathematical means?

Math is not what reality is founded upon, it's the predictible way it behaves, and it isn't used to tell people how truthful a post is. Anything dealing with quantities is pretty much mathematics, or can be mathematically shown. My posts are from determined biochemical processes in my brain, and to say that "I" have no control over it is pretty arbitrary when the pronoun refers to something which is not different than anything else.

The use of language very much kills the ability to see things as they are. You know separate words for different objects, how they move and how you feel, but its under the false pretense that they are about separate things. All matter is a form of energy (or substance) and it shifts, as it were. What you refer to as you is in fact no different.

[quasimodo1]

My answer is yes and no. I suppose if a person really wants one and puts effort into having it, then it is possible. If will is really free, than bad habits would be rid of more easily, yes? For me, Ambrose Bierce took on this question with his definition of the word "decide" or decision. " A decision is the preponderance of one set of influences over another." If he is right, this debunks at least partially, a totally free will. Another quote might help...forget the author..."We are a part of all that we have met". So many forces and emotions, thoughts and instincts govern our behavior, the concept of free will is at best partially true and always tenuous. quasimodo1

[Lote-Tree]

No, it's not. God able to do anything. And if he wants for prayers of good people he may change the future.

God is Omniscient - there is "no may". God knows the future already. Even the "prayers of good people" so there is no need to alter the future. If he needed to do that then he is not omnisicient - hence contradictory.

Well, he have high will (Kulli İrade=Total Will) but we do have little will, so he creates concept of good and choices, but we choose 'em.

Show me how Characters in a novel make choices. Remember everything that will happen is already written down in a book by God.

He creates every action and thing but we choose them. For example concept of death created by God, just like concept of goodness or life, but you are the one who choose one of choices, for example if you kill someone you choosed it if you help and give good things to someone, then it's you choice too. Also he knows everything happened, but that doesn't mean he forced you to do something.

See above.