Free will.

[shunyadragon]

That is a falsehhod Shuny, I certainly did:

Actually it does :Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert..._(metaphysics)





Another falsehood Shuny, there was no clear definition of free will in your quote. So I will ask for the third time: please offer a definition of FREE WILL. And stop hiding behind "academic sources" that you don't even understand.

I gave my definition from a reliable academic source and you choose to ignore it.

The following is the definition for free will I support.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#FreWil

1.1 Free Will
It would be misleading to specify a strict definition of free will since in the philosophical work devoted to this notion there is probably no single concept of it. For the most part, what philosophers working on this issue have been hunting for is a feature of agency that is necessary for persons to be morally responsible for their conduct.[1] Different attempts to articulate the conditions for moral responsibility will yield different accounts of the sort of agency required to satisfy those conditions. What we need as a starting point is a malleable notion that focuses upon special features of persons as agents. As a theory-neutral point of departure, then, free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the manner necessary for moral responsibility.[2] Clearly, this definition is too lean when taken as an endpoint; the hard philosophical work is about how best to develop this special kind of control.

© Copyright Original Source

The problem is 'apart from external influence.' This is a difficult if not an impossible provision to demonstrate. Our whole existence is an integral part of 'external influences.' First and foremost, it would be impossible to get around the external influence of natural law.

I do add another aspect of free will that 'conditions of moral responsibility' does not address. We make decisions every day of our lives within a range of possible choices that could possibly constitute free will choices. Some of these choices may be actually meaningful of future consequence concerning future chains of cause and effect outcomes, but most are just mundane choices that likely have no future consequence.

The concept of 'contrary choice' is over rated. It simply means a choice is made contrary 'diametrically opposed' to other possible choices. The only proviso in determinism, and compatibilism is that contrary choices cannot by contrary to natural law. It should be understood that the human assessment of what are 'free will' or contrary choices is subject to our anecdotal and subjective judgement, and of course our bias as to what 'free will' is.

[seer]

I gave my definition from a reliable academic source and you choose to ignore it.

The following is the definition for free will I support.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#FreWil

1.1 Free Will
It would be misleading to specify a strict definition of free will since in the philosophical work devoted to this notion there is probably no single concept of it. For the most part, what philosophers working on this issue have been hunting for is a feature of agency that is necessary for persons to be morally responsible for their conduct.[1] Different attempts to articulate the conditions for moral responsibility will yield different accounts of the sort of agency required to satisfy those conditions. What we need as a starting point is a malleable notion that focuses upon special features of persons as agents. As a theory-neutral point of departure, then, free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the manner necessary for moral responsibility.[2] Clearly, this definition is too lean when taken as an endpoint; the hard philosophical work is about how best to develop this special kind of control.

© Copyright Original Source

The problem is 'apart from external influence.' This is a difficult if not an impossible provision to demonstrate. Our whole existence is an integral part of 'external influences.' First and foremost, it would be impossible to get around the external influence of natural law.

I do add another aspect of free will that 'conditions of moral responsibility' does not address. We make decisions every day of our lives within a range of possible choices that could possibly constitute free will choices. Some of these choices may be actually meaningful of future consequence concerning future chains of cause and effect outcomes, but most are just mundane choices that likely have no future consequence.

The concept of 'contrary choice' is over rated. It simply means a choice is made contrary 'diametrically opposed' to other possible choices. The only proviso in determinism, and compatibilism is that contrary choices cannot by contrary to natural law. It should be understood that the human assessment of what are 'free will' or contrary choices is subject to our anecdotal and subjective judgement, and of course our bias as to what 'free will' is.

Shuny, your own link references my definition:

For ease of reference and discussion throughout this entry, let us simplify the above argument as follows:

1.If a person acts of her own free will, then she could have done otherwise (A-C).
2.If determinism is true, no one can do otherwise than one actually does (D-E).
3.Therefore, if determinism is true, no one acts of her own free will (F).

Call it the Classical Formulation:

1.Some agent, at some time, could have acted otherwise than she did.
2.Actions are events.
3.Every event has a cause.
4.If an event is caused, then it is causally determined.
5.If an event is an act that is causally determined, then the agent of the act could not have acted otherwise than in the way that she did.

This is the incompatibilist position, which is mine. I have - the power of contrary choice. In other words we could have acted other than we did. This is not possible if determinism is true (as number 3&5) conclude. And you still have not offered a definition of free will. NOTHING in what you quoted offers a definition.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, your own link references my definition:

This is only a selective part and not the whole definition,

This is the incompatibilist position, which is mine. I have - the power of contrary choice. In other words we could have acted other than we did. This is not possible if determinism is true (as number 3&5) conclude. And you still have not offered a definition of free will. NOTHING in what you quoted offers a definition.

The definition I gave is specific. You are bing selective compatibilism is not your position.


I am not arguing for classical nor causal determinism, as far as human will is concerned. I am arguing for compatibilism concerning the nature of human will. You are neglecting there are different philosophies that propose determinism.

As far as the nature of our physical existence and determinism I support scientific determinism, where all possible outcomes are limited by natural law from any given time t.



I can also provide a number of scientific articles that describe how this form of determinism applies to science, but scince you reject science this would be fruitless gesture.

[seer]

This is only a selective part and not the whole definition.

Shuny, the whole definition is in the link. LFW has a specific definition. The ability to do other than we did.

The definition I gave is specific. You are bing selective compatibilism is not your position.

No Shuny, your quote said: It would be misleading to specify a strict definition of free will since in the philosophical work devoted to this notion there is probably no single concept of it.


So your quote states that there is no single concept of free will. That is correct. I gave you the Libertarian definition, so what is your definition? I have asked about five times. How can you claim that determinism is compatible with free will if you have no definition of free will?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, the whole definition is in the link. LFW has a specific definition. The ability to do other than we did.




No Shuny, your quote said: It would be misleading to specify a strict definition of free will since in the philosophical work devoted to this notion there is probably no single concept of it.


So your quote states that there is no single concept of free will. That is correct. I gave you the Libertarian definition, so what is your definition? I have asked about five times. How can you claim that determinism is compatible with free will if you have no definition of free will?

You have a black and white one way mind, which your definition of Libertarian free will is incomplete.

Source: https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will

Compatibilist vs. libertarian views of free will
The Compatibilist believes that free will is "compatible" with determinism (as in the sovereignty of God). The incompatibilist says that the free will is "incompatible" with determinism. The Libertarian is an incompatibilist who consequently rejects any determinism associated with the sovereignty of God. Hence, Libertarian Free Will is necessarily associated with both Open Theism, which maintains that God does not foreknow or predetermine the free choices of man, and Arminianism, which admits that God in his omniscience foresees man's free choices and reacts accordingly. Libertarian freedom is the general view of liberal Protestantism and a growing number of evangelicals.

The Compatibilist view - This view affirms that man freely chooses what God has determined that he will chose. In this way, the idea that God is in charge, and the idea that man can be held responsible for his actions are compatible ideas. Free will is affected by human nature and man cannot choose contrary to his nature and desires. This view acknowledges man as a free moral agent who freely makes choices. But due to the effects of the fall, as contained in the doctrine of total depravity, man's nature is corrupted such that he cannot choose contrary to his fallen nature -- He cannot discern spiritual things or turn to God in faith apart from divine intervention.

The Libertarian view - According to libertarianism, the idea that God causes men to act in a certain way, but that man has free will in acting that way is logically false. Free means uncaused. Man has free will, and his decisions are influenced, but not caused. God limits the actions of men, but not their mind or will. Man has the ability to turn to God in Christ and sincerely ask for help, selfishly perhaps, apart from specific (special) divine enablement. According to Arminianism, God, in his freedom, not only sets a condition on salvation and wills only to save those who would ask Him to rescue them. God, then, predestines those who He "foreknew" to salvation. Or, according to Open Theism, God is anxiously waiting to see what each person will do, for he cannot know ahead of time what the choice might be.

© Copyright Original Source

Again . . .

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#FreWil

1.1 Free Will
It would be misleading to specify a strict definition of free will since in the philosophical work devoted to this notion there is probably no single concept of it. For the most part, what philosophers working on this issue have been hunting for is a feature of agency that is necessary for persons to be morally responsible for their conduct.[1] Different attempts to articulate the conditions for moral responsibility will yield different accounts of the sort of agency required to satisfy those conditions. What we need as a starting point is a malleable notion that focuses upon special features of persons as agents. As a theory-neutral point of departure, then, free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the manner necessary for moral responsibility.[2] Clearly, this definition is too lean when taken as an endpoint; the hard philosophical work is about how best to develop this special kind of control.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

You have a black and white one way mind, which your definition of Libertarian free will is incomplete.

Shuny, why did you bring God into the picture. You still have not answered my question. I gave you a clear definition of LFW - your last quotes are not offering a definition. So again, do you have a definition of free will, if not how can you assert this: Third the alternative of Compatibilism provides an adequate alternative of the possibility of free will within a deterministic world.

How can you even claim this if you have no idea how to define free will?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, why did you bring God into the picture.

. . . because in your agenda concerning the nature of 'free will' God is in the picture. It is dishonest and hypocritical that you are denying it.

You still have not answered my question. I gave you a clear definition of LFW - your last quotes are not offering a definition. So again, do you have a definition of free will, if not how can you assert this: Third the alternative of Compatibilism provides an adequate alternative of the possibility of free will within a deterministic world.

By references already given!

[seer]

. . . because in your agenda concerning the nature of 'free will' God is in the picture. It is dishonest and hypocritical that you are denying it.

I said nothing about God, you are just googling and posting what you think benefits you.

By references already given!

That is false, your references offered a number of different definitions of free will. So again, which do you hold? And if you can not define what free will is how can you possibly claim that one, or any of the definitions, are compatible with determinism?

[shunyadragon]

I said nothing about God, you are just googling and posting what you think benefits you.

You need not say anything at present, but your agenda concerning the nature of 'free will' God is in the picture, as well as your rejection of science, alternative definitions and concept on virtually every topic. It is dishonest and hypocritical that you are denying it.

That is false, your references offered a number of different definitions of free will. So again, which do you hold? And if you can not define what free will is how can you possibly claim that one, or any of the definitions, are compatible with determinism?

I have answered this in detail in a previous post.

You have failed to recognize that there are most definitely more than one philosophical view of determinism and the definition of 'free will.' You persist in clinging to only extreme definitions, which are not reality.

The deterministic world of Compatibilism is one where all possible outcomes any chain of events are limited by natural laws, which would be the first premise of the nature of free will, in that our possible choices at any one point in time in a chain of choices and events are limited by natural law.

[seer]

You need not say anything at present, but your agenda concerning the nature of 'free will' God is in the picture, as well as your rejection of science, alternative definitions and concept on virtually every topic. It is dishonest and hypocritical that you are denying it.

Yet your religion rejects science too, teaching that Adam is the father of all living humans.

I have answered this in detail in a previous post.

That is a lie. You have never said what your definition of free will is. I gave you mine.

You have failed to recognize that there are most definitely more than one philosophical view of determinism and the definition of 'free will.' You persist in clinging to only extreme definitions, which are not reality.

The deterministic world of Compatibilism is one where all possible outcomes any chain of events are limited by natural laws, which would be the first premise of the nature of free will, in that our possible choices at any one point in time in a chain of choices and events are limited by natural law.

Then what definition of determinism and what definition of free will are you using here? You just said there was more than one definition of both. If you do not have clear definitions then you are just talking out you butt - again.

[shunyadragon]

Yet your religion rejects science too, teaching that Adam is the father of all living humans.

Like Genesis there were other humans living on the earth. Again, the Baha'i writings describe many cycles of Revelation among humans at least hundred' of thousands before Adam and Eve. As with the the Bible, science and the scripture of the Baha'i Faith your agenda dictates a selective citation of references as literal representing how they 'force fit' what you believe. Everyone here is used to it,

Then what definition of determinism and what definition of free will are you using here? You just said there was more than one definition of both. If you do not have clear definitions then you are just talking out you butt - again.

Already posted a response to this I primarily hold to scientific definition and use of determinism. I cited the section from determinism on Natural Law.

Example of how determinism is used in science:

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757669/

Deterministic Chaos and Fractal Complexity in the Dynamics of Cardiovascular Behavior: Perspectives on a New Frontier by Vijay Sharma

Abstract

Physiological systems such as the cardiovascular system are capable of five kinds of behavior: equilibrium, periodicity, quasi-periodicity, deterministic chaos and random behavior. Systems adopt one or more these behaviors depending on the function they have evolved to perform. The emerging mathematical concepts of fractal mathematics and chaos theory are extending our ability to study physiological behavior. Fractal geometry is observed in the physical structure of pathways, networks and macroscopic structures such the vasculature and the His-Purkinje network of the heart. Fractal structure is also observed in processes in time, such as heart rate variability. Chaos theory describes the underlying dynamics of the system, and chaotic behavior is also observed at many levels, from effector molecules in the cell to heart function and blood pressure. This review discusses the role of fractal structure and chaos in the cardiovascular system at the level of the heart and blood vessels, and at the cellular level. Key functional consequences of these phenomena are highlighted, and a perspective provided on the possible evolutionary origins of chaotic behavior and fractal structure. The discussion is non-mathematical with an emphasis on the key underlying concepts."

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Like Genesis there were other humans living on the earth. Again, the Baha'i writings describe many cycles of Revelation among humans at least hundred' of thousands before Adam and Eve. As with the the Bible, science and the scripture of the Baha'i Faith your agenda dictates a selective citation of references as literal representing how they 'force fit' what you believe. Everyone here is used to it.

You religion teaches that all human beings living today are the offspring of Adam. No matter what beings came before, their decedents are gone. We are all biologically related to Adam. Do you agree with your religion or not?

Already posted a response to this I primarily hold to scientific definition and use of determinism. I cited the section from determinism on Natural Law.

Example of how determinism is used in science:

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757669/

Deterministic Chaos and Fractal Complexity in the Dynamics of Cardiovascular Behavior: Perspectives on a New Frontier by Vijay Sharma

Abstract

Physiological systems such as the cardiovascular system are capable of five kinds of behavior: equilibrium, periodicity, quasi-periodicity, deterministic chaos and random behavior. Systems adopt one or more these behaviors depending on the function they have evolved to perform. The emerging mathematical concepts of fractal mathematics and chaos theory are extending our ability to study physiological behavior. Fractal geometry is observed in the physical structure of pathways, networks and macroscopic structures such the vasculature and the His-Purkinje network of the heart. Fractal structure is also observed in processes in time, such as heart rate variability. Chaos theory describes the underlying dynamics of the system, and chaotic behavior is also observed at many levels, from effector molecules in the cell to heart function and blood pressure. This review discusses the role of fractal structure and chaos in the cardiovascular system at the level of the heart and blood vessels, and at the cellular level. Key functional consequences of these phenomena are highlighted, and a perspective provided on the possible evolutionary origins of chaotic behavior and fractal structure. The discussion is non-mathematical with an emphasis on the key underlying concepts."

© Copyright Original Source

What the hell does this have to do with free will, and whether you can reconcile free will with determinism? I mean your link has to do with Cardiovascular Behavior! And I again noticed that you did not provide a definition of free will.

[shunyadragon]

You religion teaches that all human beings living today are the offspring of Adam. No matter what beings came before, their decedents are gone. We are all biologically related to Adam. Do you agree with your religion or not?

Like Genesis there were other humans living on the earth. Again, the Baha'i writings describe many cycles of Revelation among humans at least hundred' of thousands before Adam and Eve. As with the the Bible, science and the scripture of the Baha'i Faith your agenda dictates a selective citation of references as literal representing how they 'force fit' what you believe. Everyone here is used to it.

What the hell does this have to do with free will, and whether you can reconcile free will with determinism? I mean your link has to do with Cardiovascular Behavior! And I again noticed that you did not provide a definition of free will.

Definition provided. This reference was simply an example of how determinism is used and understood in science.

[Tassman]

Jim, I really feel that what goes on in my head actually corresponds to reality. I can not prove that logically or empirically. I feel that other minds, similar to mine, exist, I can not prove that logically or empirically. I believe that I'm self-aware - I can not prove that that isn't an illusion.

IS

[JimL]

IS

I have always been in agreement with the logic of your argument concerning this Tass, though not convinced or comfortable with it, but I'd be interested to know how you would respond to the OP? How can consciousness do battle with the unconscious if both are determined?