Free will.

[shunyadragon]

Where did I say that there were no constraints on the human will?

you accepted the standard definition of libertarian free will I posted.

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

Libertarian free will

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.

© Copyright Original Source

[Jim B.]

I believe determinism underlies everything as the basis of science and natural law. but still in the realm of determinism I believe humans are capable of a range of free will decisions without violating natural law. I believe this is a form of compatibilism. Libertarianism would reject any determinist limits on human choice and decision making as seer does.

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=compatibilism+and+free+will&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS740US740&oq=compatibilism+and+free+will&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.14700j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.

© Copyright Original Source

If your version of freedom has nothing to do with metaphysics, then it's only situational or circumstantial freedom, not actual freedom where people, at least occasionally, have genuine alternatives open to them. Since the "free will" problem is essentially a metaphysical problem, then it seems that the freedom entailed by that problem would have to be metaphysical as well. Compatibilism seems like a dodge or an evasion. It could be that indeterminism could blur the boundaries between determinism and freedom. But I think it comes down to whether one thinks it's possible that people can act because of their beliefs and desires but where their acting is not necessitated by the past and the laws. If no, then you're a dterminist. If yes, you're a libertarian. Compatibilism seems like little more than a legalistic gloss on determinism.

Why do you think that libertarianism would "reject any determinist limits on human choice and decision making"? That has nothing to do with any version of libertarianism I'm familiar with.

[seer]

you accepted the standard definition of libertarian free will I posted.

No I did not, I gave you my definition early on, the power of contrary choice in most situations,

And I quote myself

So you agree that we have the power of contrary choice? That in most situations we are free to choose A or B?

[shunyadragon]

No I did not, I gave you my definition early on, the power of contrary choice in most situations,

And I quote myself

There is an unresolved fog index in your qualification 'the power of contrary choice in most cases.' What cases would humans not have contrary choice?

As you describe it above it represents a form of compatibiism where there is a degree of determinism in some situations of human decision making, which is different from the standard definition provided.

[shunyadragon]

If your version of freedom has nothing to do with metaphysics, then it's only situational or circumstantial freedom, not actual freedom where people, at least occasionally, have genuine alternatives open to them. Since the "free will" problem is essentially a metaphysical problem, then it seems that the freedom entailed by that problem would have to be metaphysical as well. Compatibilism seems like a dodge or an evasion. It could be that indeterminism could blur the boundaries between determinism and freedom. But I think it comes down to whether one thinks it's possible that people can act because of their beliefs and desires but where their acting is not necessitated by the past and the laws. If no, then you're a determinist. If yes, you're a libertarian. Compatibilism seems like little more than a legalistic gloss on determinism.

OK, this is what you 'believe, but your objections are combative and anecdotal. It is only a black and white perspective from your narrow biased perspective, as is the other extreme proposed by seer. I defined (with references) specifically where compatibilism allows for 'actual freedom where people, at least occasionally, have genuine alternatives open to them.' It is not necessarily a metaphysical problem. Claiming that is dodge.

Read: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ as previous cited for the philosophical reality that there are options where 'compatibilism' allows for degrees of free will.

Why do you think that libertarianism would "reject any determinist limits on human choice and decision making"? That has nothing to do with any version of libertarianism I'm familiar with.

By the definition as cited:

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

Libertarian free will

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise."

© Copyright Original Source

. . . and seer's claim, which is a bit of undefined hedge, that:

So you agree that we have the power of contrary choice? That in most situations we are free to choose A or B?

Seer needs to clarify his position as expressed here, because as described it is a form of compatibilism.

[seer]

There is an unresolved fog index in your qualification 'the power of contrary choice in most cases.' What cases would humans not have contrary choice?

As you describe it above it represents a form of compatibiism where there is a degree of determinism in some situations of human decision making, which is different from the standard definition provided.

No it is not, men are not free to do anything they wish. I can not flap my arms and fly. And humans can have the power of contrary choice in may different situations. It is my decision to respond to you here, or not, for instance. Unless you believe that I was determined to.

[shunyadragon]

No it is not, men are not free to do anything they wish. I can not flap my arms and fly. And humans can have the power of contrary choice in may different situations. It is my decision to respond to you here, or not, for instance. Unless you believe that I was determined to.

Again, again and again the red herring that humans can defy gravity and the laws of nature by flapping their arms and flying is a canard and does not address the question of free will.

The concepts as libertarian, compatibilism and determinism deal with the human decision making processes and not breaking the laws of nature such as gravity by willful actions.

Again please address the question in your statement of belief if it is other than how libertarianism is defined in theopedia.

There is an unresolved fog index in your qualification 'the power of contrary choice in most cases.' What cases would humans not have contrary choice?

As you describe it above it represents a form of compatibiism where there is a degree of determinism in some situations of human decision making, which is different from the standard definition provided.

[seer]

Again, again and again the red herring that humans can defy gravity and the laws of nature by flapping their arms and flying is a canard and does not address the question of free will.

The concepts as libertarian, compatibilism and determinism deal with the human decision making processes and not breaking the laws of nature such as gravity by willful actions.

Again please address the question in your statement of belief if it is other than how libertarianism is defined in theopedia.

First theopedia is a Christian site, second, there are different different understandings of of what constitutes freedom of the will: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/i...lism-theories/

There is an unresolved fog index in your qualification 'the power of contrary choice in most cases.' What cases would humans not have contrary choice?

,
It is not a fog Shuny, it is a fact. If a human had a brain injury or brain disease for instance that may prevent the ability to choose otherwise.

As you describe it above it represents a form of compatibiism where there is a degree of determinism in some situations of human decision making, which is different from the standard definition provided.

Really, show me one definition Compatibilism that contains the power of contrary choice - I will be waiting...

[shunyadragon]

First theopedia is a Christian site, second, there are different different understandings of of what constitutes freedom of the will: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/i...lism-theories/

Incompatibilism is one philosophical approach, but so is compatibilism as defined again, again, and again below.

It is not a fog Shuny, it is a fact. If a human had a brain injury or brain disease for instance that may prevent the ability to choose otherwise.

Fog remains, you are describing a situation without will either way, which does not answer the question any more that breaking natural law and flapping your wings cannot fly.

Again . . .

There is an unresolved fog index in your qualification 'the power of contrary choice in most cases.' What cases would humans not have contrary choice?

Really, show me one definition Compatibilism that contains the power of contrary choice - I will be waiting...

I have already provided it. Again . . .

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

Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Fog remains, you are describing a situation without will either way, which does not answer the question any more that breaking natural law and flapping your wings cannot fly.

I gave you a clear example of what could possibly impinge on a choice.

I have already provided it. Again . . .

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

Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

© Copyright Original Source

Define free will, since there are different ideas of what it is, what is your definition.

[shunyadragon]

I gave you a clear example of what could possibly impinge on a choice.

No you did not, Your example was one were the will does not exist as in brain injury and disease, and one where the law of gravity cannot be violated. Considering these, your view still fits the definition provided.

Still waiting . . .

Define free will, since there are different ideas of what it is, what is your definition.

To be able to choose the contrary. In Libertarian free will there are no constraints on free will, in compatiblism there are constraints on where humans have free will choices.

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

Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

No you did not, Your example was one were the will does not exist as in brain injury and disease, and one where the law of gravity cannot be violated. Considering these, your view still fits the definition provided.

That is the point Shuny, unless there is something like an injury, an addiction, a gun to your head etc... we are able free to make choices. Do you disagree with that - or do you believe that all our choices are determined by antecedent conditions.

To be able to choose the contrary. In Libertarian free will there are no constraints on free will, in compatiblism there are constraints on where humans have free will choices.

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

Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

© Copyright Original Source

So you agree that we have the ability to choose otherwise? And I'm not sure what you mean by free will - what exactly are these constraints you are speaking of?

[shunyadragon]

That is the point Shuny, unless there is something like an injury, an addiction, a gun to your head etc... we are able free to make choices. Do you disagree with that - or do you believe that all our choices are determined by antecedent conditions.

No I do not believe ALL our choices are determined by antecedent conditions. Our choices are influenced and limited by antecedent conditions. See below

So you agree that we have the ability to choose otherwise? And I'm not sure what you mean by free will - what exactly are these constraints you are speaking of?

There are many constraints that limit free will such as you stated; '. . . our choices are determined by antecedent conditions.' In compatibilism NOT ALL our choices our are determined by antecedent conditions. In determinism ALL our choices are determined by antecedent conditions.' In libertarian free will NONE of our choices are determined by antecedent conditions, possibly with the exception, as you brought up defying the law of gravity, and when the brain is injured to the point that it impedes free will.

[JimL]

No I do not believe ALL our choices are determined by antecedent conditions. Our choices are influenced and limited by antecedent conditions. See below



There are many constraints that limit free will such as you stated; '. . . our choices are determined by antecedent conditions.' In compatibilism NOT ALL our choices our are determined by antecedent conditions. In determinism ALL our choices are determined by antecedent conditions.' In libertarian free will NONE of our choices are determined by antecedent conditions, possibly with the exception, as you brought up defying the law of gravity, and when the brain is injured to the point that it impedes free will.

I think that you fence sitters, i.e. you compatibilists, have to explain what it is that you mean when you say that not all of our choices are determined by antecedent conditions. Which choices are and which choices are not determined by antecedent conditions and what is the cause of the difference?

[shunyadragon]

I think that you fence sitters, i.e. you compatibilists, have to explain what it is that you mean when you say that not all of our choices are determined by antecedent conditions.

I actually do have to explain it, and it is best to just research the reference I have given at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ You, of course take the extreme position, and do not agree, but nonetheless it is to a large extent your responsibility to do your own homework and understand the philosophy of comaptibilism.

I was simply explaining it to seer what the difference is, because like you he takes an extreme view, and is not open to understanding other possible view points.

Which choices are and which choices are not determined by antecedent conditions and what is the cause of the difference?

Actually the reference and the source goes into detail as to the the nature of free will and determinism determined by antecedent conditions.

The 'potential' free will in our choices only exists within a frame work of the factors where determinism is determined by antecedent conditions. It is not the extreme black versus white situation of all free will versus no free will. Antecedent conditions that limit free will are human instinct, cultural controls and the priority of the desire for 'sense of belonging.' The reference emphasizes 'Moral Responsibility' that is an area of human choice of free will exist. Free will is still limited in Moral Responsibility,' because instinct and cultural factors limit the choices, nonetheless in compatabilism there is the 'potential' of free will within a range of possible choices. To add, instinct to survive remains the primary motive for 'Moral Responsibility.

I also believe that in the choices of human intellect and the advancement of the sciences there is the potential of free will in the natural human curiosity to know and explore things to advance our knowledge, and in general civilization. In this view our potential of free will choices are likely indeed limited, but not mechanistically predetermined.

I definitely consider strict determinism is too robotic and does not reflect the reality of the potential of a diversity in human choices over time.