Freewill

This defies research in neurology, and the concept of the brain being involved in thinking at all. To deny that decisions are independent of brain structure is to claim that brains are useless for thinking.

That's nice, but your definition makes no sense. It's not free will. You could define free will as a chocolate bar, but that doesn't mean you have free will. And simply saying you reject mine doesn't really get your argument anywhere. I gave an in depth explanation and you're offering nothing in return, which is generally a sign that someone doesn't even understand their own position or how the brain works.

If I cut out half of your brain, you will not reject that influence. It will utterly change your behavior in extremely significant ways.

 

Yet it still won't limit me to a single choice that I am absolutely forced to take. If it limits me to even two choices that I have the ability to choose between, then I have free will.

 

lol! so we are independent of our own brain and therefore not responsible for what it makes us do. sounds like a great defense for a murder case!! i'm sure the jury will see it your way!! hahahahaahahahahaah

 

It seems to be a bit of a lacking definition IMO. What about internal forces and non absolute external forces? And indeed there are forces we MUST follow at least from an instinctual stand point, how else would we have survived this long?

The illusion of free will is that although we do have choices and although we can change we do not choose the choices we get to choose from anymore than we get to choose our parents or our genes.

That’s what people don’t seem to understand about determinism, it’s not fatalism but it does reject the idea based on what we continue to learn about the human brain that we are the authors of our thoughts and actions.

I’m curious where do your thoughts come from in your definition of free will?

 

Yet it still won't limit me to a single choice that I am absolutely forced to take. If it limits me to even two choices that I have the ability to choose between, then I have free will.

 

You're the one claiming your brain is irrelevant to decision making. If things that happen to your brain can't change your choices, then that's your stance. I'm actually claiming the opposite - that we are completely dependent upon our brain - it's unwilled biology and the unwilled influences upon our neurology determine our choices - not some magical part of ourselves that no one can define.

 

My thoughts come from millions if not billions of individual variables interacting with each other in a semi-random way. However, those variables do not have an absolute outcome.

- - - Updated - - -

My thoughts come from millions if not billions of individual variables interacting with each other in a semi-random way. However, those variables do not have an absolute outcome.

 

Holy s___, are you even reading what I'm saying? I already addressed this. I'm going to stop now because it's clear this is going to turn out like ever free will argument - the other side doesn't even pay attention to what's being said and just regurgitates the same line over and over again, showing that they really don't even understand the concept.

- - - Updated - - -

Holy s___, are you even reading what I'm saying? I already addressed this. I'm going to stop now because it's clear this is going to turn out like ever free will argument - the other side doesn't even pay attention to what's being said and just regurgitates the same line over and over again, showing that they really don't even understand the concept.

 

don't be ridiculous. of course there are influences. and we can analyze them and DECIDE whether to allow them to have an effect or not. the final choice is ours.

 

You are defining free will as some kind of absolute "I'm not affected by any kind of external phenomena at all" will. That is not what I am claiming. If I have any sort of choice, I have free will.

That concept is mutually exclusive with an omniscient god because I would be making zero choices. Every single thing that I do would be predetermined and unable to be erred from the instant the universe is created.

- - - Updated - - -

You are defining free will as some kind of absolute "I'm not affected by any kind of external phenomena at all" will. That is not what I am claiming. If I have any sort of choice, I have free will.

That concept is mutually exclusive with an omniscient god because I would be making zero choices. Every single thing that I do would be predetermined and unable to be erred from the instant the universe is created.

 

How is the appearance of something proof of something?

 

because we DONT choose to be. for all sorts of reasons. and choosing not to become something is a choice

 

I honestly don't mean to be insulting at all but that sounds like saying a random name generator with billions of individual variables interacting with each other in a semi random way has free will.

If all those variables give you the two options of buying a red car or black car but those same variables tell you that black one is the one you’re going to choose how is that free will?

Now happenstance does play a roll and lets say that for some reason you can get the same car you were getting in black (the color you really wanted) in red for a much lower price you would think it would be a no brainer since red was the other choice and yet in these situations we still find ourselves thinking damn I really wish it was the black one that was cheaper.

For a species with free will we seem very attached to our choices even when we could have made better ones.

 

and you just hit the nail on the head. we ARE very attached to our less than skillful choices when we could have made better ones. all religions and philosophies have been attempting to deal with that exact human failing since time began.

 

a choice you did not choose to have.

You have ignored the majority of my posts which is a shame because I enjoy having this discussion. I can tell you that determinism lies within your "for all sorts of reasons" comment but unless you want to be more specific there is no where for this conversation to go.

So far you have maintained that there appears to be free will which is exactly what I said to begin with. We have the illusion of free will. Simply saying we do does not mean we do.

Show me how your choices (not the ones you make but the ones that appear in your mind for you to choose from) are not determined but rather freely willed by you the author of your thoughts.

I'll ask you the same question I asked before.

Where do your thoughts come from? How do they arrive in your consciousness?

 

If something doesn't dictate our decision, then it's not an influence. To influence means to change. If you act no different based on some unwilled stimuli, then it is not an influence. Again, if unwilled stimuli does not dictate your behavior, then a brain is irrelevant, because your very brain structure - your ability to make decisions and actions - is based on unwilled stimuli. You did not create your brain. So, either your brain is not involved in your decisions/actions or you have no free will.


dictionary.com:
Influence:
1. the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others: He used family influence to get the contract.

Compel:
1.
to force or drive, especially to a course of action: His disregard of the rules compels us to dismiss him.
2.
to secure or bring about by force.
3.
to force to submit; subdue.
4.
to overpower.
5.
Archaic. to drive together; unite by force; herd.

 

And they keep failing to "deal" with it because they think we have free will.

Is this poetic irony?

 

Great post, entirely, but I especially like this part. By his strange definition, computers have free will.

 

Random name generators aren't self aware and cannot analyze themselves like humans can.

 

the thoughts and emotions and feelings arise in the mind. the mind has the power to be aware of all that arises and choose what to do with them. ignore them or act on them. we don't have the choice as to what arises, but we do have the choice whether to act on what or arises or not. and if you don't think there is anywhere for the conversation to go, simply leave the conversation.

 

all right, change influences to options. but we have the choice whether to act on them or not

- - - Updated - - -

no, they fail to deal with it because they choose not to deal with it.

 

But you can't consciously analyze billions of individual variables interacting with each other. How do we get from the subconscious to the conscious and still maintain free will?

You say you are free to choose between your choices but you did not get to choose your choices.

 

So, autism doesn't exist? People that act like that are just choosing to do so, and their unwilled brain structure has nothing to do with it? Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder isn't real and doesn't affect the brain structure and behavior of millions of people? It's just a coincidence that millions of people with strikingly similar impaired reasoning skills all just happened to have parents that drank during pregnancy?

 

f they have impaired reasoning skills and cannot reason or choose wisely. but although their choice might be unwise it is still a choice.

 

This is not a grammatical correct sentence, so I don't understand what you just said.