"Whether the will is completely free ?????"

[Skankatron Ltd]

Oh, and if any of you have read existentialist writings, you will know that altruism is possible. For example, if you forfeit your identity and define it by something else; a proffession, a person, an idea, etc... Then you make choices for the proffession, person, or idea, not for yourself.
Kierkegaard, back me up here.

 

[Clive]

I posted a similar question here: illusion of freedom, although the post didnt gather much momentum, there were some interesting views and comments.:lookie:

 

[Clive]

So to begin…

If A then (B and C)
If (B and C) then D
Therefore/ If A then D?


Moving on this premise…

If ~ A then (B and ~C) or is it If ~A then (~B and ~C) ?????
If E then (~B and ~C)
If E then ~ D
Therefore / If E then ~ A


A = have free will
B = having unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
C = behavior that is not beneficial to be harmful to myself but that benefits others
D = altruistic
E = mankind
~ Means not

Do I correctly understand your viewpoint?

If E then (~B and ~C)
You have declared that variable E = ~(B ^ C), but you have not justified why. This states that being a member of mankind implies that you are are selfish toward the welfare of others and perform behaviour that is altrusitic. Doesn't this cause some form of paradox? Does this apply for some of E or all of E? Maybe I am just drunk and stupid. :idunno:

 

[Skankatron Ltd]

"If ~ A then (B and ~C) or is it If ~A then (~B and ~C) ?????
If E then (~B and ~C)
If E then ~ D
Therefore / If E then ~ A"

I'm sorry, but take a logic class. On another note, just because something is a paradox doesn't mean it's false.

 

[Flatlander]

I agree, your proposition:
If E then (~B and ~C) is unjustified.

In order to accept your conclusion:
Therefore / If E then ~ A
as being true, we must accept your unjustified supporting proposition above as being true.

What you have failed to do in your argument is explain why we should accept your proposition If E then (~B and ~C).

By the way, whether or not someone responding to your statement has taken a logic class is irrelevant to the truthfulness of your claim. Logic is a process, not a social club. Apparently, having studied logic is certainly not a prerequisite for claiming knowledge of its principles.

 

[Clive]

“Many Philosophers have argued that we as man (not trying to be sexist) are unable to be altruistic. So if I have free will I would be able to 1 : have unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others or 2 : have behavior that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to myself but that benefits others. If I do not have free will then all my actions are dictated by a benefit that I recieve. The choice is dictated by benefit not by will.
If we can truely be altruistic then I would believe in free will.”

A = have free will
B = having unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
C = behavior that is not beneficial to be harmful to myself but that benefits others
D = altruistic
E = mankind
~ Means not

for all of E, if (B ^ C) then A
else ~A then ~C
D = (~C ^ ~A)
D implies A

I am not sure if this is correct but that is how I would read it.

 

[Skankatron Ltd]

"If we can truely be altruistic then I would believe in free will."
Note 'beleive'. In this very sentence, in fact, choice is implied. The author of this statement implies that he would choose anothe beleif if something happened. I guess you could say that's a cause effect thing, but whatever. I revert back to Kierkegaard. To truly choose things you have to first step outside of what is expected and what cicumstances demand and then choose what you want... I can explain more in depth if people want.

 

[Clive]

The freewill/determinism debate is one that appears a lot in Psychology, there are also a lot of shades of grey in between, how much is a decision based on freewill or the will of others? Take subliminal messaging for example, to the person making the decision it is based on freewill, but it has been determined by someone else. Altruism is another one of these hot potatoes, it seems unlikely that true altruism is possible to attain, the reason I suggest this is that even if there is no direct benefit, the person may do it to feel better about themselves, then the act is no longer altruistic. Two quite interesting topics.

 

[Gray Phoenix]

Free will does not exist. Although I used to think differently. I can choose a path but the direction the path dictates to me where I end up. I can choose to go forward or go back or choose another path, but my will is limited by the number of choices. This just begins to scratch the surface of the questions.

 

[Flatlander]

Free will is itself a somewhat general term. I believe that in order to better understand it in a practical way, we should look at its limitations.

It seems to me as though there is no such concept as absolute freedom. Absolute freedom implies a complete disconnect from controlling influences, as well as the ability to choose and realize any goal.

The difficulty is in the structure. In order for us to choose a goal, there must be a way to realize that goal. This must be done through understanding the mechanisms of cause and effect through which our plans to achieve our goal are actualized. This implies a stability of structure that limits possibilities, but provides us with a level of predictability. The problem is, we are necessarily bound to that structure. Without it, there would be chaos, thereby disallowing us the predictability required to achieve our goal. In being bound to that structure, we are limited in our choices, thus, not completely free.

In understanding this, it is clear that though we may, in fact, have access to a form of free will, there are limits to our choices.

 

[Andrew Green]

freewill is different then freedom.

I can be tied to a chair and have the will to get up and go to the fridge, but not the freedom to do so.

Whether or not our will is free is a tricky question, simply because we have no outside reference point.

But, I think it is safe to say we do not have entirely free will, for example I really want a Chocolate cup cake, I am unable to bend my will to not wanting it.

 

[Clive]

True, but it could be also said that your will is able to ignore that wanting...

 

[donald]

Yes we are creatures with a free will. Just read GOD'S word, and you will see that in Genesis it is recorded very plainly that we have the determination to do as we will.

 

[Flatlander]

freewill is different then freedom.

I can be tied to a chair and have the will to get up and go to the fridge, but not the freedom to do so.

From dictionary.com:

free will

n.

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

How can one choose a direction that is not available as an option? My argument is that the will is free within certain boundaries; that the freedom to choose is limited necessarily by the choices available. You may want to get up and go the fridge, but you cannot; ergo, the choice is not yours to make.

 

[Skankatron Ltd]

"Yes we are creatures with a free will. Just read GOD'S word, and you will see that in Genesis it is recorded very plainly that we have the determination to do as we will."

Firstly, in an intelligent discussion as this you have to use your own discretion and not follow the words of a book.

Secondly, you can choose something even if you are not free to do so. For instance, if you are tied to a chair, you may choose to not be in the chair, even though you can't necessarily get up. That goes into action, we're just concerned with choice. Two different things.

In regards to the chocolate shake, you can choose not to want it and still want it at the same time (carnally speaking). In THIS case though, you have to beleive that you are not in fact what you are presented as (what clothes you wear, how much you want a chocolate shake, the languages you speak) but how you are related to those things, that is how you CHOOSE them. This is a rather strange concept since it would imply that YOU in fact do not want a milk shake and then you have to ask: who wants it then?

Also look at it this way, even when you are proppelled forward by society or whatnot, you're choosing to do so. If you are standing at the edge of a cliff, you have the choice to jump off or not. If you are then pushed after choosing not to? So be it, your choice was still not to jump and thus your freedom of will is not impinged upon, only your ability to act.

How am i doing, making any sense?

 

[Flatlander]

I'd say, yes, you are.

we're just concerned with choice. Two different things.

I don't know, here. What is the relevance of willing a choice that cannot be executed?

I'd agree that if one wills something to happen, and for whatever reason is unable to manifest that will, that there was a will that existed; but I'd say at that point the will wasn't free. Will to me implies action.

So be it, your choice was still not to jump and thus your freedom of will is not impinged upon, only your ability to act.

So the question then is, what bars one's ability to act?

 

[Andrew Green]

From dictionary.com:

First rule of philosophy - Dictionaries are a bad place to go

You may want to get up and go the fridge, but you cannot; ergo, the choice is not yours to make.

sure it is, the ability to act on it isn't.

Many kids want to be astronauts, firefighters, dancers, etc. Few actually will, but that doesn't mean they weren't free to choose that as what they want.

I don't know, here. What is the relevance of willing a choice that cannot be executed?

A big one. We know that a persons freedom can be taken away, but whether there free will can be (assuming they have it) is another question.

 

[Tgace]

Im fated to post the following obscene material. I cannot control my actions, so Bob you cant ban me....

Ooops...guess I was wrong.

 

[Andrew Green]

Im fated to post the following obscene material. I cannot control my actions, so Bob you cant ban me....

Under that logic he'd be fated to ban you

 

[Tgace]

Under that logic he'd be fated to ban you

True, true...