Do humans actually have free will?

[Didymos Thomas]

There are two possibilities in this argument. Either we have free will and are able to do what ever we wish, or we do not have free will and there is some being governing our actions for us that does posess free will.

Actually, "free will" not only seems incompatible with determinism, that every event has a cause, but "free will" is also imcompatible with indeterminism, that events have no cause.

But, what is the need for all of this talk about free will, anyway? Even if we accept that humans have a will, then we must still ask ourselves if we humans can freely apply our will. Imagine if we had a free will, but no control over that will; a will that could do and not do as it pleased, without the oversight of reason.

[Fido]

I vote for neither.

Listen, as long as we look at will as individual, and a quality and characteristic of the individual then we mist the point of it completely. We start saying defining it as this or that without good cause. If will is life, and all life for example then it is possible for it to be both free in some respects and determined. If I am trying to survive, and I run across some microbe that is trying to survive then each of us will determine the next move of the other. It is the same with human life. We each may be free and alive, but our perceptions, illusion, prejudices, and desires will in each case determine our behavior and the reactions of the other. Our lives, our bits of will are both free and determined by will.
And
If I can give you an example: If some old fossil news man asks a politician- we can't let Iran have nuclear weapons, can we? Does anyone believe the answer is not determined by the nature of the question, and by the way it was phrased? When people are locked into behavior by their prejudices their lives are on autopilot. They have denied what should be essential to any freedom, and certainly to any free government which is a variety of options. No options mean no choice which means no freedom. I do not believe good government can exist by making choices or deciding between choices. Freedom requires that government reserve itself to finding choices or creating choices for the people to make. Life is not a chess board where kings can be forced into a corner, but people can be led to their destruction by being made to perceive a corner where there is none.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Actually, "free will" not only seems incompatible with determinism, that every event has a cause, but "free will" is also imcompatible with indeterminism, that events have no cause.

But, what is the need for all of this talk about free will, anyway? Even if we accept that humans have a will, then we must still ask ourselves if we humans can freely apply our will. Imagine if we had a free will, but no control over that will; a will that could do and not do as it pleased, without the oversight of reason.

Actually, "free will" not only seems incompatible with determinism, that every event has a cause, but "free will" is also imcompatible with indeterminism, that events have no cause.


It that is true, then free will implies that determinism is false, and free will implies that indeterminism is false. But since determinism and indeterminism are contradictories, that implies that free will implies a contradiction, and that implies that the idea of free will is, itself, contradictory. But no one believes that. So either free will is compatible with determinism, or it is compatible with indeterminism. And, since it seems to be incompatible with indeterminism (since free will implies responsibility) it must be compatible with determinism.

Let me just mention something John Locke wrote: "It is not the will that is free, but persons".

[boagie]

Is not the key to free will that of consciousness itself, and free will seems to mean the choice to act on what is conscious. In fact consciousness provides you might say a variety of choices as to how one reacts, but no real choice about reaction itself, for even a considered choice of reaction is reaction, a conscious inaction is also a reaction, thus no free will in the face of the necessity of reaction.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Actually, "free will" not only seems incompatible with determinism, that every event has a cause, but "free will" is also imcompatible with indeterminism, that events have no cause.


It that is true, then free will implies that determinism is false, and free will implies that indeterminism is false. But since determinism and indeterminism are contradictories, that implies that free will implies a contradiction, and that implies that the idea of free will is, itself, contradictory. But no one believes that. So either free will is compatible with determinism, or it is compatible with indeterminism. And, since it seems to be incompatible with indeterminism (since free will implies responsibility) it must be compatible with determinism.

Let me just mention something John Locke wrote: "It is not the will that is free, but persons".

I can agree with Locke that persons are free, and agree it is will that makes them so, but also will in the form of another person that makes slaves. Even though all have will, and all life has will, this does not mean that will will not be expressed personally and antagonistically to all other will. We have met the enemy and it is us, and we are not pulling ourselves up with our bootstraps but pulling ourselves down with our hats.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by boagie

Is not the key to free will that of consciousness itself, and free will seems to mean the choice to act on what is conscious. In fact consciousness provides you might say a variety of choices as to how one reacts, but no real choice about reaction itself, for even a considered choice of reaction is reaction, a conscious inaction is also a reaction, thus no free will in the face of the necessity of reaction.

The meaning of the phrase: revenge is a dish best served cold is this in fact. No man who considers himself a man is free who is not self controled. Children react, but the old consider how best to react, and do not act in haste or hot blood. In fact, no man is free except by choice, and no man is a slave except by choice, and yet the hardest part of freedom to accept is the knowledge that freedom is shared, and defended in common, so freedom equates to equality, and this is why so many of the intelligent choose to be masters rather than free men when being a master is only another form of slavery. Will is just a force. It is mind that must turn it to a purpose.

[boagie]

A helpful link perhaps


FT.com / Arts & Weekend - I think therefore I am, I think

[Didymos Thomas]

Let me just mention something John Locke wrote: "It is not the will that is free, but persons".

The very inspiration of the second part of my post.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

The very inspiration of the second part of my post.

Freedom is not something to somebody until it is everything to everybody.

America is not a bastion of freedom, but a bank of insecurities.

fido

[ogden]

If life is free will then all living things poses it. Im sure a silverback gorilla does what he wants.

Obviously humans have superior cognition in determining the results of our choices but that doesnt mean other life doesnt have free will also.

so then is choice free will? choice abounds in nature, but you would'nt think of earth worms as having free will.

Every living thing choses within the confines of available choices and within the confines of its nature!

It seams as though we have free will, due to the miriad of choices, but I have serious doubts about human kind as a spiecies breaking free from the patterns of our history, our natural patterns. If we could somehow rise above our human nature and consiously shift our paradigme, like controll population or iradicate war, then I think we have free will, otherwise I think we would have to evolve and emerge with a whole new nature.