Theists, a question:

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
not when you are making random decisions based on instinct or impulse. or when you do have informations on a subject yet you choose to act in a contradicting manner

Do we ever make TRULY random decisions based on instinct or impulse? Can you give me an example, please?

If we act in a contradicting manner, it's because we understand the consequences and have made a decision using that information, thereby logical.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Environment doesn't contribute to the constraining of free will. It gives information. And we base our free will on that information.

If the environment gives me information, then that information can broaden or narrow my
choices. That is, the environment informs and directly impacts my choices. This is what I mean
by constraint.

I am free to put my hand on a hot stove, but my mind (knowing I will be hurt) informs my choice
such that I am compelled not choose it. Compare this with phobias: a person is free to pet a
snake or spider or mouse but, because of their fear, they feel compelled not to choose it.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
not when you are making random decisions based on instinct or impulse. or when you do have informations on a subject yet you choose to act in a contradicting manner

All decisions have some sort of predicate. They all are based on something. A fast, instinctual
choice is predicated on our sense of danger or fear combined with the knowledge of the situation
that comes to us through training (like say, people in the Navy Seals, who have honed their
instincts towards certain ends). Our slow, well-considered choices are similarly predicated on
something.

In all cases, our choices have predicates that come from our minds which are a product of our
experiences and natures.

Zahlanzi, take this example. You responded to my post. In it you asked me not to treat you like
a child. Presumably you chose to say that, and the reason you chose to say that was based on
how my post made you feel, past experiences, what you feel about me and so forth. You made
a decision predicated on everything that was happening at that particular moment in time.

If you go back in time and make things exactly as they were with no foreknowledge of
events/posts to come, would you have made the same decision? If you go back in time 400
times, given the exact same conditions -- your state of mind, your mood, how you read my
post, &c, would you have made the same decision?

If you answer yes, then you might begin to see how our experiences constrain our decisions. That
doesn't make them any less 'yours' or 'decision,' but they are not utterly 'free.' If you answer
no,
then you have to account for why there might be a difference.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
If the environment gives me information, then that information can broaden or narrow my
choices. That is, the environment informs and directly impacts my choices. This is what I mean
by constraint.

I am free to put my hand on a hot stove, but my mind (knowing I will be hurt) informs my choice
such that I am compelled not choose it. Compare th ...[text shortened]... or spider or mouse but, because of their fear, they feel compelled not to choose it.

Nemesio

Yet, they still CAN if they choose to. right?

Originally posted by brobluto
Yet, they still CAN if they choose to. right?

I think the point is that although they can if they choose to, they cannot actually choose to, in that particular situation.

This is essentially the argument, which I agree with, that free will is an illusion.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by brobluto
Yet, they still CAN if they choose to. right?

They are 'choosing' according to their predicates. Under identical circumstances (i.e., identical
knowledge, states of mind, mood, considerations, interests, desires and so on), their choice
would be exactly the same. If one is maintaining that the choice is absolutely free of any
relationship to predicates, then one is essentially saying that choices are random, which means
it's not free at all.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Penguin
I think the point is that although they can if they choose to, they cannot actually choose to, in that particular situation.

This is essentially the argument, which I agree with, that free will is an illusion.

--- Penguin.

I don't think free will can be thought of as an illusion - under any definition.

My own understanding of free will separates the internal from the external.
If a given external situation is put before me with a choice to be made my choice will include internal characteristics of myself and some randomness (from my internal random-number generator). If the situation is repeated, then only the effects of the random number will change my decision. However if a different agent is placed in my position, it may make a different decision within the constraints of the environment.
I say I have free will if the environment is not the constraining factor.

I find that many people have issues with the 'agent' part of the above. For example in my discussions with knightmeister, he kept changing his stance as to what the agent was and as far as I know never actually isolated it.

Originally posted by Nemesio
If one is maintaining that the choice is absolutely free of any relationship to predicates, then one is essentially saying that choices are random, which means it's not free at all.

Nemesio

I cant see how that follows. As long as the randomness is generated internal to the agent, the choice is still free.

Originally posted by Nemesio
They are 'choosing' according to their predicates. Under identical circumstances (i.e., identical
knowledge, states of mind, mood, considerations, interests, desires and so on), their choice
would be exactly the same. If one is maintaining that the choice is absolutely free of any
relationship to predicates, then one is essentially saying that choices are random, which means
it's not free at all.

Nemesio

i am not saying all choices are random, i am saying that only some are and some are in contradiction with what the information given. if it is raining outside i should act on the information and get an umbrella. But! i choose not to take an umbrella and go outside. Why did i do that? It could have been random(fuk it i am not going to take an umbrella and i am not giving reasons) or maybe i made the gamble that maybe it is going to stop or not be that strong. the information that is raining outside doesn't force me to do anything. it is just information. Even if i were the wicked witch of the west and melt in the rain, i could simply choose not to go outside even though i have an umbrella and i need to go outside.

on enviroment: people raised in nice families are still able to steal. people violate the teachings of their parents all the time. how is it possible if the environment should have restricted their choices?

Originally posted by Nemesio
All decisions have some sort of predicate. They all are based on something. A fast, instinctual
choice is predicated on our sense of danger or fear combined with the knowledge of the situation
that comes to us through training (like say, people in the Navy Seals, who have honed their
instincts towards certain ends). Our slow, well-considered choices a ...[text shortened]... you answer
no,
then you have to account for why there might be a difference.

Nemesio

oh but i don't answer yes. our experiences and our outside information(let's just call them all informations) don't give an exact answer.

that is, given a set of circumstances, one doesn't compute a single choice but a set of choices and by our free will we move the pointer in that interval. are you saying that there is only one possible timeline? or that which each second we split ourselves in infinite versions of ourselves?

i told you not to treat me like a child. but at one time i wanted to call you a jerk. and i considered letting it slide, ignoring it completeley. maybe if i go back in time the urge to let it slide will be more powerful

Originally posted by Nemesio
They are 'choosing' according to their predicates. Under identical circumstances (i.e., identical
knowledge, states of mind, mood, considerations, interests, desires and so on), their choice
would be exactly the same. If one is maintaining that the choice is absolutely free of any
relationship to predicates, then one is essentially saying that choices are random, which means
it's not free at all.

Nemesio

you are claiming that our decisions are entirely deterministic in nature. which is incorrect. man is capable of completely random choices, and capable of stupid choices(ones that contradict the information given.)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
on enviroment: people raised in nice families are still able to steal. people violate the teachings of their parents all the time. how is it possible if the environment should have restricted their choices?

A nice family is not necessarily an environment that discourages stealing. The teachings of your parents does not constitute a constraining environment either.
But that does not prove that your choices are not constrained by your environment.
I personally think that a our choices are based on the current state of our brain which is a product of both our environment and random factors. But I do not see why one could call the environmental factors that helped to mold your brain 'constraining' and the random factors 'free'. I would however apply those terms to information coming from the environment when a choice is being made.
If you are terrified of water - the information that it is raining may force you to not go outside without an umbrella - it is not a free choice. How or why you became terrified of water is not important, neither is whether or not another person who is not afraid of water would go out in the rain umbrellaless.

Originally posted by David C
Suspend your belief in God...just for a moment. What difference would it make?

I don't necessarily mean to you personally (although, feel free to answer along those lines if you are so inclined), but I mean in the everyday observation of the reality that surrounds us. Would 2+2 still = 4?

its a bit like if you asked your four old to imagine for a moment that Santa didnt exist, you'd burst his bubble 😉

Originally posted by twhitehead
A nice family is not necessarily an environment that discourages stealing. The teachings of your parents does not constitute a constraining environment either.
But that does not prove that your choices are not constrained by your environment.
I personally think that a our choices are based on the current state of our brain which is a product of both ou ther or not another person who is not afraid of water would go out in the rain umbrellaless.

are you saying that if i am terrified of water i am unable to go outside without an umbrella? or that people afraid of heights are unable to make a decision to stand on top of a skyscrapper? when your brain screams "take us down to earth level" and yet you decide to go against your brain and stay up there, doesn't that constitute free will?

Originally posted by twhitehead
A nice family is not necessarily an environment that discourages stealing. The teachings of your parents does not constitute a constraining environment either.
But that does not prove that your choices are not constrained by your environment.
I personally think that a our choices are based on the current state of our brain which is a product of both ou ...[text shortened]... ther or not another person who is not afraid of water would go out in the rain umbrellaless.

It is a free choice, you are just compelled to not do it. But, you can still do it if you want. You make that choice just as you do any choice. You may think that you have no choice, it's just that the other options are not as appealing to you. That' doesn't make the choice non-existent.