Theists, a question:

Originally posted by brobluto
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.

If 1 million out of 1 million times you were tested you chose the same option, is the other option really existent?

Originally posted by twhitehead
If 1 million out of 1 million times you were tested you chose the same option, is the other option really existent?

Yes. You have just chosen to ignore it a million times...

Even if it is NEVER chosen, the choice still exists.

BTW, each time you are tested things are NEVER exactly the same as the time(s) before. Chaos Theory. The smallest change in predications yield dramatically different results.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
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.)

If man is capable of 'random' choices (with no predicate) then man is not in control of those
choices. If there is no impetus for making the choice, then it comes into being unbidden with
no relationship to what's going on. It doesn't come from a person's brain, it doesn't come from
his soul, it doesn't come from anywhere.

That's what 'random' means: no derivable predicate. Is this what you're saying?

There's no doubt that man is capable of stupid choices, but that's just because he relies on a
poorly conceived predicate. My wife asked me if she looked fat in a dress and, stupidly, I
said it was not the most flattering dress for her body type. Just because this contradicts the
information given (that responding in that fashion means she will be hurt and upset and angry,
and I desire that she feels nourished, happy, and content) doesn't mean that there was no
predicate.

Nemesio

Originally posted by brobluto
BTW, each time you are tested things are NEVER exactly the same as the time(s) before. Chaos Theory. The smallest change in predications yield dramatically different results.

Yes, even small changes in initial conditions can yield dramatically different results. But that
wasn't the hypothetical scenario. What was stated was given identical states of mind, beliefs,
interests, sensations, and so forth, would the same choice be made? That is, given the
exact same predicate, would the choice vary?

If no, then you agree with me. If yes, you have to account for that?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I wonder what happened...

Actually, I don't. In fact, by Biblical standards, I prophesied it.

Nemesio

Yup. I'm a prophet.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Yes, even small changes in initial conditions can yield dramatically different results. But that
wasn't the hypothetical scenario. What was stated was given identical states of mind, beliefs,
interests, sensations, and so forth, would the same choice be made? That is, given the
[b]exact same predicate, would the choice vary?

If no, then you agree with me. If yes, you have to account for that?

Nemesio[/b]

Obviously, if it's the EXACT same predicate the same decision would be made because the logic would be EXACTLY the same. But, that STILL does not mean that another choice does not exist. We still choose to not make it.

If I win the lottery and I choose to take the lump sum instead of the annuity, because I'll invest it better than they would, doesn't mean the choice of the annuity isn't there.

Originally posted by brobluto
Obviously, if it's the EXACT same predicate the same decision would be made because the logic would be EXACTLY the same. But, that STILL does not mean that another choice does not exist. We still choose to not make it.

If the choice exists but, because of our predicate conditions, we won't choose it no matter what,
is it still a choice?

Well, sorta. I think that because the decision arises out of the self (that the self is the predicate:
the motivations, desires, interests, mood, &c) this constitutes a constrained sort of free will, or
compatibilist free will, which is determined by the 'self,' which itself has non-self predicates
(such as environment, history, social pressures, &c).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
If the choice exists but, because of our predicate conditions, we won't choose it no matter what,
is it still a choice?

Well, sorta. I think that because the decision arises out of the self (that the self is the predicate:
the motivations, desires, interests, mood, &c this constitutes a constrained sort of free will, or
compatibilist free will, which ...[text shortened]... elf has non-self predicates
(such as environment, history, social pressures, &c).

Nemesio

I agree. It's a convoluded web of information that influences us to choose one choice over the other. I think the question is, does that information, already "pre-determine" your choice? and if so, then free will does not exist.

If this is the case, then there is no such thing as choice either, nevermind free will to choose, since all actions are reactions of previous events.

If it is not the case, if the information is there for us to interpret on our own, then yes, it is free will and choices do exist.

Originally posted by brobluto
I agree. It's a convoluded web of information that influences us to choose one choice over the other. I think the question is, does that information, already "pre-determine" your choice? and if so, then free will does not exist.

If this is the case, then there is no such thing as choice either, nevermind free will to choose, since all actions are reacti ...[text shortened]... tion is there for us to interpret on our own, then yes, it is free will and choices do exist.

But you must realize I hope that you are only talking about your own definition of free will - which as far as I can tell is that random inputs are part of a choice.
There are however a large number of definitions for 'free will' and it appears that most people have not really thought about it very hard.
A choice is either determined or has random inputs. Some people don't like either of those possibilities and try to avoid them both. For example some theists seem to try to play the 'hide the problem' game by making the 'soul' the source of the choice but not explaining how the soul makes the choice.

My definition of free will is when the replacing what constitutes 'me' can result in a different choice. Whether I make my choices via determinism or randomness or 'Godly input' is irrelevant.
I like to think that my important choices are largely deterministic because the alternative is that they are random.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you must realize I hope that you are only talking about your own definition of free will - which as far as I can tell is that random inputs are part of a choice.
There are however a large number of definitions for 'free will' and it appears that most people have not really thought about it very hard.
A choice is either determined or has random input ...[text shortened]... nt choices are largely deterministic because the alternative is that they are random.

Determinism is not a theory one can live by, but once accepted as the truth, can engender tolerence and short and longer term acceptance of whatever turns out.

Just enjoy the ride!