To What Extent Does Free Will Exist?

I am pink therefore I am spam

Originally posted by Great King Rat
RJHinds called himself a redneck moron. This is partly because of the place of birth of Our Lovable Dummy. He had no choice in that, hence part of the decision making process that led O.L.D. to calling himself redneck moron he had no control over.

Place of birth obviously influences our tastes, norms and standards and views of the world.... however, the notion of
"no control over" our free will once emancipated as adults would be difficult to sell to Adel Mohammed El Naggar.

Originally posted by JS357
In your sentence, "It follows that if, for example, the gay person of the OP has to choose under the conditions described therein, he will choose anyway according to the evaluation of his mind alone and thus according to his free will," what is the function of the word "free" that is not served by saying instead, "It follows that if, for example, the gay pers ...[text shortened]... thing as willing that is not free? I think the discussion has left its boots off from the start.

“Free” is the element of chance during the determination of the “will”, therefore it is not the “will” that is “free” but the mind, which has the chance to evaluate specific causal fields in a plexus of hierarchies in relation to SDIC😵

Originally posted by black beetle
“Free” is the element of chance during the determination of the “will”, therefore it is not the “will” that is “free” but the mind, which has the chance to evaluate specific causal fields in a plexus of hierarchies in relation to SDIC😵

'Element of chance" means (to me and I dare say most people) a probabilistic event, and "has the chance" means having an opportunity.

The question, putting it in your terms, is whether the mind, when it has the opportunity to evaluate specific causal fields in a plexus of hierarchies in relation to SDIC, does anything that is free of something that other events in this world are not free of, and if so, what are those other events not free of?

Let us take for example a modern thermostat turning on a furnace when its timer senses that the time has been reached for its set point to be increased to a higher temperature, and its sensor is activated by the temperature of the air in a room being below that set point. How does it not "evaluate specific causal fields in a (simple) plexus of hierarchies in relation to SDIC." Is it only a matter of complexity? Hiddenness? Edit: I understand that this example is not an SDIC system. But are SDIC systems a necessary requirement for a decision or act to be one of "free will"?

I don't know how may ways there are to ask this question, but so far, it is unanswered in this thread.

Originally posted by JS357
'Element of chance" means (to me and I dare say most people) a probabilistic event, and "has the chance" means having an opportunity.

The question, putting it in your terms, is whether the mind, when it has the opportunity to evaluate specific causal fields in a plexus of hierarchies in relation to SDIC, does anything that is free of something that other ...[text shortened]... t know how may ways there are to ask this question, but so far, it is unanswered in this thread.

Edit: “The question, putting it in your terms, is whether the mind, when it has the opportunity to evaluate specific causal fields in a plexus of hierarchies in relation to SDIC, does anything that is free of something that other events in this world are not free of, and if so, what are those other events not free of?”

Freedom of mind requires the randomness of absolute chance to break the deterministic causal chain, and therefore the conscious knowledge that holds us responsible for the choices we make is adequately determined. So, the freedom of mind requires specific events that are neither causally determined by specific preceding events, nor by events that are unpredictable by any agency of the mind. On this ground these random events create alternative probabilities for decision making, and this randomness is what remains free in the free will complex and during the process of our decision making system. In this context, methinks the prerequisite is a randomness requirement that interferes with the deterministic causal field, otherwise our decisions would be grounded absolutely by a specific string of events in the remote past, as is always the case concerning your example about the thermostate.

In addition, this orthogonal randomness of the free will does not reduce our will to pure chance, whilst the adequately determined will of the mind makes specific decisions from a palette of differ probabilities –and therefore there is no uncertainty about the probability of the choice per se
😵

"RHP/Spirituality Forum Reference Section" (Page 2)

Christianity:

1. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

1.2. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten [uniquely born] Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name [person] of the only begotten [uniquely born] Son of God." (John 3:16-18)

1.3. "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved. " (Acts 16:31a)

.26. An alternative address awaits all who reject Christ’s agonizing substitutionary spiritual death on their behalf: the Lake of Fire, sharing the final destination of the devil and his angels. It's an endless nightmare of suffering and pain; a place of eternal torment and hopelessness: "And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." (Revelation 20:10b) "And if anyone's name was not found written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the Lake of Fire." (Revelation 20:15)

1.27. Christ took our place and accepted the punishment of separation from God the Father during those final three hours of the crucifixion. His finished work atoned for the sins of all mankind; and in doing so propitiated (satisfied) the Righteousness and Justice of God. All who reject God's Grace Gift are without hope and without eternal life. “God demonstrates His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died as a substitute for us.” (Revelation 20:10b)

1.28. God respects our volition. He has given us the freedom to make our own uncoerced individual choice with respect to the person and finished work of Jesus Christ. By a simple act of faith we can have eternal life: “He gave His only begotten [uniquely born] Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3: 16b)

1.29. It’s a private decision. No one else can make it for us nor has the right to force us to make any decision in this matter. In the privacy of your own soul, you too can simply tell God the Father you are believing in Jesus Christ. In that moment, your eternal future will be assured. You will have eternal life; you will share an eternal relationship with God and live with Him forever in heaven. Faith alone in Christ alone is salvation! Choice is yours.
____________________________________________

Note: Volition is the decision maker of the soul. Positive Volition: "Yes" I believe in Jesus Christ; Negative Volition: "No",
I don't believe in Jesus Christ: decisions made privately in a moment of time. One of the other two men executed on either side of Christ, by means of crucifixion at Golgotha, said 'yes' while one said 'no' shortly before their physical death. Despite the extreme circumstance and environment, neither decision was coerced. Free Will was exercised with consequences.

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “The question, putting it in your terms, is whether the mind, when it has the opportunity to evaluate specific causal fields in a plexus of hierarchies in relation to SDIC, does anything that is free of something that other events in this world are not free of, and if so, what are those other events not free of?”

Freedom of mind requires the ra ...[text shortened]... babilities –and therefore there is no uncertainty about the probability of the choice per se
😵

Thanks for this reply. From my reading, if determinism holds, an SDIC system or an event in an SDIC system is deterministic. It is just that a possibly imperceptible variances in the initial conditions can result in wildly different outcomes.

So to move from there to randomness as a necessary condition for free will is somewhat jarring. However, supposing I accept that randomness is a necessary condition for free will, it seems to say that an uncaused event in the causal chain is required and somehow this uncaused event is ours to bring about.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]"RHP/Spirituality Forum Reference Section" (Page 2)

Christianity:

1. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

1.2. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten [uniquely born] Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son in ...[text shortened]... and environment, neither decision was coerced. Free Will was exercised with consequences.[/b]

So to boil it down an act is freely willed if it is not coerced. Is that right?

Originally posted by JS357
Thanks for this reply. From my reading, if determinism holds, an SDIC system or an event in an SDIC system is deterministic. It is just that a possibly imperceptible variances in the initial conditions can result in wildly different outcomes.

So to move from there to randomness as a necessary condition for free will is somewhat jarring. However, supposing I ...[text shortened]... i] event in the causal chain is required and somehow this uncaused event is ours to bring about.

Due to the fact that all kinds of uncaused events would be random and uncontrolled, these events are not choices made by specific agents but choices influenced by the reasons that caused them. This kind of choices is fully free because none of them is deterministically caused.
But, in the context of the free will the way I understand it, the free choices that indicate perfectly the autonomy of the mind are the ones that are preceded by efforts of will within the process of deliberation –cases where one's will is conflicted due to different prerequisites determined by one’s desire, duty, long-term/ short term self interest etc, in other words in conditions where one has to evaluate and prioritize one's own values. Methinks the possible outcomes therein are simultaneously undetermined and indeterminate. This indeterminacy describes accurately the randomness I mentioned earlier, and it is essential in the context of the free will
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Due to the fact that all kinds of uncaused events would be random and uncontrolled, these events are not choices made by specific agents but choices influenced by the reasons that caused them. This kind of choices is fully free because none of them is deterministically caused.
But, in the context of the free will the way I understand it, the free choic ...[text shortened]... tely the randomness I mentioned earlier, and it is essential in the context of the free will
😵

I'm going to be repetitive if I try to respond. I think my resistance may be influenced by the fact that usually, free will and the assignment of personal responsibility are so intimately linked, such that if there is no free will, there is no personal responsibility. If we grant that if there is no free will, there is no personal responsibility, then I don't see how random uncontrolled events can be what distinguishes an action as a free will act that thereby confers personal responsibility on an agent.

Edit. IOW, it does not answer the question "What makes free will free?" in a satisfactory way IMO."

Originally posted by JS357
So to boil it down an act is freely willed if it is not coerced. Is that right?

Yes, since free will and coerced will represent an antithetical polarity: yes or no, on or off, win or lose, live or die.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Yes, since free will and coerced will represent an antithetical polarity: yes or no, on or off, win or lose, live or die.

Perhaps some examples of coercive situations would help. Does the Bible have any?

Originally posted by JS357
Perhaps some examples of coercive situations would help. Does the Bible have any?

Originally posted by JS357
Perhaps some examples of coercive situations would help. Does the Bible have any?

Peer Pressure (do or not do this or that or you won't be in our club; or we'll ignore you); Sexual Coercion (boss demanding sexual favors from an employee; or a teacher from a student; or incestuous activity within the privacy of a family's home); Political/Economic Sanctions by one or more country on another to facilitate compliance with an agreement or international law); Threats of Military Action toward recalcitrant segments within a country or between countries over territorial claims....

Originally posted by JS357
I'm going to be repetitive if I try to respond. I think my resistance may be influenced by the fact that usually, free will and the assignment of personal responsibility are so intimately linked, such that if there is no free will, there is no personal responsibility. If we grant that if there is no free will, there is no personal responsibility, then I don't ...[text shortened]... t. IOW, it does not answer the question "What makes free will free?" in a satisfactory way IMO."

I have no other way to explain that the decision making system does not stand above the free will of the decision maker
😵