Philosphers such as Maimonides and Aquinas tried to argue for Free Will. They said that although God knows what choice you will make, that doesn't change the fact that you make a choice. Hence, there is Free Will.
My problem?
I'll illustrate it with an example:
Let's say you punch someone.
a) If you were in the exact same situation--everything being the same--you'd punch the guy again. b) What that means is a certain combination of events would lead to your punching a guy.
Now let's take a step backwords. Let's say before you punch the guy, you have to go to his house. The previous arguement applies here. You will in identical circumstances go to his house.
That leads to C
c) If all the events and experiences that lead to your punching the guy are recreated, the chain will end with you punching the guy.
Now we can extend this to your childhood, all the way to your birth.
----------------------------------
Imagine a mold. You pour molten iron into it. No matter what, the iron will fill the mold. It doesn't have a choice to do otherwise. Can you blame it for doing so?
The same seems to apply to your life. When you're born, you're poured into the mold. You can't change the circumstances around you, you can't change your enviroment.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is A true? Or is it part of the nature of consciousness that you might not, in fact, always punch the guy even though the circumstances were identical?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, Phanto...that assumes that the universe is deterministic. It's my understanding that quantum physics says that at some level the universe is random. I don't know if that could apply to decisions on the human scale.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If God created you, and God knows the future, then he is controlling you by creating you: there is no freewill.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stopped arguing free will a long time ago. I was always disappointed that the logic paths always reduced the discussion to determinism vs. randomness.
Having the possibility of random events doesn't explain how free will relates to the nature of mind. I don't think the possibility of random events show free will. In fact, a universe of randomness seems as good an argument against free will as determinism is an argument against free will.
My thoughts are that it is far easier to argue in favor of determinism then it is to argue for free agency. There is no model that I know of that is simple enough to accurately show *mind,* but even a 6th grader could make a strong case for determinism.
The simplicity of determinism does not persuade me-- I do think about thinking, I believe in accountability, identity, and agency. If a model does not describe reality, then there is a problem with the model, not reality. Perhaps mind and free will are by their nature not compatible with any model, as all models have strict rules that are counter-agency.
I must edit and quote myself for clarification...
quote: In fact, a universe of randomness seems as good an argument against free will as determinism is an argument against free will.
The essence of free will to me is "awareness" of self and environment and "control" over thoughts and behavior. Random events do not give me more control. Random events just increase the likelihood that some other factor besides my mind is calling the shots. Mind...mind is the root of free will.
posted
Who cares if we have free will or not? Whatever we have simulates it accurately enough that no one can subjectively tell otherwise. So whether those neurochemical processes would take the same path every time or not, if it is not free will, it might as well be.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
