Free will?

[simonmobiledisco]

Really?

Free will is the ability to choose between different options. It doesn't matter whether you are influenced by external events, just that you have free will to choose any option. If you didn't have free will then past events would have no bearing on your choice because you weren't free to choose in the first place.

Example: I have a choice with two options (A and B). Say someone influenced me to choose A and I do end up going with A. That doesn't mean I don't have free will, I may still have been able to choose B.

I don't see how this is confusing so it's hard to explain it.

IMO thats free choice not freewill. Yes you had the options to take it, but based on previous experience, current external factor and natural physiology. You choice that option. What happened before made that option happen.

[Rob T]

Free will is the ability to make choices which are not pre-determined. See Determinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

This is the usual meaning of free will and I really don't see why people are having difficulty over this point.

[Rob T]

What do you mean when you say “physical structure and forces of the universe?” ?

I am not really sure how to clear that up at all...

Physical structure of the universe - what the universe is made of (it's constituent particles etc).
Forces of the universe - the forces which control how the universe behaves (gravity, weak electro etc...).

[piratebrido]

Free will is the ability to make choices which are not pre-determined. See Determinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

This is the usual meaning of free will and I really don't see why people are having difficulty over this point.

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from contraints.

That is what people have been talking about. I have been saying no because there are some constraints that you can't be free from.

[Rob T]

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from contraints.

This is quote mining and is intellectually dishonest. The full wiki intro says;

Free will is the purported ability of agents to make choices free from constraints. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism. The opposing positions within that debate are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus that free will exists; and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus that free will does not exist.

The bit in bold is the important part you decided to ignore.

[piratebrido]

I am not really sure how to clear that up at all...

Physical structure of the universe - what the universe is made of (it's constituent particles etc).
Forces of the universe - the forces which control how the universe behaves (gravity, weak electro etc...).

So the question is:

Do you believe you have full control over your actions or are they determined by nothing more than what the universe is made of (it's constituent particles etc) and the forces which control how the universe behaves (gravity, weak electro etc...)?

Well since none of us can escape the forces of gravity or weak electomagnetic force, nor be made up from anything else than the particles in the universe, then no, we don't have full control over our actions. Not even Dr Manhattan from the watchman can boast this.

[Rob T]

So the question is:

Do you believe you have full control over your actions or are they determined by nothing more than what the universe is made of (it's constituent particles etc) and the forces which control how the universe behaves (gravity, weak electro etc...)?

No, that is not the question at all.

EDIT: or, in fact, it could be but it depends on how pedantic you want to be over definitions of words.

[mcgovern]

[Rob T]

I believe in Free Willy.

[piratebrido]

This is quote mining and is intellectually dishonest. The full wiki intro says;

I linked to the entire article so everyone can read. I'm not trying to hide anything.

The bit in bold is the important part you decided to ignore.

I didn't ignore anything. The next part is also important, which I bold here.

Both of these positions, which agree that causal determination is the relevant factor in the question of free will, are classed as incompatibilists. Those who deny that determinism is relevant are classified as compatibilists, and offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias).

We have been talking about what constraints are relevant.

We have been talking and trying to find a common ground so we understand where we are coming from. You seem to be taking a defensive position, and when you have been asked to elaborate you have been acting like you can’t understand how we can be so stupid and not know what you are asking. Now you are accusing me of intellectual dishonesty. Why? Now that you have linked to an article we know what you are talking about.

Why are you being so defensive and tetchy? No one has accused you of anything.