Gay Rights

[Lt. Staplic]

really, so the my personality which has been developed by my parents, and by the choices i've made in the past has no bearing on my choice if i truely have free will?
That would mean that we both would make the exact same choice in a decision.

But we don't our personalities, who we are, has a say. For example given the choice to help an old woman cross the street, someone like Ghandi, would help her. Sadam Husain/Osama Bin Ladan probably wouldn't, especially if she was american.
Your personality does have a say, that doesn't mean Sadam or Osama could help the old lady, hence free will, but their actions are predictable.

[Graham Kennedy]

I am not saying that your personality does or does not decide what you do, or have a bearing on what you do. I am saying that if you assume that your personality allows somebody to predict with perfect accuracy what you will do, then that means you do not in fact have free will. The very definition of free will is that you can choose one thing or the other.

What I would say is that your personality biases you towards some choices or away from others, but that you do retain the ability to choose. And so whilst one can predict actions to some extent, it's never perfect. And that means that god cannot say what you will do, only what you are likely to do, so it disallows omnipotence.

Free will or omnipotence; any way you cut it, it's one or the other.

[Sionnach Glic]

Didn't we already have one of these "is there free will" debates that went on for a couple dozen pages and boiled down to "whatever"?

[Tsukiyumi]

Didn't we already have one of these "is there free will" debates that went on for a couple dozen pages and boiled down to "whatever"?

That, or "meh". I don't recall.

Either way, Graham's right. Even free will within our society is limited and predictable. God might be a really good trend analyst, and see possible outcomes, but it can't possibly be omniscient, if free will is assumed to exist. They really are mutually exclusive.

[Lt. Staplic]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

In my view, for every choice you make you can choose any option, however you obviously only choose one. You have your reasons for choosing that one, your logic, emotions, personality, who you are influenced you to that choice. So if you know your reason, isn't it feasable that someone who knows you as well if not better would also know that reason, and if so be able to know which choice you would make?

Or you could view God as something like the Q Continum, they exist ouside of time, and hence exist in our past preseant, and futre simultaniously, this would give another perspective and let God know what the outcome of the choice is as you make it.

Or, if God is all-knowing, he would know the outcome from every choice you make and every one else makes. If every choice is made (type 3 parallel universe where new universes emerge so that every possable outcome does happen) then God would again know the choice and outcome.

There's three ways we can exist with Free will, and God can still be all-knowing.

[Graham Kennedy]

Free will in general is something I have never really put a lot of thought into, but as a result of that earlier thread I did kinda move "think about free will" up my to do list, because it's increasingly clear to me that it's a very strange and somewhat undefined concept. It seems to me that I, like most everybody else, have been assuming that free will means the ability to choose stuff entirely unrelated to any kind of natural law or random chance. The more I think about it the more I lean to the idea that that form of free will not only does not exist, but is likely a logical absurdity that cannot possibly exist, no matter what assumptions you make. Meaning that I'm coming slowly around to the idea that there's no free will in a naturalistic universe, nor in one with supernatural forces, nor with god, nor with anything else.

Either that... or there's something deeply wrong with that conception of free will, and free will can and does arise out of natural law.

I honestly haven't decided yet, but I'm at the point where I'm starting to look around for any books on free will that might be out there.

[Graham Kennedy]

In my view, for every choice you make you can choose any option, however you obviously only choose one. You have your reasons for choosing that one, your logic, emotions, personality, who you are influenced you to that choice. So if you know your reason, isn't it feasable that someone who knows you as well if not better would also know that reason, and if so be able to know which choice you would make?

It's perfectly feasible. But the point is, if that is so then you do NOT have free will. You are a puppet of your logic, emotions, personality, and who you are.

Or you could view God as something like the Q Continum, they exist ouside of time, and hence exist in our past preseant, and futre simultaniously, this would give another perspective and let God know what the outcome of the choice is as you make it.

Which, again, would mean that you don't have free will.

Or, if God is all-knowing, he would know the outcome from every choice you make and every one else makes. If every choice is made (type 3 parallel universe where new universes emerge so that every possable outcome does happen) then God would again know the choice and outcome.

Which is just a way of saying that you don't make choices at all.

[Mikey]

I've mentioned in the other discussion that Rochey referred to that there is a personality, symbolic of qualitative identity, which predisposes a given individual to react in a certain way to a given stimulus. This personality is of course based on genetic predisposition, past experience, Jungian racial memory, and what have you. It almost makes free will academic; while the individual can react to a certain stimulus in any way, he will react to it in a way dictated by that personality.

[Lt. Staplic]

but free will is defined as that you can choose any option, no outside force is forcing you to do somthing.

[Mikey]

Exactly. What's important is the distinction between can and will. In my model, free will exists easily; however, it becomes somewhat immaterial as the individual will react in a given way, no matter what the available alternatives may be. In fact, the set of reactions paired with the associated stimuli (along with the determinant events of those pairings) is a key componenet of determining qualitative personal identity.

[Tsukiyumi]

Exactly. What's important is the distinction between can and will. In my model, free will exists easily; however, it becomes somewhat immaterial as the individual will react in a given way, no matter what the available alternatives may be. In fact, the set of reactions paired with the associated stimuli (along with the determinant events of those pairings) is a key componenet of determining qualitative personal identity.

Right.

Example: I'm at a bar, with my (hypothetical) girlfriend, and some guy purposely throws his drink in her face, calls her names, etc. I could choose to walk away (and probably get dumped), but the odds are, given my personality, that I'd throw my whiskey in his face, then break his jaw.

[Lt. Staplic]

exactly, but you can walk away (even though you and every other decent guy on the planet won't) and hence you still have free will.

Graham was arguing that you didn't have free will b/c your personaily forces you into that choice.

[Mikey]

We're quickly getting to the point of merely a semantic difference; which, I believe, goes back to my point about the true issue of free will being largely academic.

BTW - I don't believe you, Tsu. I believe you'd drink your whiskey, then break the guy's jaw.

[Mark]

He's got you there dude.

[Tsukiyumi]

Yeah, I don't really have $4 to blow.