Free will

I don't think the cause is the issue, Kinnison. If you're standing at a fork in the road, and God knows that you will go right, is there any chance at all of you going left?

Free will is defined as "a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." Using this definition, there are two requirements for free will: that you be a rational agent and that you be able to choose a course of action.

I don't know about you, but I believe I am a rational agent. If you prefer to be an irrational agent, that's up to you.

That leaves us with the question of are we able to choose a course of action. In this case, the causal question is extremely important. If God causes us to choose something, we are not free to choose for ourselves. However, if he only knows how we will choose and allows us to choose for ourselves, we do have free will.

Let me illustrate. Last week we had a small family birthday party for my cousin. For dessert, we had both a chocolate cake and an apple pie. I was asked to choose which I would prefer to have. Anyone who knows me knows that I am a chocoholic and that I would choose the chocolate cake (and, in fact, my mother had already cut a piece of it for me, without my knowing). Does their knowing that I would choose the chocolate cake mean that I had no choice? Not at all. I freely chose chocolate cake. (I admit that I later came back for some pie, but that was a separate choice.)

You guys aren't getting my point about environment and genes, methinks.

Genetics and environment can influence our choices, but they do not determine them. Look at identical twins. they are genetically identical, yet they have different fingerprints and (often) develop radically different personalities, even when raised within the same environment. Talents and abilities are not entirely genetic, nor environmental. I know one set of identical twins where one can sing beautifully while the other is tone deaf. That's something you would think is very much genetic, wouldn't you?

Darth G, that's sort of what I was trying to say myself, if there was "a god." Because if there is a god then supposedly with his infiniate magic he "gave" us free will, but in my opinion it would still be an illusion since everything is already set since God knows what we will do in the situation we are in, what's the whole point? How can we be said to have free will? Kimball, your analogies aren't really relevent, this isn't Minority Report, free will is far more difficult to break down. If god MADE us to be a certain way, we are going to act that way, and as such, our entire lives are predestined.

Again, you are assuming foreknowledge implies causality. That is a false assumption (as my example show). Just because God is omniscient doesn't mean that he forces you through his knowledge to do something. Just because he is all-powerful and can force you into doing his will doesn't mean that he does. I can go buy a gun and start shooting people. That doesn't mean that I do it. Ability does not imply action, only potential.

How is this Free Will again?? If your God--who governs your idealogies, and thus, your actions--knows what you will do, and you trust in this, how can anything you do be considered NOT pre-ordained???

How does governing idealogies mean that you are governing actions as well? That is again implying a causal relationship where one does not exist.

How could I choose the chocolate cake? How can a circuit provide its results? I had no idea that my mother had already cut the cake for me, but I chose the cake on my own. My circuit doesn't care what my truth table says, or if I even have a truth table to begin with. It just performs the operations it was designed to idependent of my knowledge of it.

That is really the key. Are we independent (and unaware) of God's specific knowledge of our ac

 

Free will: The ability to concieve and rationalize alternative course(s) of action.

Free action: The ability to perform (an)alternative course(s) of action.

Freedom: Free will and Free action.

It was my freewill and free action to respond to this thread. Nothing made/required me to do it.

 

If your belief that your thoughts are the product of only genetics and the environment is true, then ALL BELIEFS are invalid, including your belief.

That's not true. A belief can be the product of genes + environment without necessarily being invalid.

I don't believe in free will per se. We can only choose from a finite number of options available to us at any juncture, and what we will choose is determined by who we are, which is the product of our genes and our environment.

 

dizfactor, you so get it. It's an illusion people hang on to.

 

We can only choose from a finite number of options available to us at any juncture, and what we will choose is determined by who we are, which is the product of our genes and our environment.

PPOR. We are not just a product of our genes and environment. Again, look at identical twins. They are genetically the same, yet even as babies (before environment really has an opportunity to affect them) they often show radically different personalities.

Go back and look at the definition I provided for free will. It comes directly from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and says:

"Free Will" is largely a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millenia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.) Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. Acting with free will, on such views, is just to satisfy the metaphysical requirement on being responsible for one's action. (Clearly, there will also be epistemic conditions on responsibility as well, such as being aware -- or failing that, being culpably unaware -- of relevant alternatives to one's action and of the alternatives' moral significance.) But the significance of free will is not exhausted by its connection to moral responsibility. Free will also appears to be a condition on desert for one's accomplishments (why sustained effort and creative work are praiseworthy); on the autonomy and dignity of persons; and on the value we accord to love and friendship.

Again there are two components of free will: 1) You must be a rational agent and 2) you must be able to "choose a course of action from among various alternatives". Let's take a look at each of these.

1) You must be a rational agent

Rational is defined as "[h]aving or exercising the ability to reason." Now, I can't speak authoritatively for anyone else on these boards, but I would definitely say that I have the ability to reason. I'd say that both you, dizfactor, and you, OWM, appear to have it as well. (Although I could be wrong about that. Feel free to correct me on that if you wish.)

Your argument would claim that we are not rational beings because our genetics and environment determine how we will choose in every situation. This is in no way contradictory to the ability to reason because a rational being you are still able to consider alternatives before following your course of action.

2) You must be able to choose a course of action from among various alternatives

By your argument, our ability to choose is only an illusion. Tell me, then, how can you tell the difference between a perfect illusion and reality? What proof do you have to definitively say it is an illusion? It is far too easy to call reality an illusion and thereby remove responsibility from yourself for your choices.

When you walk into an ice cream store, do you not have the ability to choose between the many flavors there? It doesn't matter whether or not you actually use the ability to choose (the choice not to choose is also a choice), but whether you have the ability to do so. If you have the ability then, assuming you meet the requirements in 1), you have free will.

Moreover, if it is a perfect illusion such that you cannot tell any difference between true free will and the illusion you speak of, then by Occam's Razor, there is no difference.

In short, I (at least, hopefully you, too) am a rational being, having the ability to use logic and reason, and I have the ability to choose between various alternatives. Therefore, I meet the definition of a being having free will. Therefo

 

I agree it makes little difference.

But just because you think you have it doesn't make it so.

In addition, identicle twins are genetically the same, but they are socialized differently and have slightly different environments, from the beginning one is the "older" one and so on. In addition, even if they have the same genes, no two people develop EXACTLY the same, even identicle twins have slight physical differences.

Think about it logically again. Your thoughts are part of your brain, your decision-making abilities are developed through years of shool and upbringing, as well as your natural intelligence. But nothing that makes up the inner you is within your control, so you really don't have any true choices. You think you do because your thoughts allow you to make decisions, but even your decision to make a decision is a by-product of your genes/environment.

Get it?

 

But just because you think you have it doesn't make it so.

If one item is indistinguishable from another, they are the same. Or, in other words, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a toad! I meet all the requirements of Free Will. I have the ability to reason and I have the ability to choose. If it is such a perfect illusion of Free Will, how can you tell which is reality and which is illusion? If they are indistinguishable, they are the same.

In addition, identicle twins are genetically the same, but they are socialized differently and have slightly different environments, from the beginning one is the "older" one and so on. In addition, even if they have the same genes, no two people develop EXACTLY the same, even identicle twins have slight physical differences.

Identical twins can show radical differences in personality even within minutes of birth (i.e. quiet vs. noisy). Are you then claiming that a minor difference in experience compounded over a short period of time (a few minutes) can make such radical differences in personality? Is it genetics or experience that has a greater influence? For identical twins, especially while still babies, they may not have isentical sets of experience, but they have similar sets. You would assume, then, that for genetics and experience to combine to for a "predestiny", minor variences would still produce similar (but not quite identical) results.

As I pointed out earlier, not everything is determined by genetics nor by environment. For example, even identical twins have different sets of fingerprints. If we were to make a clone of you, your clone would have different fingerprints as well. That is just one example on the physical level. If genetics does not rule completely on the physical level, what makes you think that it rules so completely on the mental as well.

Think about it logically again. Your thoughts are part of your brain, your decision-making abilities are developed through years of shool and upbringing, as well as your natural intelligence. But nothing that makes up the inner you is within your control, so you really don't have any true choices. You think you do because your thoughts allow you to make decisions, but even your decision to make a decision is a by-product of your genes/environment.

What is a true choice? Let's look at some definitions again (to make sure we are on the same page):

choice (chois)
n.
1) The act of choosing; selection.
2) The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
3) One that is chosen.
4) A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
5) The best or most preferable part.
6) Care in choosing.
7)An alternative.

choose (chz)
v. chose, (chz) cho·sen, (chzn) choos·ing, choos·es
v. tr.
1. To select from a number of possible alternatives; decide on and pick out.
2.
a. To prefer above others: chooses the supermarket over the neighborhood grocery store.
b. To determine or decide: chose to fly rather than drive.

Using these definitions (from www.dictionary.com), are you able to make choices? Do you have the ability to choose?

If you walk into an ice cream store, what decides what flavor you buy? Do you just walk in and look at the flavors and then immediately ask for a certain flavor? Do you stop and think about which one you want? Do you run a DNA test to see what you genetics say?

If you follow any sort of process of weighing various alternatives, you are making a choice. You are "select[ing] from a number of possible alternatives". Or do you not have the ability to do that?

Since you don't seem to be claiming that you are irrational, if you have the ability to select from a list of alternatives in even one situation, you have free will. You meet the definition of being

 

Since you don't seem to be claiming that you are irrational, if you have the ability to select from a list of alternatives in even one situation, you have free will. You meet the definition of being able to choose. You can logically think your way through a decision. By the definition of free will, that is all that you need.

So actions are irrelevant to free will...sweet enlightenment! A definition with which to work from, much like "I think therefore I am".

Beliefs are a product of environment. Morals to a certain extent are a product. To say that every event has a cause, no matter how small and that because these causes exist then the events cannot be avoided is a sham, an imposter, a joke of an apifany (sp) derived exclusively in hind sight. Such thinking spawns over-prescriptive stances like "killing someone is always wrong". Nothing about humans will ever be entirely predictable, esspecially specific acts of individuals like responding to a post on a forum. Right down to the chemical balance in my brain defined by my genetics. These genetics have not planned my life and my preferences. They have given me the means with which to decide, and my tendancy to rationalize. They do not say to me "mint chocolate chip", they say, "you want ice cream".

Effect implies cause, however cause does not necessarily imply effect.

 

I have sort of a devil's advocate question for Kimball Kinnison.

By the definition, free will is a capacity to choose "from among various alternatives". So, let's assume that we are each rational beings. Now consider the possibility that everything is predetermined (by God, genetics, environment, or whatever). This would mean that there is only one "alternative". The other "choices", other flavors of ice cream, say, are simply not possible alternatives. So, when a person "makes a choice", it is not choosing from alternatives, but rather simply getting a feeling of choosing the single alternative. This seems to me to be a plausible alternative to free will. It does not seem possible to prove that choosing another flavor was possible. (And applying Occam's Razor has its problems.)

This, however, begs the question: What does it matter? If it FEELS like there are other choices, and we feel like we choose one of them, and we feel responsible, etc., what difference does it make whether it was REALLY a choice?

 

This, however, begs the question: What does it matter? If it FEELS like there are other choices, and we feel like we choose one of them, and we feel responsible, etc., what difference does it make whether it was REALLY a choice?

Like I said earlier, if something is such a perfect imitation that it is indistinguishable from the original, you cannot say which is the illusion and which is the original. If it looks like a duck...

According to the definition, each of us meets the requirements to have Free Will. Now, you can say it is an illusion, but if it is it is so perfect as to be indistinguishable from the real thing.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Here is something to consider:

I've read of situations where a person acted under the influence of a hypnotic suggestion, but felt as if they were acting out of free will. A man was given an instruction, while under hypnosis, that when he "awoke", he would crawl around on the floor, but that he would not remember having received this instruction. When he was taken out of the hypnotic state, he discovered that the rug had a fascinating pattern to it, and got down on hands and knees to look more closely at it. At least, that is what it felt like to him. He felt that he could have just as easily chosen not to examine the rug. But to the other people observing this, it seemed clear that the man was doing this because of the hypnotic suggestion.

So, this tells me that our minds are at least capable of tricking us into thinking we are choosing to do something freely, when in reality the choice had already been made.

 

I've read of situations where a person acted under the influence of a hypnotic suggestion, but felt as if they were acting out of free will.

However, it has been shown repeatedly that hypnotism cannot over come a firmly opposed will. In order to be hypnotized into doing something, you have to at least have a miniscule desire to do it in the first place. If your own will is opposed to it, you will not do it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I do not believe in destiny. I bleieve that one has complete control of their life and death. Destiny seems like a funny idea to me. You can control the way you act can't you? Then, you can control how you will live and die. Then again, what if someone shot you out of the darkness without you even seeing them? Is this destiny or is it your fault for being at the wrong place at the wrong time?

 

Still, it seems that your mind can trick you into forgetting all about the hypnotic suggestion, and feeling that what you're doing is completely your own decision.

I've also heard of people who, under hypnosis, reveal that they've already decided things about their life -- whom they will marry, etc. -- but are keeping it out of their conscious mind because they need the experience to feel like a natural free choice.

So, yes, there is still personal will involved, but there are subconscious components to it, which could arguably mean that the feeling of conscious choice is not the whole story.

 

Kimball, nothing you have said changes anything. Even genetic twins have minor variences, and such variences make the difference in personality.

What determines your personality? Your environment and your genes. What else is there? This mythical notion of free will?

Also, I said they were essentially the same thing, because of the way we are all intertwined to each other. My last post sums it up and is irrefutable. Your 'free will' arguments stem from that fact that you believe it.

Again, unless you believe in God, who can beat such paradox's with his 'magic,' there is no such thing as TRUE free will, because everything you do is in a sense pre-determined. Based on your situation (environment) and your own personal genetics. Again, what else is there? Where does personality come from?

There are ONLY two variables, genes, and environment, neither are within anyones control. Even if we could change our genes it wouldn't violate my logic, and if you don't believe me you just don't understand how deep this runs.

 

Kimball, nothing you have said changes anything. Even genetic twins have minor variences, and such variences make the difference in personality.

What determines your personality? Your environment and your genes. What else is there? This mythical notion of free will?

It is an axiom of science that instantaneous changes cannot happen. There is always a transition period, however infintessimal. If those minor variences that you refer to can cause such drastic changes in personality (such as the difference of a few minutes in being born), then you would expect to see similar personalities that begin to diverge as they gain different experiences.

However, that is not the case. Identical twins often show radically different personalities, even within moments of birth. If your argument were true, you would see instantaneous and radical changes in a baby's personality for weeks or months (possibly even years) after birth as they gain more experience, yet that does not happen. While a person's personality can change some over the years, it is always a gradual change. Why, then, do babies undergo an instantaneous one?

Also, I said they were essentially the same thing, because of the way we are all intertwined to each other. My last post sums it up and is irrefutable. Your 'free will' arguments stem from that fact that you believe it.

Wrong. My 'free will' argument stems from comparing the accepted definition (a non-religious one, I might add) to my own observations about my own abilities. My last response to you provided a detailed analysis of the philosophical definition of Free Will.

While I did use a little more of a religious argument in my first posts, that was because at the time Free Will was being discussed in a more religious fashion. You should notice that I have dropped all religious arguments in my latest posts. My argument does not need them, because it is not a religious argument.

Calling you last post irrefutable does not make it so. My last response is irrefutable as well, at least you have not done anything to try to refute it. Your point is?

Again, unless you believe in God, who can beat such paradox's with his 'magic,' there is no such thing as TRUE free will, because everything you do is in a sense pre-determined. Based on your situation (environment) and your own personal genetics. Again, what else is there? Where does personality come from?

Have you never heard of Chaos Theory? Not everything is predetermined by environment, not even with natural laws. There is also the random effect of Entropy.

For example, setting up a stable orbit of three similar bodies (such as a trinary star system) requires solving an insolvable series of third-order differential equations. The result of this is that with the exact same starting conditions you can randomly create a stable system or a gigantic explosion. Yet, we know that such systems are possible. (Alpha Centauri is a trinary system about 4.3 light years from us and has been the subject of many such simulations.)

Now, instead of just parroting "gentics and environment", why not show how we do not meet the definition of Free Will. If you don't like the definition I provided (from a fairly neutral source), provide your own and we'll argue until we agree on a definition. If you choose to accept the definition I provided, show how we do not fit that definition.

Just to restate. Free Will requires rational entities who are able to choose between two (or more) alternatives. I am a rational entity (as I assume you are, but you are still free to correct me on that if you wish). I have the ability to analyze options and make a choice, based on those options. Therefore, I have Free Will. I have met its two requirements.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I think we need to consider this before we deny free will exists:

What do we do with people who have committed crimes? As it is now our justice system has a twofold purpose. It is designed to get the criminal off the street and also to punish them for the crime they committed.

If there is no free will, however, people are not responsible for their actions. Their genes and environment are. Therefore, they really did not commit the crimes and should not suffer punishment for something that is out of their control.

 

Kimball, you missed the point again, but since we are in essence arguing with two different definitions in mind, let's simplify and for now I will go with yours:

"Just to restate. Free Will requires rational entities who are able to choose between two (or more) alternatives. I am a rational entity (as I assume you are, but you are still free to correct me on that if you wish). I have the ability to analyze options and make a choice, based on those options. Therefore, I have Free Will. I have met its two requirements."

-I would say that although you are a rationale person with decision-making skills, the way you make those decisions is in essence pre-determined. Do you REALLY have a choice? No. Why? Because who you are and the way in which you make decisions is pre-determined. Although you may analyze the options, the way in which you analyze it is pre-determined by your past, the way in which you think about it and conclude your answer is correct is predetermined based on how you with your upbringing and your exact genetic make-up.

You don't understand what I am saying about the twins. This issue cannot be broken down as easily as you seem to think. It has nothing to do with the fact that you can make decisions, it has to do with HOW you make decisions. In fact, chaos theory very much supports what I am trying to say, since I don't pretend to understand how such factors affect the individual, or that they affect each person the same way.

I'll try to simplify the analogy further for you, but remember this is just a simplifaction. Anakin Skywalker in this sense had no choice to become Darth Vader, because of who he was and the actions that surrounded his fall. You could say that a different person in the exact same situation would choose differently, thus Anakin had free will. This is wrong, and I'll explain. Let's say that Obi-wan was put in Anakin's place, you could argue that Obi-wan wouldn't have made the same decision. But don't you see, that's because Obi-wan is a DIFFERENT PERSON.

I am saying that it's like an impossible to figure out mathmatical formula. You stick these specific genes in this specific environment, and a certain action will occur. I don't think it's possible to predict what that action will be, but no matter what the outcome the person had no real control over it.

This is a philisophical argument and we need to get on the same page of reference. I understand your arguments, I am a law student and the entire basis of our criminal justice system rests on the notion that free will exists. But why don't we kill? Partly because some of us don't have the capacity, and some of us are socialized to not kill. Whatever, I have to get out of here, more on this later.

And Kimball, please try and refute me by telling me directly how you are not the product of your genes (and by genes, I mean whatever it is that 'god' or whover gave you, whatever you are born with, in it's entirety, your natural talents, your natural likes and dislikes, the whole thing) and your environment. Tell me how that doesn't affect every single thing you do and every single decision you make, and how you REALLY have a choice in the matter.

The reason I don't address a lot of your points is because most of them are irrelevent and go off on tangents I do not intend. I simply mean to say that you have no choice to determine who you are at birth, and as such you have no true choice ever, who you are dictates what choices you make. That's it. Find something wrong with this last paragraph.

 

There is no scientific proof of that. I need solid scientific evidence before I begin to fear some omnipotent being.

If you had solid scientific proof then you wouldn't have free will.

Or faith...

I think we have free will. Even if we don?t have control of our actions, or if our actions can be controlled by someone else, I still think that overall we have free will.

The whole debate in terms of genes and environment... One, there is allot more that will shape us, such as others actions, the results of our previous 'choices.' What if one source would indicate us to do one thing, and another source would tend for us to do something else? This is hypothetical, but what if those tends in our personality were in some sort of equal balance? This is an over simplified and very improbably example, but still?

For a while we are very little more than the results of things out of our control. But after a while, we start to manipulate those things. We can try to change our environment, we make 'choices' that we have to live with, we gain experience...ect.

Also, just because we may tend to act one way does not mean we can or will. We don?t always think rationally, we don?t always act rationally. Not to mention that others actions will affect us and influence our decisions in another way.

However, my question is, if there is a God, does he have free will?

Think about it. Let?s say that there is an all knowing all powerful God. Also, let?s think that he (just saying he because it is easier) has some sense of time. He may be able to move around time, but just as we have a forward and backwards in three dimensions, lets just assume that he has a sense of time forward and backward. Also there have been times in many religions where God has been among the people living in their time, so...

So, if God is all knowing, he will know what he will do next. He must be right, so he must do what he has foreseen. Therefore he has no choice but to do what he knows he will do. What?s more, he knows he has no choice. So he has no free will.

Sorry for the long post, but enjoy!

 

"One, there is allot more that will shape us, such as others actions, the results of our previous 'choices."
-Yes, but since every action or choice we have made since birth has been based on the decision before it, I chalk up such experiences as the combination of genes and environment.

 

Obi-Wan McCartney
The modern Hard Determinist.

Every event has a cause; nobody ever acts freely.

We are robots living out a predestined life and none of us are morally responible at all. So go nuts. After all, you already have.

 

-I would say that although you are a rationale person with decision-making skills, the way you make those decisions is in essence pre-determined. Do you REALLY have a choice? No. Why? Because who you are and the way in which you make decisions is pre-determined. Although you may analyze the options, the way in which you analyze it is pre-determined by your past, the way in which you think about it and conclude your answer is correct is predetermined based on how you with your upbringing and your exact genetic make-up.

Go back and look at the definition I provided. It only requires the ability to choose, not the action itself. If I have the skills, then I have the ability. Therefore, I still meet the definition.

In other words, what am I lacking to meet the requirements for Free Will? Absolutely nothing. If you care to refute me, tell me how the definition I am using is incomplete by providing your own definition.

You don't understand what I am saying about the twins. This issue cannot be broken down as easily as you seem to think. It has nothing to do with the fact that you can make decisions, it has to do with HOW you make decisions. In fact, chaos theory very much supports what I am trying to say, since I don't pretend to understand how such factors affect the individual, or that they affect each person the same way.

And you are missing my point entirely as well. You claim that we are only a result of our genetics and environment. If those two factors predetermine how we will react, in order to scientifically determine their effects, we need to isolate each one independent of the other. Let's do that for a moment.

Environment - In order to discuss this, we need to look at a case (or cases) where the genetics are either identical or differences are minimized, hence the discussion of identical twins. As almost anyone who knows a set of identical twins knows, identical twins can have radically different personalities, even relating to things that are attributed to genetics (such as predisposition towards depression).

Genetics - Again, here we would need to look at situations where the differences in environment are minimized. In this case, fraternal twins can be used as well, especially when they are younger and the differences in environment have not had time to compound as much. While fraternal twins still share a great deal of genetic code, it allows the differences in genetics (combined with a similar environment) to come out. You still see radical differences with a (fairly) constant environment.

This is a philisophical argument and we need to get on the same page of reference. I understand your arguments, I am a law student and the entire basis of our criminal justice system rests on the notion that free will exists. But why don't we kill? Partly because some of us don't have the capacity, and some of us are socialized to not kill. Whatever, I have to get out of here, more on this later.

If you are a law student, then you understand the need for us to work from the same definition of the term. That is why I have asked you several times to either use the definition I provided (from a fairly neutral source if you read the article with it) or provide a "better" one. If you wish to use a different definition, at least tell me what it is so that we can agree on something.

And Kimball, please try and refute me by telling me directly how you are not the product of your genes (and by genes, I mean whatever it is that 'god' or whover gave you, whatever you are born with, in it's entirety, your natural talents, your natural likes and dislikes, the whole thing) and your environment. Tell me how that doesn't affect every single thing you do and every single decision you make, and how you REALLY have a choice in the matter.

Here is the flaw in your argument. You have made one fatal assumption here. You are assuming that just because something affects an object/item, it controls that object/item. That is not the case. Th

 

*sigh.*

We are having semantic issues here. And contrary to your belief, I DO understand what you are saying. Give me a little credit, the traditional idea of free will that you are trying to stick with isn't that difficult a concept ot grasp. I told you, as a law student the concept of free will has come up numerous times.

You keep trying to break down this concept I am trying to get across that is so grand in it's scope that it can't be broken down in the way you are trying to, that's the whole point. (1) You can't seperate genetics and environment, and i don't pretend to know how to predict how they work together, but they do. Basically, nature vs. nurture, no matter what, your personality/self/whatever is based on those two things and nothing else, because what else is there? (2) With the twins, even the SLIGHTEST difference in environement and the SLIGHTEST difference in genes/nature/what god gave you is enough to completely alter the course of your life.

Ok, when I say TRUE free will, I mean that there is some true way that you can control your destiny outside of yourself. Think, 'from a certain point of view.'

Ok, to make this easier and to start afresh, give me a new simple decision-making scenario, and I will tell you how there is no true free will. And please, please, understand that I am not an idiot and that the concept of free will, that I have a choice in any given matter, is a pretty easy notion to grasp. Then try and think about it like I am thinking about it for just one second. Give me a decision making scenario, and make it simple so we can get to the core of the issue rather than get bogged down in semantics.


EDIT:
"In other words, what am I lacking to meet the requirements for Free Will? Absolutely nothing. If you care to refute me, tell me how the definition I am using is incomplete by providing your own definition. "
-I am fine with your definition, what I said was that you don't have a true choice in the matter, and that's what's missing, since in essence it was pre-determined. I think I stated it pretty clearly even in the repost you provided, so I suggest YOU read it again.

 

Just in my mind, people will have it predetermined (although I dont like that, it implies that there is some order in the universe that did not naturally occure) for them to have several options possible in a given situation. There could be gene/environmental justification for nearly any course of action. It may feel good to do something, but their environment may lean against it. When our genes/past lets us 'justify' several courses of action, I believe that we make a choice. Maybe not a literal A or B, but we may choise to do something that will lead to A or B (such as calm down to see that B is obviously wrong).

Also, we can make a wrong choice, or we can lose what control we have and think about/regret it later. Have you ever made a choice that you look back on and ask yourself "why did i do that?" and you cant think of a reason?

 

We are having semantic issues here. And contrary to your belief, I DO understand what you are saying. Give me a little credit, the traditional idea of free will that you are trying to stick with isn't that difficult a concept ot grasp. I told you, as a law student the concept of free will has come up numerous times.

And I do understand what you are saying as well. However, I believe that your basic assumption is wrong. You keep maintaining that genetics and environment control your choices, when there is only proof to show that they influence them. One does not follow from the other.

You keep trying to break down this concept I am trying to get across that is so grand in it's scope that it can't be broken down in the way you are trying to, that's the whole point. (1) You can't seperate genetics and environment, and i don't pretend to know how to predict how they work together, but they do. Basically, nature vs. nurture, no matter what, your personality/self/whatever is based on those two things and nothing else, because what else is there? (2) With the twins, even the SLIGHTEST difference in environement and the SLIGHTEST difference in genes/nature/what god gave you is enough to completely alter the course of your life.

First of all, let's keep the religious argument out of this (at least for now). Since we've both agreed to use a definition of Free Will that does not require any religious support, there is no need to bring it into the discussion at theis time. No two religions can completely agree on almost any topic you name, even some of the most basic ones like "what is right or wrong".

Second, your argument that it is too grand to break down cannot be true. Using the definiton that you have agreed to, it can obviously be broken down into smaller components. If we wish to analyze it in any way, we need to be able to break it down. Your argument that it cannot be broken down only exists to stifle analysis of the concept.

Ok, when I say TRUE free will, I mean that there is some true way that you can control your destiny outside of yourself. Think, 'from a certain point of view.'

And how would you differentiate between "true" Free Will and a perfect imitation? You can't, therefore you must either treat all Free Will as illusion (even if you have true Free Will) or all Free Will as the real thing. That is why I keep moving back to the definition. If something shows all the properties of Free Will (as given by the definition), then it has Free Will. Just like if a substance shows all the properties of Plutonium, it is Plutonium, even if it came from a nuclear reactor instead of occuring naturally.

Ok, to make this easier and to start afresh, give me a new simple decision-making scenario, and I will tell you how there is no true free will. And please, please, understand that I am not an idiot and that the concept of free will, that I have a choice in any given matter, is a pretty easy notion to grasp. Then try and think about it like I am thinking about it for just one second. Give me a decision making scenario, and make it simple so we can get to the core of the issue rather than get bogged down in semantics.

Rather than discussing hypothetical scenarios, why don't we work from the definition, which should apply to all scenarios. The problem with hypothetical scenarios is that we could both make up all the rationales we want to discredit the other side. However, we have already reached some common ground with the definition, so why not build off of that?

And, for the record, I do not think you are an idiot. If I thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't bother to respond to you. If I have mistakenly given you that impression, I apologize.

Looking at the definition, we can already isolate two parts or requirements. In order to have Free Will, you must be a "rational agent" and you must have the ability to "choose a course of action from among various alternatives."

I think that we can all assume that we are rational agents, and so meet the fir