--free will notes--

if free will were per its definition a self-contradictory concept, there wouldn't be a lot of debate over it.  so a self-contradictory portrayal of free will is a straw man.

if you say that free will is not possible in a deterministic system, and that the only alternative is randomicity, and that free will is not possible in randomicity either, then something is wrong with your thinking, because distinctions like randomicity vs. determinism are drawn by the mind, and all you're doing is defining free will out of existence, so why did you draw those two _extensional_ cases out of thin air, when your argument makes it impossible _by definition_?

(the problem is assuming that the only alternative to a causally determined event is a meaningless one.  causality has a few specific requirements..)

some people cite that they have no free will because, while they may make a choice, their making that choice was caused by the universe-state before it.  so they can't will to will something.  It stands to reason that, if such a person could will to will something, they would require also to will to will what they will in order to have free will, and so forth unto infinite regression.   This is obviously impossible since infinite regression is a logical paradox, so in essence, such a person is claiming that they don't have free will because they can't do the logically impossible.  how is it logical to want something that's a logical absurdity, and therefore how could any condition of would-be free will be lacking?

free is defined as having a lack of restraint, and the laws of physics, contrary to common ways of thinking, are not restraints.  they're just the way things are. physics is the very nature of a physical thing; a thing or its actions cannot be restrained by its own nature and what makes its existence possible, anymore than a square can be restrained by its having four corners.  a physical impossibility is a logical impossibility, which is the very reason it doesn't happen; a thing is not restrained from doing something that is a logical impossibility and thus an absurd hypothesis of a doing to begin with.  

so, in one sense, determinism is compatible with free will (compatibalism).  incidentally, though, the universe we live in is not deterministic, and the freedom that we know (which is the nature of spirit, which is the nature of unity, of psychism, etc.) is characterized by this aspect of the universe.  Therefore, if there is a deterministic universe, and something under the same logic category as free will exists in that universe, it is not, by far, the free will we know.  

additionally, I have proven that the (and, perhaps, therefore any) universe cannot be determistic at www.gate.net/~inhahe/ripple.htm

free will has nothing to do with physical theory.  it's in a separate domain.  

those who are _disappointed_ because they have surmised that they have no free will, are not thinking clearly.  it's like (to borrow someone's analogy) the fish that is saddened because he suddenly learns that the water he's been swimming in all his life is actually urine.

in other words, if there's something you've enjoyed in your life that you think might not be there because free will might not exist, free will is that which you've enjoyed. 

it makes no sense to say that free will is an illusion.  an illusion is the appearence of something that's not really there.  if free will is an illusion by nature, there is nothing else that it can appear to be.  if there is something we can mistake something else for as free will, then that's what free will is.  free will is a mental / consciousness-related 'thing' and therefore it can only by direct apprehension, not indirectly, so it is what it appears to be.  it can't be anything else, and can't even be defined in any other way than per the properties it appears to have and the contexts of what we use the term for, and when it is, the definition is only an approximation of what we're really referring to, or at least isn't something worth arguing over (and therefore probably isn't what we're really arguing over.)









First of all, I know many of you are tired of the "free will" topics, however, I hope that this will limit the amount.

Would it even matter if we had free will or not?


If some higher power is controlling our decisions and influencing our actions so that we would not have any choice in any matter, would it matter? I mean, even if it is true there is nothing that you could do about it (at least not to my knowledge), so why discuss it? It is pointless.


i agree. how can knowing there is or is not free will increase or decrease the quality of your life? i suppose if you were really evil 'knowing' there is no free will could 'cause' you to abdicate all moral responsibility. but hten it might as well go further and nullify choice and make you comatose. obviously it would just as likelily 'cause' you to remain doing exactly what you're doing. nonetheless i always see anti-freewill sentiments as being bleak and depressive. not because i fear life may be that way, but because a life that pretends there is no life must be bleak and depressive. but actually it's something even worse: thinking is so retarded already that anti-life conclusions have no effect. so, I only argue over free will in the name of anti-retardation.