Free Will - Page 2

I was a little drunk when writing my entry the other day... I'll try and explain my entry...
There is a range of control we have over our circumstances, time is a factor here. Also a factor, is that, our logic for that control is constantly updated and subject to how deeply we understand that logic.
A unique 'set of circumstances' would lead to a unique free will, but it may be important to know that your understanding is subject to depth.
You do need to understand something to act with free will, and more understanding gives to truer free will. Greater understanding is more profound than lesser understanding, in terms of how it allows for free will.
For free will to take place, in retrospect, the situation will dictate the possibility. I doubt you can actually allow free will or not. I apologise for insinuating you can actually create the potential to act with free will. The only exception to this, would be where you choose your situation knowing there is a greater degree of choice available.
To truly exercise free will, it is almost implied that you knew very well what would happen, through profound understanding. Some obstacles to free will may include: the amount of time you have to think about your options; knowing well enough what you are talking about; and, distractions.
There is most likely a range of situations where you may have free will in different degrees. Even lack of free will, I called it 'determined will', would have at least a small degree of freedom about it.

"Even lack of free will, I called it 'determined will', would have at least a small degree of freedom about it."

How could this be possible? Either freedom exists or it doesn't. I thought about what you said about understanding. Perhaps when full understanding is reached, free will is completely refuted. I have my theory now and others believe it exists, but as we get closer to understanding everything I think it slowly disappears. Maybe when we reach this perfection of mind we will, without any control, move onto the next dimension.

Anyways, can someone please try to refute my theory of free will instead of posting their own ideas of free will? I'm not interested in this subject to seem smarter or get a 'win' but only to find the truth. I'll post my theory again in the most simplistic form possible.

Free will cannot exist on the grounds that an individual can only choose the best possible choice regarding his or her own priorities and beliefs. If the best choice is always made, relative to that individual's priorities and beliefs, then free will cannot not exist.

Actually, Chris, your argument seems to support free will. We weigh every option to determine what is best for us. The drive to work for example again, he chose the long way to prove he had free will. The point is ever choice we make is the best one for us. The dinner scenario is a good one to, he chose the dinner at home because it was the best for us. So I believe that even though all the choices we make are subject to are emotions and logical order with our priorities that sorting the options it is still a decision that we make, therefore, free will.

No one here seems to grasp the idea of relativity or relative terms. When I use the term 'best choice', I am using it in a relative sense. You see... there is no such thing as best. The best food for one person may be the worst food for another. With that said, if all of us can only make the best choice regarding our own sets of priorities and beliefs that are given to us by the environment, then tell me... how is there free will? This is my last attempt at explaining my theory, it seems that most of you are either too scared to accept the idea that free will does not exist or are too arrogant to give another's idea the light of day. I only presented this theory to see if it could be refuted, I had no idea it wouldn't even be comprehended.

We are too arrogant? We are the ones scared?

It seems to me that you are the only one scared enough to become angry, and arrogant enough not to listen to anyone else's ideas.

But I guess we are just too simple minded to understand anything that comes from an intellect as great as your own.

Sorry if I came off as a dick, I was just a little frustrated. Let's not get off subject and distract the debate.

anecdotally(one l or two?) speaking i willed my broke ass car to fix itself the other day. quite unfortunatlely it did not. that appears to be a limitation of my will. it is not completely free. there are still certain laws that bind and govern it.

This is where I've come with the idea of free will. I have reached a dead end. Is the mind independent of the body? What charicteristics of self are born with us? If free will exists then we must deduce that there are certain unique characteristics that we are all born with. Even if these unique characteristics are not a direct cause of environmental influences, is there still free will?

I have devised a situation to help clarify what free will is. If we had the ability to travel back in time, then we could find out once and for all if free will exists. My reasoning for this claim is this: Free will insinuates that under the same circumstances, one can make a different decision than the one they already made. So, if someone was to ask you to hold a pencil and drop it whenever you chose to drop it at exactly 10:43 am on October 4th, 2006 and you dropped it after exactly 5 seconds after the person asked you to do it, then, if someone were to go back in time and observe this same instance, according to free will you would drop it at a different time. This is free will, making a different decision under the same EXACT circumstances. So does free will exist? Highly unlikely in my opinion. Will we ever be able to find the answer? Does anyone own a time machine?

I like it Chris, and I like your efforts, it shows that your thinking in a positive way and this is impressive. But this one's no good becuse your travelling back into time would itself chanbge those EXACT circumstances; the only way would to become independent of everything; is this possible?

Just a thought, but maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. Maybe its not really that we have free wil but that we achieve more and more free will; that is that nature, the whole, the functioning one, has free will of itself. Perhaps we have degrees of free will when we compare ourselves to others; i.e. the sheep vs. the wolf, but knowing that these are still animals and therefore don't have free will in the absolute sense.

"Just a thought, but maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. Maybe its not really that we have free wil but that we achieve more and more free will"

An interesting thought... let's evaluate the history of mankind up until this point. Most likely we started off as some form of an ape with no reason for living other than survival. Is this freedom? Or is this form of humanity still a slave to his needs? I'm leaning towards the latter. So we can conclude that there was very little free will in this form of humanity. Let's skip ahead to the times of Jesus. Were the people of that time really free or were they all slaves to tyranny? Were they also slaves to ignorance? Is ignorance yet another master we must overcome to achieve more free will? I think so. This is my reasoning; Free will basically states that you have the freedom to choose, but couldn't our choices be misguided and misinterpreted? What if we found the root desire behind all of our choices? Would we then have free will? If this is true then absolute free will could only be achieved if something completely understood itself as well as its environment. None of our choices would be misguided, but they would be direct. Only when all of our wants and needs are fulfilled, are we completely free to do whatever we please.

Chris D, I think you're looking at the matter in a wrong way. my opninion is that you focus too much on 'materliastic free will'. Of crouse you can do what you want when you have enough money and time to satisfy all your wants and needs, but that doesn't mean you can't have free will when you are very poor. I think the defenition of free will is that your mind can make different choices. When you are consencious (spelling?) you basicly have the free will to do what you want.

Good definition, I concur.

Just a quick thought, to exercise free will, it may be necessary to correctly predict what will happen, which as you could understand can be quite difficult at times...

"But this one's no good becuse your travelling back into time would itself chanbge those EXACT circumstances; the only way would to become independent of everything; is this possible?"

Ah, but to determine if free will exists in those circumstances I described before (going back in time), the observer need only be independent of the awareness of himself and of all of the influences that caused the person to make that decision. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If the two people partaking in this excercise of free will have no awareness of the external observer and likewise have had no influences from him, the experiment can still produce sufficient evidence to the existence or illusion of free will. For something to exist, doesn't it have to be percieved?

"But this one's no good becuse your travelling back into time would itself chanbge those EXACT circumstances; the only way would to become independent of everything; is this possible?"

A thought just came to me about this statement. Nothing in reality is exact. There will always be minute changes. The only thing we can possibly achieve then is similarity. So I guess we can only test free will through time travel by creating similar circumstances. Me and my friend recently got into a discussion about the definition of perfection. And I believe we settled with the theory that perfection can only be achieved if something is compared to itself. You cannot, for instance, create a picnick table that is exactly the same as one you deem as perfect. Even if you made the recreation exactly the same in wood grain and structure, assuming that's possible, they still wouldn't exist in the same space. If they were side by side and you said that the recreation of the one picnick table was perfect as compared to the other, they would be different, one would be the picnick table on the left and the other would be the picnick table on the right. This same concept could be described to all aspects of life. We are not the same people as we were a second ago. Everything is constantly changing, so how are we the same people? We are similar to who we were. Our essence remains the same. Now, although perfection cannot exist by comparing two different entities, we can look at the other viewpoint of perfection and compare everything to itself. It is then that everything is perfect. I guess the lesson here is that we should all take everything for what it is and not compare it to our idea of perfection because you'll never be able to achieve it, you can only approach it. Perfection, then, is simply that line in algebra class on a graph that goes into infinity forever approaching some number.