Free will advocates believe that without free will people could not be held accountable for their actions because they wouldn't be responsible for them.
This premise is wrong. Our society could function just the same if everyone accepted determinism. The laws along with everything else would remain intact. It doesn't matter if something caused you to kill someone, or you killed someone on your own volition. You still killed someone and will face the punishment.

The only adverse effect of accepting determinism is trying to cope with the depressing fact that we don't have free will.

Free will advocates believe that without free will people could not be held accountable for their actions because they wouldn't be responsible for them.
This premise is wrong. Our society could function just the same if everyone accepted determinism. The laws along with everything else would remain intact. It doesn't matter if something caused you to kill someone, or you killed someone on your own volition. You still killed someone and will face the punishment.

The only adverse effect of accepting determinism is trying to cope with the depressing fact that we don't have free will.
If free will is determined by infinite relationships then is free will in any way determined?

Alteredpreception:

I agree.

If free will is determined by infinite relationships then is free will in any way determined?

Yes, its determined by infinite relationships.

Let me put it this way:
If you have the freedom to do anything you wish to do in any part of the universe but only one thing is not allowed and that is escaping the universe can you say that you have freewill?

Thus the question:
"Does "God" have freewill?"
BTW when i said Infinite I meant really infinite not some sort of finite infinity but truely infinite.

Let me put it this way:
If you have the freedom to do anything you wish to do in any part of the universe but only one thing is not allowed and that is escaping the universe can you say that you have freewill?

Thus the question:
"Does "God" have freewill?"
BTW when i said Infinite I meant really infinite not some sort of finite infinity but truely infinite.

"the limited number of 'choices' we have is not why we are not free; we are not free because in reality there is no choice, regardless of how many options we have."-dr. cello

"the limited number of 'choices' we have is not why we are not free; we are not free because in reality there is no choice, regardless of how many options we have."-dr. cello
So define the word free....freedom is a value that is a floating variable and a degree is needed. Is there such a thing as absolute freedom?

If not why is this depressing?

i feel like a famous philosopher.

there may be an infinite potential for action, but given identical circumstances, a person will always react in the same way. there's no way for them to do otherwise. look at it like this. you have the potential to do anything you are capable of doing right now. but you won't. you need a reason to do anything. a reason is a cause. you are bound, however much it may seem like we are free.

i feel like a famous philosopher.

there may be an infinite potential for action, but given identical circumstances, a person will always react in the same way. there's no way for them to do otherwise. look at it like this. you have the potential to do anything you are capable of doing right now. but you won't. you need a reason to do anything. a reason is a cause. you are bound, however much it may seem like we are free.
so how does one determine freedom?

being as it doesn't exist, one doesn't.

you should write a book on determinism

that would be amusing. but i only have a few hundred words worth to say, i'm afraid.

Dr. Cello's Determinist theories are quite good, aren't they? I always enjoy discussing the matter with him.

It seems incredibly obvious that any given phenomenon can generate two different types of output: Determined output, or random output. And it seems even more obvious that those two types of output encompasses all possible types of output. Formulate how free will could emerge from these two phenomenon type, and no one would doubt the existance of free will, or please correct me on my postulates, since I am very depressed at my fate (or lack thereof) and could use been proven wrong.

Free will advocates believe that without free will people could not be held accountable for their actions because they wouldn't be responsible for them.
This premise is wrong. Our society could function just the same if everyone accepted determinism. The laws along with everything else would remain intact. It doesn't matter if something caused you to kill someone, or you killed someone on your own volition. You still killed someone and will face the punishment.

The only adverse effect of accepting determinism is trying to cope with the depressing fact that we don't have free will.

Well, IF everyone accepted that the source of volition did not matter, then indeed the consequence would be the same whether internally or externally attributed. But that's not how we live as a society. Most of us accept a mix: that some things can be attributed to free choice, while other things can be attributed to something else (not really labeled "determinism," but things considered outside of people's control, notably that they were insane). And that is where ethics and judgment come in. Why would you want to do away with the gray area that makes things interesting?

So define the word free....freedom is a value that is a floating variable and a degree is needed. Is there such a thing as absolute freedom?

If not why is this depressing?

If I may respond: as I've suggested elsewhere, we should not think of freedom as "freedom from." We should think of freedom as "freedom to..." And "freedom to..." requires relationships. Absolute freedom would imply an absolute range of relationships through which to act. I think that freedom as an experience (and indeed, it is a phenomenon of experience, whether you think it is "real" or not) involves some ignorance of potential actions and outcomes (even your own predictability), and the capacity to be surprised.

Any attempt, then, to be completely "choiceful" in every respect would be thwarted by your own nature, and you would then feel restricted. Not being aware of the reason for this, you would blame "the outside world" for your "chains." So, in essence, and ironically, free will requires giving up the need for control. Give up the need for control, and see more options open. Find the balance between the need to choose and the acceptance of what life seems to "deliver," and I think therein lies what every person seeketh.

honestly, my lack of free will (or belief thereof) isn't very depressing. some may call it doublethink. i call it a simple necessity. in my everyday life, when i act and react to what happens, i don't consider that 'my choices are limited. what i am doing could not have been done any other way.' i am satisfied with who i am. and i am constantly enacting changes to make improvements upon that. i would be severely dissatisfied if i fatalistically accepted everything and took no action.

my belief in determinism hinges on the fact that everything we do is a reaction to something. i'm not so certain that onefinity and myself actually disagree, so much, though we are using terms differently. my definition of freedom is 'the ability to choose.' i don't believe we have that.

but, we are designed to believe it. we do not fully understand human behaviour, least of all our own. introspection is one of the least effective methods of psychoanalysis. i could hardly explain why i did something to you. my motives, and therefore my actions, are a mystery. similarly, i do not have access to the mind and motives of others, so all of their actions, to my mind, appear to have been chosen. the human mind is remarkably adaptive.

(my old english teacher told me that someone she knew who took psychology became horribly depressed, to the point of self-mutilation in the form of cigarette burns. i've always been fascinated by psychology, though i profess i'm not by any means an expert; i wonder if perhaps recognising the 'why' of human behaviour basically broke her mind?)

my key disagreement with onefinity is this: even if we have an infinite or incredibly vast number of relationships to experience, every action we make is reacting to one of those relationships. for instance. i could, theoretically, have a deep and meaningful relationship with any number of people. but i only have deep, meaningful relationships with certain people. there are certain people who i simply do not click with, and i immediately ceased trying to pursue the relationship.

i do not believe that i -could- have continued. for what need have i of befriending someone i do not especially enjoy the company of? i could, certainly, if i wanted to. but the key word in 'if i wanted to' is if. i don't want to. there's no reason. and until there is a reason, it is impossible for me to do so. it is impossible to do what you do not wish to do (and yes, i have taken into consideration bribes, 'selfless' acts, and coersion.)

relationships are limited, therefore, only to what we desire, and further limited by the desires of others. (i realise now that you may be using relationships in a broader sense, but i am using people because it is convenient. apologies if this is misrepresenting your views.) similarly: just as we can't simply choose to enter a relationship (i will use the verb 'love' henceforth for ease) with someone, we cannot choose -not- to love someone. not without reason. if i meet someone who is absolutely perfect for me, and if there is no reason for me not to love her, i don't have a choice but to try to continue the relationship.

it is possible, i will grant, to cause your feelings to shift towards somebody by distancing yourself, by means of self-deception. i've done this. but it was a slow process, and it required an effort of will. in short, i had to value myself in the future more than i valued myself and the relationship at the time. the process of ending that relationship was long, painful, and involved me fishing for advice--and as a writer, i believe i'm capable of extracting the advice that i desire from people by colouring language. i did not simply choose to end it. i had to go through a process of making ending that relationship something that i desired more than maintaining it--and i desired to maintain it very much indeed.

Of course I am using relationship in the broader sense. And when it comes to human relationships (whether romantic or in business or among neighbors or whatever), I would suggest keeping in mind the difference beween relationship between people as co-subjects and relationship between people as objects. The former, so long as it can be sustained, is empowering and creative. The latter, which is so common, is what sustains the "relationships" of abuse, the "relationships" of co-dependency, the "relationships" of exploitation, and the "relationships" of quid-pro-quo. These, in my view, are not fully human relationships, but are relationships that have reached dead-ends. In other words, what may have been humans at one or both ends of the relation (if it even had a chance to start that way) get rolled up into balls of rock (whether coal or diamonds) and may treat each other accordingly.

i concur. these were examples that readily sprang to mind. human interactions are the ones that are usually the most meaningful to us, and also the ones in which we feel that we have the greatest freedoms. explaining relationships with inanimate objects is more difficult and possibly less applicable--does my current set of samples explain my point well enough?

Whilst I do agree with the general thrust of what is being said I do wonder if the fact that we "own" those reactions makes any difference. In other words " I react" They are my reactions. There fore they are my choices.

My reactions limit my choices there fore I am responsible for my own level of freedom, thus can my freedom be determined by any one else? [ In this context]

To imply a loss of freedom is to imply an external restraint. Can self oppression be deemed as a loss of freedom?

Free will is absolute, if you are stuck into a jail with your hands tied to the ground, unable to move your feet or even take down your pants to take a leak, you have as much free will as a billionnaire.

If your physical brain is damage in an accident and you loose higher brain function and most of you cognitive abilities, then you may loose free will. Free will (if it exists) is a biological condition. Not an environmental one.

Free will is absolute, if you are stuck into a jail with your hands tied to the ground, unable to move your feet or even take down your pants to take a leak, you have as much free will as a billionnaire.

If your physical brain is damage in an accident and you loose higher brain function and most of you cognitive abilities, then you may loose free will. Free will (if it exists) is a biological condition. Not an environmental one.

now this is an interesting point. Does physical restraint effect freewill.....you still have it but you can't use it sort of thing. Just because you can't express it doesn't mean you don't have it. After all we have the word "oppression" for a good reason yes?

they are your reactions, but you could not have reacted any other way. is this free? are you really free if you are bound to act as you do? i admit that at this point it is largely arguing definitions. i'm not denying that it is you who does what you do--but i am denying that you could have done any differently.

If your locked in jail, you have the illusion of being unable to do what you please. If you are a billionaire, you have the illusion of being able to do pretty much everything you want. In reality both people never had any control over their lives.

We have no free will. Free will, in the sense that we can control our lives. Control in the sense that we can solely cause something. i.e. Agent – causation. Everything is caused by the chain of events that occur in our universe. This makes the universe determined. Living things seemingly have control over themselves, but this illusion can be easily explained. Life consists of entities that can react to outside events. Therefore human life appears to have a “self” which is separate and distinct from the universe because of the fact that it can react. But really “the self” is an illusion. We are just as controlled by the universe as a rock is. In reality we are controlled soley by the universe.

If your locked in jail, you have the illusion of being unable to do what you please. If you are a billionaire, you have the illusion of being able to do pretty much everything you want. In reality both people never had any control over their lives.

We have no free will. Free will, in the sense that we can control our lives. Control in the sense that we can solely cause something. i.e. Agent – causation. Everything is caused by the chain of events that occur in our universe. This makes the universe determined. Living things seemingly have control over themselves, but this illusion can be easily explained. Life consists of entities that can react to outside events. Therefore human life appears to have a “self” which is separate and distinct from the universe because of the fact that it can react. But really “the self” is an illusion. We are just as controlled by the universe as a rock is. In reality we are controlled soley by the universe.

The model off of which you work is intellectually interesting, but I don't see its pragmatic validation. Calling things "illusion" has not usually been a good way to explain phenomena. As for control, as a friend of mine says "We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails."

We can adjust the sails, but we were caused to adjust the sails. We were caused to adjust the sails by how we interpreted the weather conditions, and so on. We are intelligent and can react to environmental effects. But we are not exempt from the causal chain. i.e. all of our actions are pre-determined. An omnicient being would be able to predict all of our actions.

The only evidence for Agent-causation (we are the sole cause of our actions) is that we have this great intuition that we possess it. But if we take a more objective position we realize its an illusion.

"How does an agent cause an effect without there being an event (in the agent, presumably) that is the cause of that effect (and is itself the effect of an earlier cause, and so forth)? Agent causation is a frankly mysterious doctrine, positing something unparalleled by anything we discover in the causal processes of chemical reactions, nuclear fission and fusion, magnetic attraction, hurricanes, volcanoes, or such biological processes as metabolism, growth, immune reactions, and photosynthesis" -Daniel Dennett

'illusion' is not the most helpful word, as it implies being misled. that said, it is also the best i can think of at the moment. we believe that we have free will, because we are not omniscient. we cannot even explain why we did things on our own, much less explain why everyone else does anything. our ignorance of ourselves and of others' behaviour leads us to believe that we are in control.

the nature of determinism does not mean that we are constrained to some other person's will; we are constrained to our own. if i desire to eat a pizza, and the means are both available and convenient to me, there is naught else i can do. we feel like we are in control because what we do does not go against what we desire to have done. feelings of a lack of control come when we are prevented from doing as we would ideally have it, or when we later come to the conclusion that our desires were incorrect. we can be prevented from attaining our desire, but we cannot wilfully oppose our own will.