um..MOST nobody,more appropriate,as SOME do choose to be unhappy,whether consciencely intentional is up for debate, ask any psychiatrist.. it usually is, happiness is a state of mind and conditional on what/how we think. some ppl are more comfortable being unhappy.
Only an amoral, arational agent would choose to suffer. If I hastily run down a flight of stairs, fall and break several bones, this doesn't automatically mean that I chose to break my bones. Sure, the consequences of our actions are sometimes pain and suffering. But that doesn't automatically mean that we chose the consequences that eventually came about.
For millenia, philosophers, theologians, politicians, educators, law makers and others have been puzzled by the notion of free will. It has never been considered a "simple fact."
@NM -- Sorry, I have very little respect for psychiatry anymore. There's just too much history of fraud and woo there for me to really take it seriously.
The choices have already been made. Really? Sources? Well come with something that explains this ''seemingly'' simple fact, which shows that it's not what it seems. jan.
Really? ALREADY been made? Before we get to the point where we think we make the decision? Then they aren't choices, are they? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As for the rest: Jan, bugger off and get an education. If you're going to going in a thread about free will you could at least have the common decency to learn something about the history of the subject. Sorry, my bad. Common decency is something you're notably short of.
Dywyddyr, We make choices, other beings make choices, and a possible result is unhappiness for some. Why don't you actually explain what you're getting at. If free will is an illusion, then how do we know that the reasoning we use isn't another illusion? At what point can we say ''this is reality''? I know something about free will. This is my stance. Free will exists. You mean something you're short of. jan.
Doesn't address my question, nor does it relate to your earlier claim: Now you're getting it. We don't. That's a belief, not knowledge. Nope. You're the one that reverts to duplicity and lies when you can't find a rebuttal.
only if you take the particular and hold it to be the general Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
1. It addresses the original context. 2. There's no ground then? If it works for you, go for it. 3. You're in illusion. 4. No I don't. You're either a lier or a trickster. And you should learn to answer questions instead of jan.
would you like to elaborate on that line of reasoning? could you possibly be a brain in a vat? is that a stupid question?
A possible reason for why we're unhappy is because we lack the wisdom to make choices that would actually lead to happiness; not because we wouldn't have free will. Further, for us to be happy, there probably need to be many factors in place - our actions, as well as other people's actions and maybe further circumstances as well. I do think that it is precisely the fact that we are sometimes - often enough - unhappy, that makes us question whether we have free will or not. Questioning free will is anything but an idle speculation. (I am apriori for free will, although I couldn't rationally explain my reasons for my stance.)
It does not address your claim. A claim that invalidates much of your own argument here. Try reading what I wrote: we don't know. False. Also wrong. Try reading some history. That of your own duplicity and lies; http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2548005&highlight=lying#post2548005 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2482775&highlight=lying#post2482775 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2694879&highlight=lying#post2694879 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2715749&highlight=lying#post2715749 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2721765&highlight=lying#post2721765 ???what? I did answer the questions.
Not so much "brain in a vat", but how do we know that what we think we're thinking is actually thoughts and reasoning as they arise and not pre-programmed "thoughts"? How could we tell the difference? I.e. are we puppets following a script with the illusion of free will and independent thought or are we actually thinking for ourselves?
Sorry, didn't see it 'til now. Senger, the "something arising from nothing" guy, proposed that there could be before the Big Bang. But I'm not aware of any currently around.
why not? are you drawing arbitrary lines in the sand for aesthetic reasons? i suppose one has to figure out the nuances for themselves, it is a measure of one's intellect to successfully adduce causation from correlation to some degree or another. what about you? can you form an intention that translates to an action that you can then tentatively attribute to an act of free will rather than to a conditioned response to some prior instance(s)? does non-physical equate to massless? somewhat? not at all?
