is there a free will?

[John Galaor]

I have always thought that the exstence of Free WIll is dependent on whether or not the person belives in Fate, Destiny, or Serendipity.

If you believe in any of these (as I do) then the concept of free will can somtimes be a slippery one,

given that the Powers that Be have already traced a Destiny for you, then every choice you make

has already been made for you.

 

If you dod not believe in any of the thress, then free will exists in an easier pocket, given that you make your own destiny

then every choice you make is in fact yours, and not guided by the hand of the POwers that Be to get you from point A

to Point B.

 

The third school of thought finds the balance between the two that states that we were given Free Will and allowed to choose

our own paths through life. Theres a destination, but there is no set path that will take us there. We will never miss the ultimate mark, but we

wont always do exactly what the Powers that Be thought we might do.

 

Therefore the existence of Free Will lies exclusively with the individual (or group).

 

The "choice" to be gay is not one that was ever presented to me, I simply was, am and will be.

I'm ME since the day I was Born and will remain ME till the day my body goes intlo the pyre

 

Ok, let us assume the fate, destiny and other forces are inexistent. Even then, is very difficult we can determine our destiny or our path towards a concrete future. For it exists something that can be called random occurrences. You are in a plane flying from NYC to London. Then the plane blows up or simply falls down. We can call this fate or destiny, or whatever. But it can be the result of something that was going on and on wrong and nobody check it, or corrected. Then same can happen if tomorrow the super-volcano of Yellowstone blows up like it happened 700 thousand years ago. Or if a meteorite of hundred million tons would hit the earth. We cannot call this Fate. Or at least there is not any way we can prove that is this has to be called Fate. Then, perhaps in 40 or 50 years this civilization goes bust, due to exhaustion of oil. For some unexplainable reasons our financial leaders were unable to agree on allotting money in sufficient quantity to create alternative ways to produce and store energy to compensate for the exhaustion of fossil fuels; not only for the exhaustion of oil, but coal as well and natural gas.

 

Then, there is the rest. Our destiny is in part the result of a chance. A little like betting in Las Vegas.

You had some parents, you have some economic status, some DNA in your cells, some personal circumstances withing your family, etc. All this conditions are outside your own will. On the other hand, you will desire or you will to do for sure only some basic behavior, like eating daily and drinking water to stay alive, for unless you do this basic behavior you will not stay alive for many days. So we have this basic cravings of eating some food and drink some water. We cannot either say that we eat and drink water because we are free; we do it because we are alive. Well, all animals are in the same case.

[West Coast Dude]

'

I did not "choose" to be gay, it's just the way things worked out for me. And I don't feel that I am living in sin. How is it sinful if I care about another human being? The fact that he has the same parts as me shouldn't make a damn bit of difference.

 

Tots agree with this. You can't choose who you love! Preach it TT!

[John Galaor]

'

 

Tots agree with this. You can't choose who you love! Preach it TT!

 

it depends on what you mean by choose. If I like a male and go with him, there is a will on my part. But this is not a choose in the sense that is indifferent for me to go with this man or with another man. To love someone can be a sort of irrational drive that is outside any sense. Even, if a girl, or another man, is going after you, perhaps you do not like any of them, and you cannot choose what you do not like.

It means, is not like choosing a piece of fruit, that now you eat an apple and a little later you eat a banana. So to accept someone for sexual reasons, with sexual interest, is something unexpected most times. You suddenly get hook on this person but you could not explain the reason.

 

Even in a whore house, a customer can choose among different girls. But the girls in general are no choosers. This example of a whore house is the only case of choose I imagine. The customer chooses the girls that looks more attractive to his eyes. You can choose what girl you talk to in high school, but she is freed to reject you. Then, if someone does not feel attracted to girls in a sexual way, he cannot choose any of them. It is about the same with boys. You can go after a boy, or a man, but if he does not like you, there is not anyway you make that choice.

 

Just imagine the case of a choice between apples and pears in a plate. If any of those fruits do not taste right, of an apple could bite your lip or you hand, when you take it to eat it, then you cannot do a choice either.

 

Just imagine a gay that do not look attractive to girls, then, there is not any chance he could choose a girl in a sexual sense. Not only because he feels not attracted to them, but also because they would reject him.

 

Then, we can choose only inert objects, like fruits, or some dishes in a smörgåsbord.

[W_L]

I take a completely different interpretation of free will and choice:

 

Everyone is given both choice and no-choice, because the world is not a vacuum.

 

Absolute free-will would hold that choice is always possible, which is not the case if there is more than one entity or factor in the universe.

 

Let's say, I am a doctor. I want to stop someone from dying due to a failing heart by giving him a transplant. However, I cannot as there are none available and the person dies as a result.

 

Choice exists on many levels in this scenario, the hospital administrator could have been quicker on the transplant list information the month before, the bureaucrat in the donor bank could have skipped his extended lunch, and the patient could have said no to the keg parties in his youth. The doctor wants to make a choice to save the patient, but the end result was already there due to the combination of events preceding it. There was no choice at all except death.

 

Now we could argue about the choice of a painful death or a painless death, but the patient also has a choice in that regard. If the patient's beliefs were against medication before death and would rather suffer, the doctor could violate the patient will and secretly give him/her the drugs. The patient's choice was violated, but the doctor's choice was validated. We also might have other parties involved like family members, people on their wills, and others with an opinion other than the doctor or the patient.

 

Choice is not an illusion, but it is not a personal issue. All choices comes with it factors upon factors; free will ends when choice is universal.

 

As for homosexuality, the choice is not all your own; whether you have an inherent attribution that allows homosexual attraction, an environment, a hormonal increase, or any of the million factors that led to who you are today.

 

That is not to say that you don't have a measure of control, some choices on your part could affect the one's you will make in the future. You might be gay, bisexual, or heterosexual, but you could make a personal choice to deny it. The choice will create ripple effects in the future, but denial of choice is still a choice.

 

Then the question is, Would such a person be Gay, Bi, or Straight?

 

To all truths comes the simplest and easiest concept, you are what you are. Despite your denial as a choice, who you are and what you are cannot be reduced.

 

On that note, I also believe in the concept of non-malleable being or the "eternal you", you can't change the essence of a person, even death does not change a person. Their actions may change perceptions of them, but they remain the same person despite their observable change. You can choose to change behavior, but not the source for the behavior, nor the underlying reason to it.

[West Coast Dude]

John I think though like it's all about attraction, but maybe not. I've always only been into blonde guys. Though a few weeks ago I met a guy and I fell for his personality, he's not white. He's tanned and has dark eyes and dark hair. I'd never check if him out if he walked down a street. I'm really sad it never worked out between us, because he was a great guy and I enjoyed being around him.

[Graeme]

John,

 

I think you hit the nail on the head when you commented on having a long running argument where the real issue turned out to be the people involved had different definitions of the same thing. That's something that's I've experienced myself many times and it's why a lot of debates in The Soapbox start with an attempt to define what we're talking about.

 

You have your definition of 'free will' and I believe everyone understands where you're coming from. But that doesn't mean we have to accept your definition as being the correct one Yang Bang indicated this with the second post in this thread - it all gets down to definitions.

 

Personally, I believe we all have the 'illusion' of free will. We make choices all the time. Those choices are influenced by many things but that doesn't mean we don't have free will. If your definition means that those influences means we don't have free will, then I would say the problem lies with your definition - it's too restrictive.

 

Having choices doesn't mean having unlimited choices. If that's viewed as meaning we don't have free will then only someone or something that is omnipotent has free will, because only for them would there be unlimited choices. I disagree with that interpretation.

 

The non-banal act of free will I can think of is whether to be like our parents or to be the opposite. I've met people who have made a deliberate choice to be different to their parents in some aspects. There was something about their parents they didn't like and they decided not to do the same. A very simple and trivial example is that both my wife and I have chosen not to be disciplinarians to our children to the extent that our parents were to us. We have learnt from the experience and used that to guide our choices on how we raise our boys. I know of people who are more extreme examples.

 

Yes, we're all influenced, but does that mean we don't have a choice? It's whether those influences control us or whether they guide us. In the first case, we don't have free will. In the second we do.

 

I'm in the second camp. Our experiences influence us, but they don't control us. We're all open to change - generally through new external influences - and I accept that not everyone takes the opportunity to change when it's presented, but the opportunity is there and some people do take it, which is part of the reason why I believe we have 'free will'.

[W_L]

@Graeme,

 

We basically agree on the nature of free will and choice with influence as there is enough choice to influence the future. We both agree that "Absolute free will" cannot exist unless, there's only one factor or entity, i.e. the omniscient in a vacuum.

 

It's a first for both of us to agree, but I have to be the negative nance and point to one area we disagree.

 

On the concept of free will and change through choice, we only disagree on the concept of change. I hold that despite how one tries to change their emotions, deny their sexuality, and attractions, they are still the person they are. My thinking is that free will and choice does not change the character of person, only their appearance.

 

Those who seek to change themselves in their most basic level are only changing the appearance and perception of themselves, but they will never be able to alter their true natures.

 

You could remove an addict from drugs, but can you cure the addiction in their character?

 

It doesn't mean we are doomed to fate, far from it, but it does mean there are something that remain beyond choice as your nature is who you are.

[Mark Arbour]

John,

 

I think you hit the nail on the head when you commented on having a long running argument where the real issue turned out to be the people involved had different definitions of the same thing. That's something that's I've experienced myself many times and it's why a lot of debates in The Soapbox start with an attempt to define what we're talking about.

 

You have your definition of 'free will' and I believe everyone understands where you're coming from. But that doesn't mean we have to accept your definition as being the correct one Yang Bang indicated this with the second post in this thread - it all gets down to definitions.

 

Personally, I believe we all have the 'illusion' of free will. We make choices all the time. Those choices are influenced by many things but that doesn't mean we don't have free will. If your definition means that those influences means we don't have free will, then I would say the problem lies with your definition - it's too restrictive.

 

Having choices doesn't mean having unlimited choices. If that's viewed as meaning we don't have free will then only someone or something that is omnipotent has free will, because only for them would there be unlimited choices. I disagree with that interpretation.

 

The non-banal act of free will I can think of is whether to be like our parents or to be the opposite. I've met people who have made a deliberate choice to be different to their parents in some aspects. There was something about their parents they didn't like and they decided not to do the same. A very simple and trivial example is that both my wife and I have chosen not to be disciplinarians to our children to the extent that our parents were to us. We have learnt from the experience and used that to guide our choices on how we raise our boys. I know of people who are more extreme examples.

 

Yes, we're all influenced, but does that mean we don't have a choice? It's whether those influences control us or whether they guide us. In the first case, we don't have free will. In the second we do.

 

I'm in the second camp. Our experiences influence us, but they don't control us. We're all open to change - generally through new external influences - and I accept that not everyone takes the opportunity to change when it's presented, but the opportunity is there and some people do take it, which is part of the reason why I believe we have 'free will'.

 

I love your brain.

[Graeme]

It's a first for both of us to agree, but I have to be the negative nance and point to one area we disagree.

Not quite. I think we agreed on something last year, or maybe the year before...

 

On the concept of free will and change through choice, we only disagree on the concept of change. I hold that despite how one tries to change their emotions, deny their sexuality, and attractions, they are still the person they are. My thinking is that free will and choice does not change the character of person, only their appearance.

 

Those who seek to change themselves in their most basic level are only changing the appearance and perception of themselves, but they will never be able to alter their true natures.

I never said that anyone could change anything. I indicated that there are times that a person has an opportunity to change something, but I never said that they would be able to change anything

 

I person's emotions can be changed in some situations. In particular, they can choose to use drugs to alter their emotions. Some people can also suppress their emotions for a period of time. They are still who they are, but their display and feeling of emotions has changed.

 

However, in general, I agree that there are some characteristics that it is difficult, if not impossible, for someone to choose to change.

[Wulfenite]

I think, therefore I am.

 

I have my own mind, independent of anyone and anything else.

 

I have self interests which I protect.

 

Therefore, I must have free will.

 

No one has any say in the complex mix of factors that form their sexuality. In fact, in the science of human development it is thought that sexual orientation is set by the age of three.

 

In this context, Free will is limited in scope to those things that you actually DO have a choice about.

 

Agreed

[John Galaor]

I take a completely different interpretation of free will and choice:

 

Everyone is given both choice and no-choice, because the world is not a vacuum.

 

Absolute free-will would hold that choice is always possible, which is not the case if there is more than one entity or factor in the universe.

 

Let's say, I am a doctor. I want to stop someone from dying due to a failing heart by giving him a transplant. However, I cannot as there are none available and the person dies as a result.

 

Choice exists on many levels in this scenario, the hospital administrator could have been quicker on the transplant list information the month before, the bureaucrat in the donor bank could have skipped his extended lunch, and the patient could have said no to the keg parties in his youth. The doctor wants to make a choice to save the patient, but the end result was already there due to the combination of events preceding it. There was no choice at all except death.

 

Now we could argue about the choice of a painful death or a painless death, but the patient also has a choice in that regard. If the patient's beliefs were against medication before death and would rather suffer, the doctor could violate the patient will and secretly give him/her the drugs. The patient's choice was violated, but the doctor's choice was validated. We also might have other parties involved like family members, people on their wills, and others with an opinion other than the doctor or the patient.

 

Choice is not an illusion, but it is not a personal issue. All choices comes with it factors upon factors; free will ends when choice is universal.

 

As for homosexuality, the choice is not all your own; whether you have an inherent attribution that allows homosexual attraction, an environment, a hormonal increase, or any of the million factors that led to who you are today.

 

That is not to say that you don't have a measure of control, some choices on your part could affect the one's you will make in the future. You might be gay, bisexual, or heterosexual, but you could make a personal choice to deny it. The choice will create ripple effects in the future, but denial of choice is still a choice.

 

Then the question is, Would such a person be Gay, Bi, or Straight?

 

To all truths comes the simplest and easiest concept, you are what you are. Despite your denial as a choice, who you are and what you are cannot be reduced.

 

On that note, I also believe in the concept of non-malleable being or the "eternal you", you can't change the essence of a person, even death does not change a person. Their actions may change perceptions of them, but they remain the same person despite their observable change. You can choose to change behavior, but not the source for the behavior, nor the underlying reason to it.

 

It seems that you and me are using the word choice with different meaning.

If I do not get you wrong, you are using the word choice as something you are willing to do.

I am using the word "choice" with a different mean.

I can refer to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, that says,

1) choosing, selection. By or for choice, means preferably. Of one's choice, that one chooses. Take one's choice, decide between possibilities.

2) Power, right, faculty of choosing. From choice, willingly. have no choice, have not alternative.

 

That send us to "choose".

1) Select out of greater number. Decide to do one thing instead of other. Think fit, be determined to do.

2) Select to between or from, take one or another.

 

The argument here was on the polysemic nature of the word, that means select between different options and to willing to do something.

 

in the case of selecting between different options, for being a free choosing, the options had to be equivalent to our knowledge.

I mean, we cannot choose freely between eating an apple or being punished with fifty lashes. For one of the options is not any desirable.

then, if by choose we mean "I have a will or desire of doing something", like eating for I am hungry, or drinking water because I am thirsty... this should not be considered a "free will" at all. For this desire is out of my control. Some inner sensors are telling me I am hungry or I am thirsty. The same occurs in regard to our sexual desires. If we have homosexual desires, this condition is not capricious. It comes from my inner sensors, that drive me in some direction and not in other. Then, this should not be call free will. But simple desires. Perhaps irrational desires, or abnormal desires, in the mathematical sense. For in maths the normal is the most frequent in some class of occurrences.

 

Then, to be a gay male or a gay female comes from some inner source in ourselves, that cannot be determined precisely.

 

So, it can be called a choice, because of this confusion or ambivalence of the language. It points to someone who wants to do something in spite of opposition and criticism of family and society. But we have to take into account, that any one that takes this path of doing prohibited acts, that are considered an abomination by a traditional society, is acting driven by an inner force. If the gay would not had this inner force pushing him to act, he would not act at all.

 

So, our acting on sexual desires are something that cannot be called an act of "freewill". It is neither a choosing, in the sense of having equivalent and different options to act.

It is not that this gay person can select freely between a male and a female as his sexual focus of interest.

 

Then, with this ambiguous contamination of the word choose, and choice, and even free will, we cannot understand the real quid of the argument. For it has a core contamination.

 

Then, we wish or we desire, some basic stuff like food and water. We are also compelled to sleep or to rest when the body tell us. It is very difficult to go against these orders from our body.

Then, we also like to perform some actions we had learned since we were boys, like playing football, soccer, tennis, playing the piano, etc.

We had learned to chat with people, and sometimes to argument, and we like to repeat some of this we had learned in the past. Some of the actions we want to perform are learned; some others are determined probably by some sensors we had in our brain.

 

Then, that's when I was presenting this topic of "free will". I thought we are sharing a confused mind around this concept.

 

If an inner force drive us to do something, this is not free at all.

But we have some control, a provisional control over this drive, for a limited time. Like the will to pee, or to defecate. We feel the drive but sometimes we are able to delay the time to perform these desires for a reason or other. For food and water sometimes is not available at all, and we have to go a long way looking for this food and water we need.

 

This is also valid in the case of sexual urges. We have to delay our impulse or desire for a time, for we cannot perform an act of sex anywhere. We have to do it by hiding to society.

Then, the need has been delayed, but the desire does not die because of this delay.

 

It is about the same with deers in Africa. They are thirsty as hell in the summer, but the crocodiles are waiting to hold one of those deers to eat it. So, they had to drink with utmost care fro any moment a croco would catch any of them. They had to be alert, but they cannot delay for a long time the need to drink water. There are only a few holes with water at the end of the summer in most of Africa.

[W_L]

It seems that you and me are using the word choice with different meaning.

If I do not get you wrong, you are using the word choice as something you are willing to do.

I am using the word "choice" with a different mean.

I can refer to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, that says,

1) choosing, selection. By or for choice, means preferably. Of one's choice, that one chooses. Take one's choice, decide between possibilities.

2) Power, right, faculty of choosing. From choice, willingly. have no choice, have not alternative.

 

That send us to "choose".

1) Select out of greater number. Decide to do one thing instead of other. Think fit, be determined to do.

2) Select to between or from, take one or another.

 

The argument here was on the polysemic nature of the word, that means select between different options and to willing to do something.

 

in the case of selecting between different options, for being a free choosing, the options had to be equivalent to our knowledge.

I mean, we cannot choose freely between eating an apple or being punished with fifty lashes. For one of the options is not any desirable.

then, if by choose we mean "I have a will or desire of doing something", like eating for I am hungry, or drinking water because I am thirsty... this should not be considered a "free will" at all. For this desire is out of my control. Some inner sensors are telling me I am hungry or I am thirsty. The same occurs in regard to our sexual desires. If we have homosexual desires, this condition is not capricious. It comes from my inner sensors, that drive me in some direction and not in other. Then, this should not be call free will. But simple desires. Perhaps irrational desires, or abnormal desires, in the mathematical sense. For in maths the normal is the most frequent in some class of occurrences.

 

Then, to be a gay male or a gay female comes from some inner source in ourselves, that cannot be determined precisely.

 

So, it can be called a choice, because of this confusion or ambivalence of the language. It points to someone who wants to do something in spite of opposition and criticism of family and society. But we have to take into account, that any one that takes this path of doing prohibited acts, that are considered an abomination by a traditional society, is acting driven by an inner force. If the gay would not had this inner force pushing him to act, he would not act at all.

 

So, our acting on sexual desires are something that cannot be called an act of "freewill". It is neither a choosing, in the sense of having equivalent and different options to act.

It is not that this gay person can select freely between a male and a female as his sexual focus of interest.

 

Then, with this ambiguous contamination of the word choose, and choice, and even free will, we cannot understand the real quid of the argument. For it has a core contamination.

 

Then, we wish or we desire, some basic stuff like food and water. We are also compelled to sleep or to rest when the body tell us. It is very difficult to go against these orders from our body.

Then, we also like to perform some actions we had learned since we were boys, like playing football, soccer, tennis, playing the piano, etc.

We had learned to chat with people, and sometimes to argument, and we like to repeat some of this we had learned in the past. Some of the actions we want to perform are learned; some others are determined probably by some sensors we had in our brain.

 

Then, that's when I was presenting this topic of "free will". I thought we are sharing a confused mind around this concept.

 

If an inner force drive us to do something, this is not free at all.

But we have some control, a provisional control over this drive, for a limited time. Like the will to pee, or to defecate. We feel the drive but sometimes we are able to delay the time to perform these desires for a reason or other. For food and water sometimes is not available at all, and we have to go a long way looking for this food and water we need.

 

This is also valid in the case of sexual urges. We have to delay our impulse or desire for a time, for we cannot perform an act of sex anywhere. We have to do it by hiding to society.

Then, the need has been delayed, but the desire does not die because of this delay.

 

It is about the same with deers in Africa. They are thirsty as hell in the summer, but the crocodiles are waiting to hold one of those deers to eat it. So, they had to drink with utmost care fro any moment a croco would catch any of them. They had to be alert, but they cannot delay for a long time the need to drink water. There are only a few holes with water at the end of the summer in most of Africa.

 

Interesting and fascinating piece in deconstruction of language and syntax:

 

Our meanings of choice comes to two terms: My own definition on the idea of free will and personal choice means having the ability to personally select. The dictionary definition seems to show options or lack of options.

 

I don't think definition is the issue. The issue comes to be a facilitation of that choice, whether one is the chooser or the choice becomes voluntary.

 

I would hold that most choices are not based on one person's voluntary actions, instead there were actions set in motion earlier that creates the current choices available.

 

It doesn't preclude free will or choice, but it does mean not all original source for choice was created internally. I think it was a famous philosopher, probably Immanuel Kant, who proposed that the source of purpose need not be the source of creation, i.e. if a desires to build a house or buy a house, there were preceding choices leading to the choice that we have today.

 

Economically, it might be cheaper to build, aesthetically, it might have been more pleasing, and contractually there might have been more overhead costs in buying. Now each of those choices can be further broken down into individual choices:

 

Breaking down an economics of buying a house:

 

1.The average costs of houses through even more choices: location, size, open areas, and attachments

2. The ability to find mortgages based on choices: brokers, insurance options, rates, and years of payment

 

To name a few

 

Aesthetically:

 

1.You can't find a pleasing house by the design choice: What color, shape, dimensions, balcony views, or others

2. Maybe the materials: Wood, plastic, steel, aluminum, or others

 

Contractual:

 

1. Available or practical contractors that you can choose from

2. Permits based on choices of dimensions or changes

 

Each choice is made of many other choices.

 

It is why I do not believe in absolute free will, but I still believe in the free will of personal choice. Sometimes, you are stuck with no choice, but it is due to choices culminating into it; it's almost karmic in nature.

[John Galaor]

John,

 

I think you hit the nail on the head when you commented on having a long running argument where the real issue turned out to be the people involved had different definitions of the same thing. That's something that's I've experienced myself many times and it's why a lot of debates in The Soapbox start with an attempt to define what we're talking about.

 

You have your definition of 'free will' and I believe everyone understands where you're coming from. But that doesn't mean we have to accept your definition as being the correct one Yang Bang indicated this with the second post in this thread - it all gets down to definitions.

 

Personally, I believe we all have the 'illusion' of free will. We make choices all the time. Those choices are influenced by many things but that doesn't mean we don't have free will. If your definition means that those influences means we don't have free will, then I would say the problem lies with your definition - it's too restrictive.

 

Having choices doesn't mean having unlimited choices. If that's viewed as meaning we don't have free will then only someone or something that is omnipotent has free will, because only for them would there be unlimited choices. I disagree with that interpretation.

 

The non-banal act of free will I can think of is whether to be like our parents or to be the opposite. I've met people who have made a deliberate choice to be different to their parents in some aspects. There was something about their parents they didn't like and they decided not to do the same. A very simple and trivial example is that both my wife and I have chosen not to be disciplinarians to our children to the extent that our parents were to us. We have learned from the experience and used that to guide our choices on how we raise our boys. I know of people who are more extreme examples.

 

Yes, we're all influenced, but does that mean we don't have a choice? It's whether those influences control us or whether they guide us. In the first case, we don't have free will. In the second we do.

 

I'm in the second camp. Our experiences influence us, but they don't control us. We're all open to change - generally through new external influences - and I accept that not everyone takes the opportunity to change when it's presented, but the opportunity is there and some people do take it, which is part of the reason why I believe we have 'free will'.

 

I agree mostly with you. The only question pending is a definition.

The Concise Oxford says, "freewill, voluntary". And voluntary means it is not forced or coerced from the outside. Then, anything that one does like a drinking a glass of water is an example of free will.

 

That would be the end of the argument, if it were not because "I do not like the word free will", except... the origins of this could be explained by our historical past. In a world full of wars, authoritarian leaders, harsh bosses and foremen, driving us by force to an enslaving work or to wars... gives all its sense to the word "free will". Then, as in the past the "forcing" and "coercion" was so common, the word "free will" has its on right to be born. Then, when we are doing something "on our own", without being forced from outside forces, we can talk of free will.

After consulting in the dictionary I got the meaning of this.

 

But I was also influenced by science, and behaviorism in particular. From the point of view of physiology, the body is a machine that runs as ruled by a machinery that define some basics.

 

Then, on the other hand, most vertebrates, including humans, had to learn some repertoire of behavior to earn their life and survive as long as possible.

Then, all that any living organism is doing, but the basics, is something it has learned.

 

If you had learned to play the piano, many people had told you how clever, cute and virtuous you are for playing. Then, when you grow up, even if your profession is not playing the piano, to put some gayness into the people around you, you can play the piano for a while from time to time. So, you are able to play the piano "voluntarily" that is in your own free will, because your were taught to play when you were a boy.

I put this example because it is not any easy to learn to play the piano. Many students end abominating of the piano exercises.

 

Then, what is the difference that we choose not be authoritarian with your children? versus your were?

This is nothing independent. If you ended abominating of the way your parents treat you, the idea of being authoritarian with your boys, had become "aversive conditioned". Then you hate this procedure, and you would be nice with your children.

 

Well, what would be the case if a couple who had authoritarian parents, were now raising their kids in the same manner? What could be the reason to explain these differences?

It is a sort of a mystery.

But I can postulate a theory that could explain these differences.

 

In the first case, the parents were authoritarians but with little or zero mitigation. They punished the child and that was the end of the story.

In the second case, the parents were authoritarians but felt bad after punishing their children, and poured over them some comfort, some consolation for being a harsh son of a bitch parent. Then, any child that were raised in this way, had learned that after a good trashing, mom or dad, got me in his arms and caress me lot, the soothed me of the scolding, he tell me nice words of love and kissed me. He or she, spread some cream on the place is hurting more by the erosion caused by the whip, etc. This sort of things.

 

Then, when a parent chooses a way or another to raise his children, he is acting in a way that has its roots on his past. It is like being a Christian or a Muslim, or a Jew. We are any of this, because of some past influences determines our behavior in the present.

 

It can be also explained how a Mormon family is surprised one day that their son that became an atheist. They had done something wrong. If were not the case, he would be a Mormon boy like any other.

 

The past can explain why a concrete boy had not learned well to play the piano and dropped the damn thing off. Others on the contrary, were able to make a career of playing the piano. Even to learn it better or worse can be traced to the way the boy was taught to play.

 

From the perspective of Natural Sciences it does not make any sense to postulate that playing the piano could be genetic.

[John Galaor]

Interesting and fascinating piece in deconstruction of language and syntax:

 

Our meanings of choice comes to two terms: My own definition on the idea of free will and personal choice means having the ability to personally select. The dictionary definition seems to show options or lack of options.

 

I don't think definition is the issue. The issue comes to be a facilitation of that choice, whether one is the chooser or the choice becomes voluntary.

 

I would hold that most choices are not based on one person's voluntary actions, instead there were actions set in motion earlier that creates the current choices available.

 

It doesn't preclude free will or choice, but it does mean not all original source for choice was created internally. I think it was a famous philosopher, probably Immanuel Kant, who proposed that the source of purpose need not be the source of creation, i.e. if a desires to build a house or buy a house, there were preceding choices leading to the choice that we have today.

 

Economically, it might be cheaper to build, aesthetically, it might have been more pleasing, and contractually there might have been more overhead costs in buying. Now each of those choices can be further broken down into individual choices:

 

Breaking down an economics of buying a house:

 

1.The average costs of houses through even more choices: location, size, open areas, and attachments

2. The ability to find mortgages based on choices: brokers, insurance options, rates, and years of payment

 

To name a few

 

Aesthetically:

 

1.You can't find a pleasing house by the design choice: What color, shape, dimensions, balcony views, or others

2. Maybe the materials: Wood, plastic, steel, aluminum, or others

 

Contractual:

 

1. Available or practical contractors that you can choose from

2. Permits based on choices of dimensions or changes

 

Each choice is made of many other choices.

 

It is why I do not believe in absolute free will, but I still believe in the free will of personal choice. Sometimes, you are stuck with no choice, but it is due to choices culminating into it; it's almost karmic in nature.

 

You must be full of reason in your post for I barely understand your reasoning. It made me feel i am reading Kant or something.

 

Nevertheless, in spite of you well ordered speech, I remain puzzled with the idea of a free choice, as synonymous with free will.

Your arguments are too complex for my mind that is rather simple in its nature. I am a simple man, and do not understand the standard arguments of the some philosophers.

 

What is clear is that as a person, there many things we like to have, or to consume, or to be. If we feel often hunger, we want to eat. If we are poorly fed we want some variety in food, and so on. If I am thirsty I want to drink something that contains water. Then I need some shelter from cold or from the heat, some clothes to be more comfortable in some latitudes, etc.

As social animals we want to get some recognition, or appreciation from other humans, and so on.

Withing this rang of being social, there are some signs or rank. Many of us want to have some signs of rank, etc.

Many of this needs come to us because we are animals, and social. As social animals, we tend to imitate others, we want to be like one among others. So, all this is the result of a machinery that make us behave in a way or another. We can have more strength or being a weakling. But all this occurs not because we have a freedom to be strong naturally, or we are weak because it is our will to be so. We are what we are, and there is little we can do to change things. Let us assume that being a weakling we became strong like the famous Schwarzenegger or Rambo. So one tell you, you can become like Rambo. He was a weakling like you when he was twelve years old. Someone could conclude that if you do not exercise hard enough you have not the will to become a strong man like Rambo, or Schwarze. Then, if you are a weakling is you fault.

I think it is not that simple. If you are weak to start with, you will have not do enough exercise to become a Rambo. You need some help from outside to do that much exercise. Someone had to help you with the exercise to improve your physical development. The same can be said of playing the piano. If you buy a piano and put it in your lounge you can tell your son, here is the piano, if you train enough you can become a great pianist. Well, he would not do any serious exercise to learn. It is like giving a boy of four or five a pencil and a note pad, and tell him start to write those letters. They are the model. This would not work. You had to train the boy step by step, teaching him to grab the pencil in due manner. You have to be near him telling how well he is doing the damn thing and so on. Then, step by step the child is learning to make a line in the paper. Then he learns to do other lines, this and that, very long lines. Then you teach the boy to make lines smaller each time, etc. You are telling constantly how good he is doing this damn stupid lines, and so on. Little by little you are taming the little kid to learn how to write. But when he is able to write a few letters, he is still a long distance to become a millionaire writing novels like John Grisham.

So, our capacity to act depends to some remarkable degree to our past experience learning some rare sets of behavior like Maths, Physics, Endocrinology, Cytology, Genetics, or playing tennis.

If you had not any of these backgrounds, some chooses are not at the reach of your free will. I cannot sing like Pavarotti, because I do not learned to sing. I can not play the piano for the same reason. I cannot do great maths, because I do not know enough, and so on.

 

I can not dismissed your arguments, for they were out the reach of my intelligence. Then, we are limited, to say the least, and we only can do only some of the things that are withing our capacity to act.