[Laureate]

1. All of your decisions are made because of your wants
2. You do not have control of your wants
---You do not have free will because you can not control your decisions

[Fubarius]

Actually I'd say the ability to have wants is the very definition of free will. Those with out free will only have needs. A cow needs to drink water, so it drinks water where ever it happens to find it. A cow needs to eat, so it eats what's put in front of it.

We on the other hand can actually choose to starve our selves to death if we want to.

[hsilman]

define wants

fub: you've contradicted yourself. just because you want something bad doesn't make it not a want.

my point is this argument falls to the same fault as the ontological argument.

[Fubarius]

Originally Posted by hsilman

define wants

You used it first, so lets hear your definition.

fub: you've contradicted yourself. just because you want something bad doesn't make it not a want.

No. To eat to survive is a NEED. That's the difference. A NEED is not a WANT.

[hsilman]

Originally Posted by Fubarius

You used it first, so lets hear your definition.



No. To eat to survive is a NEED. That's the difference. A NEED is not a WANT.

but whether or not you want to survive or you want to die, you still want something. The end result of your decisions is always a "want" since if you didn't want the outcome, you would have chose something different.

the first question was to Laureate.

[Fubarius]

Originally Posted by hsilman

but whether or not you want to survive or you want to die, you still want something. The end result of your decisions is always a "want" since if you didn't want the outcome, you would have chose something different.

To me that is the very definition of free will. You do what you want.

For example, say you want to hold your breath. Since you have free will you can. You can maintain it until you pass out. At that point your conscience mind shuts off leaving only the animal brain which has no free will. It needs to breath, so you start breathing again.

the first question was to Laureate.

Yep, sorry. Trying to type while watching Lost.

[Crede777]

I don't have free will because there is a physical system which I must operate within regardless of my wants. Just because I have a want to be able to levitate doesn't mean I can. Gravity says no. Because gravity supersedes my will, I do not have free will.

[hsilman]

Originally Posted by Crede777

I don't have free will because there is a physical system which I must operate within regardless of my wants. Just because I have a want to be able to levitate doesn't mean I can. Gravity says no. Because gravity supersedes my will, I do not have free will.

just because we recognize limitations on freedom, does that mean we erase the meaning of the word freedom all together?

[Aaron5604]

Originally Posted by hsilman

just because we recognize limitations on freedom, does that mean we erase the meaning of the word freedom all together?

IMO, yes...

(For example)

The very second we're born, our minds have already begun to absorb biased information. And, from that point on, every bit of our understanding of life is derived from the very sources in which we were inevitably predisposed to, beyond our "will" as a human. Thus, choice can only exist as an illusion.

[Flying_Dutchman]

Originally Posted by Crede777

I don't have free will because there is a physical system which I must operate within regardless of my wants. Just because I have a want to be able to levitate doesn't mean I can. Gravity says no. Because gravity supersedes my will, I do not have free will.

You're a good poster but this is just not a good argument. Since when did the definition of free will include the ability to do the physically impossible? Do I not have free will because I can't de-atomize and reform wherever I want?





What Laureate is trying to say is that our desires (wants) directly influence our decisions. And since we can't control our desires (meaning there's nothing in my brain pondering whether I should want the piece of cake or not. I can't help wanting the cake), then we must not have control of our decisions. If we go against our "wants" in what seems like an act of higher (free) reasoning, Laureate would likely propose that these are simply other wants overriding the ones we arbitrarily focused on for the sake of the discussion (albeit in a complex manner).


Silman, I don't believe this argument is guilty of the same fault as the OA.

[Crede777]

I know, I was just joking.

To be serious, it's hard for me to dismiss what Laureate was saying based upon the fact that I accept Psychological and Ethical Egoism. I believe that people are always working towards what they perceive (or their subconscious perceives) to be in their own best interest and that there can be no such thing as an altruistic act. Most criticisms of Egoism I have heard focus on how the philosophy says that a person may pick something that he/she perceives would not be in his/her best interest however would allow him/her to avoid longstanding guilt or pain. I disagree with these criticisms and view taking action out of avoidance of guilt or pain (whether it's consciously recognized or not) as a valid instance of acting out of self interest.

I believe that humans instinctively avoid guilt and pain and that it's a part of our animal instinct / subconscious which we cannot avoid nor control.

[cuttlefish32]

It seems like the theme here is he idea that free will exists because people are influenced by their surrondings. So, what if a newborn child was placed in a empty room for his entire childhood. He wouldn't have any opinons or social conditioning to get in his way. Let's say he is also given flavorless food and water. Would he have free will?

[Laureate]

Originally Posted by cuttlefish32

It seems like the theme here is he idea that free will exists because people are influenced by their surrondings. So, what if a newborn child was placed in a empty room for his entire childhood. He wouldn't have any opinons or social conditioning to get in his way. Let's say he is also given flavorless food and water. Would he have free will?

George, good to hear from ya man! I would say no. I don't see how putting him in an empty room does not make him have wants.

[hsilman]

I would simply say that the argument cannot be disproved, and is therefore flawed. I'm not saying I can coherently express the exact issue that causes this to happen, but I am saying if you are not in control of your wants, and even when you want something that is counter to what you would intuitively want it is simply another want overriding whatever want you are conscious of, then it is simply an analytic statement, which is by nature circular and self defining. In other words, though your argument in the OP doesn't flesh it out, you are defining a want as the result of a decision, where in reality, not all decisions result in the fulfillment of wants.

[Aaron5604]

Originally Posted by cuttlefish32

It seems like the theme here is he idea that free will exists because people are influenced by their surrondings. So, what if a newborn child was placed in a empty room for his entire childhood. He wouldn't have any opinons or social conditioning to get in his way. Let's say he is also given flavorless food and water. Would he have free will?

Maybe if such an "if" statement were possible to begin w/.

Originally Posted by Laureate

I don't see how putting him in an empty room does not make him have wants.

Well, I think I can make sense out of that...

If (in theory) a child of any gender were to some how grow up in a 100% empty environment, than his desires (or, lack thereof...) would then formulate from where, exactly; from what physical means could he/she possibly relate too?

*Edit*

Originally Posted by Fubarius

Actually I'd say the ability to have wants is the very definition of free will. Those with out free will only have needs. A cow needs to drink water, so it drinks water where ever it happens to find it. A cow needs to eat, so it eats what's put in front of it.

We on the other hand can actually choose to starve our selves to death if we want to.

After reading, I think I understand, and therefore agree w/ the differences. Though, I still don't agree w/ the "wants" as being completely "free" given that (once again) our very beginning as humans (being born) go beyond the definition of what's considered to be, "free."

Thus, at that point of insertion, (life) our thoughts pull from the early understandings in what we have gathered from the past, so that we may form a perceivable future, whether that in fact be rational in behavior or not?

[Laureate]

No one has posted anything of substance

[Fubarius]

Originally Posted by Laureate

No one has posted anything of substance

Give a clear definition of wants (as used in your original statement), and how they differ from needs.

I say your argument is meaningless, since wants and desires equal free will. Having wants means you have free will. So the argument that having wants means you don't have free will doesn't make any sense.

[hsilman]

Originally Posted by Laureate

No one has posted anything of substance

you're a classy gal.

[Laureate]

Originally Posted by Fubarius

Give a clear definition of wants (as used in your original statement), and how they differ from needs.

I say your argument is meaningless, since wants and desires equal free will. Having wants means you have free will. So the argument that having wants means you don't have free will doesn't make any sense.

there is no huge distinction to be made. i am not going to sit here and get into semantics.

Originally Posted by hsilman

you're a classy gal.

lol. i can't respond to your post! it means nothing to me. if i were to respond to it would make no sense. in other words, speak as if you were talking to a fourth grader.

[Synaptic]

Originally Posted by Laureate

1. All of your decisions are made because of your wants
2. You do not have control of your wants
---You do not have free will because you can not control your decisions

Premise is untrue, sorry. Valid argument though.

[Laureate]

Originally Posted by Synaptic

Premise is untrue, sorry. Valid argument though.

tell me why