Free Will (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 06, 2010, 05:01 (5191 days ago) @ romansh

First, I find ROMANSH's definition only intuitively correct. Considering that we do not have a solid picture on the question of nature vs. nurture, we don't have a clear picture on how independent we truly are from our environment. This gets more complex when we move beyond the physical environment (what I assume ROMANSH was talking about) and include the social environment. 
> I struggle a little with this. While I can understand the nature/nurture debate, I can't help thinking the two are a false dichotomy. Am I somehow independent of my chemistry and the layered fundamental physics. So I ask again for those of us who assert we have free will, where does my ability overide the "descriptive laws" of chemistry and physics.
> 
> "Beyond the physical environment" - While I agree it is useful to compartmentalize the various aspects of our lives, morality, society, genetics etc, which of them are not a product or a subset of the physical?
> -This is countered with a question of where exactly, is the line where chemistry ends and consciousness begins? Consciousness as a pure product of matter is a position that can only be taken by a raw materialist; and even for them the burden of proof is currently on explaining exactly how matter becomes "conscious." Since this is an open question, and its answer is necessary for your question--we can set that concern aside. -> > I would also go so far as to say that humans at this level are a kind of superorganism; there is a group will as well, centered on ideas, and is self-perpetuating. The most troubling thought of all is Nietzsche's pointed observation that a thought comes when IT wills. So to what extent do we actually control? Also troubling to me is any assertion that we do anything independently of nature or the universe. We have a reptilian brain that we are always responding to. And if your basic needs aren't being met, you'll never get to the point where you'll be able to ponder free will. 
> I have not read any Nietzsche knowingly. 
> But the relevant questions seem to be asked here. -Schopenhauer but not his star pupil? For shame!!! -If you're familiar with Freud, Freud said of Nietzsche "I read a little bit of him and refused to read more for fear I'd be accused of plagiarism." So if you're familiar with Freud, you have a basic understanding of Nietzsche's thought. -> > I would offer that the definition that should be used for free will contain these elements:
> > 
> > 1. An explicit assertion of conscious control. 
> > 2. An ability to create. 
> > 3. An ability to do something contrary to solid reasoning. 
> > 
> > So using these three points I'll take my first stab at the definition of free will.
> > 
> > FREE WILL: Free will is the ability to alter circumstances of some situation through innovation. 
> So we are back to having an intelligence so we can innovate, reason and create?
> Plus we need a consciousness. Two more imponderables? We should throw in life as the final imponderable as well to complete the set. Sorry I don't mean to be a :wiseguy: :)
> -To me, the problem with your definition is purely that robots fit the bill as well. And at the present stage of the game, I can safely say that robots do not have free will under any definition that I have heard of. So... something is missing. -> 
> > This statement brings in my point #2. The definition espoused by Romansh and David doesn't take into account the human ability to act in innovative way. Choosing among options is far too simplistic for what humans are capable of doing--and lest one forget--the power of spontaneous intuition is something that can never be set aside. And as a definition, it is broadly applicable.
> 
> Not surprisingly I tend to disagree. Speaking personally I'm not aware of anything innovative that I have created. I have used my education, experience observation and combined various concepts which could be considered by some as innovative. 
> 
> So according your defintion if I decide to continue doing nothing , then I'm not exerting my free will?-The issue here, is that for me to empirically observe free will and set it aside as some actual property, than we need to be able to clearly separate "degrees" as they were of free will. Or we will never be able to guarantee we're observing free will.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"