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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 06, 2010, 18:32 (5191 days ago) @ romansh

By uncontrollable you seem to include our unconscious which controls much of our behaviour. And by controllable you appear to mean the behaviours we think we are aware of? Again I'm not sure how the definition I have chosen limits these possibilities. It certainly does not specify any particular entity for inclusion or exclusion.
> 
> > You don't seem to have too many objections, though, to my own definition (which, of course, does encompass internal constraints). The extra imponderable of consciousness, which I defined earlier, seems to me to be integral to the concept, but I agree that "one's" is too anthropic. How about: "an entity's conscious ability to make decisions independently of constraints beyond the control of that entity." 
> OK just to be clear, say I were to lock up this said entity in a box, it would not change the entity's free will (or lack of it) one iota. It would limit it freedom of action. that's all. If that is what you meant by constraints?
> 
> If by constraints you meant genetics, evolution, chemistry and physics - then fair enough. 
> 
> My only objection would remain the inclusion of conscious. Here's a quote from Steven Pinker from How the Mind Works:
> >>> The philosopher Georges Rey once told me that he has no sentient experiences. He lost them after a bicycle accident when he was fifteen. Since then, he insists, he has been a zombie. I assume he is speaking tongue-in-cheek, but of course I have no way of knowing, and that is his point.
> -Having worked in a hospital, he is probably referring to the fact that due to brain injury, you can really want and will to do something, but your body refuses to do what it is that you want. I don't think it's tongue-in-cheek at all. But the fact remains that there is an entity that is willing; and this is our target. -
> > But your various references to our "anthropic" discussion suggest that you're trying to avoid being confined to your humanity.
> Should our definitions be in our image?
> -How can they not? Nietzsche's assault on Kant was precisely that it is not possible for any observer to be objective; in the broader term, if you choose to study something, than you have a passion for it, yes? His implicit argument is that it is impossible to separate objectivity and subjectivity. -But a better question would be for me to challenge you on how free will can exist without consciousness. I do not see how they are separable.

--
\"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.\"