Do you have free will or not?

Originally posted by star in a jar
If one had free will, one could just take up some land, not pay taxes on it, and such;

one could grow drugs, drive without a license, go anywhere in the world, even North Korea;

but there is no free will.

I think 'free will' is a buzzword coined by the Illuminati to tell people something that just isn't true at all.

How is that not free will? If everyone has free will, wouldn't that mean that others' free will can infringe upon your free will if you allow it to? Those examples you listed are all examples of free will. The legalities listed were made from the free will of others, were they not? If we did not have free will, we would all be the same because there would only be one way of living.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Subconsciously Correct]

I can only speak for myself, and have have no freewill in life, i am just stuck on a planet with 95% scum animals.

We have partial freewill. You are not free from cause and effect. You are also born into a backround.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
We have partial freewill. You are not free from cause and effect. You are also born into a backround.

No i think you will find that most in the west have no real freewill, especially with electronic mind control of today.

But of course most have not even heard of it.

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
We have partial freewill. You are not free from cause and effect. You are also born into a backround.

No i think you will find that most in the west have no real freewill, especially with electronic mind control of today.

But of course most have not even heard of it.

I get what you mean, I was stating the limits placed by the foundations of this universe. Even with no laws or inhibitions, it's still is partial.

"Free Will" is not the word to be using for these concepts. many of you seem to believe that in order for you to be truly free there can no cause for actions. That's silly, if your actions were entirely random you wouldn't be free either. The question is if you have any real CONTROL over your actions. Some people do not, we know that because we have things such as "Insanity" pleas. We do not hold the mentally ill responsible for their actions. Do all people have control over their thoughts and deeds? And if they don't, what does that mean for society? How can you punish anyone for a deed if they have no control over their actions?

If determinist thought is correct, then one's biology is what determines their actions. One has little control over their biology. How do you punish someone for that? Can you punish someone before a crime because they were predisposed to the crime? And if they were predisposed, how could you fault them? It wasn't in their control.

I think in the end what it boils down to is this: Are all actions/thoughts Voluntary or Involuntary?

[edit on 17-3-2010 by antonia]

reply to post by antonia


I quite agree. In best case we are - excuse me for the analogy - steersman of a ship, navigating through seas and shallows, we have to count winds and many other factors in order to be able reach our destination. Yes, I think the voluntary/involuntary is a good perspective on these things. Some people exert more willfull control than others, that seems to be the case.

-v

reply to post by antonia


1. I wish you would stop using the label 'determinist' or what not. It may make you sound like some intellectual, but it would only confuse the masses, the way derivaties had been used to fool them. Let's stick to the original - either you have free will or don't have.

You and I share a common ground, and that is to find solutions or comprehension. And for that to happen, it needs clarity. I apologise for sounding insensitive, but for the sake of discussion, you and I have a responsibility to do so.

2. I can find examples to support your theories regarding 'violations of their own and not responsible for their actions', such as the physically or mentally challenged.

Unfortunately, the truth is that as long as a person is alive, he/she does have free will. How do we determine if one is alive? The answer is through their conciousness, which is on our basic 5 senses. Their reality is based upon their perceptions or rationalization of their senses.

For example, for the blind, he still have 4 other sense to determine and choose his reality. As for those who are mentally challenged, the 5 senses still dictates their realities, and only their perceptions differ. Which is why the mentally challenged are enrolled upon specialist programmes to help them live within socieites.

As for those mad, they have the 5 senses, but their perceptions of reality failed them, and are given medication. Should they commit crimes, they are usually given lighter sentences compared to others in civilised societies. But as they are concious, they have free will and that is according to their reality.

Civilisations do make room for natural frailities. As for those concious and without any of such fralities, they are each responsible for their actions, which is borne of free will. There are no excuses for acting in violation of their own will.

The only time they do so and have no free will ibe when they are facing death. But then, the dead or soon to be dead have no free will to choose anything at all, because they would lose consciousness and reality!

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by antonia

 

1. I wish you would stop using the label 'determinist' or what not. It may make you sound like some intellectual, but it would only confuse the masses, the way derivaties had been used to fool them. Let's stick to the original - either you have free will or don't have.

No, Free Will is divided into different camps as well. If people cannot understand then it is not my problem. I am not obligated to educate people or speak at their level.