posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:23 PM
I like the question, but I don't think the concept of a lack of free will is understood so far. The discussion is about every action having a number
of causes, and the question of; is there a gap in this format that would allow room for the concept of true free will, as many people believe they
Originally posted by Chinvenzo
Your free-will is what allows you to choose to fight or run.
Yet your decision is depended on certain factors. Your decision may have been influenced by previous events, similar experience, mood, level of
alcohol in your blood, list goes on and on. And almost every factor can be traced back and so forth. Every action is a logical reaction to a cause, so
you never really have free will in the decision whether you choose to fight, run or perhaps decide to dance as a reaction.
Originally posted by Parksie
reply to post by arpgme
Regardless of your reaction, the guy who punched you did so with his own free will.
Same for the guy who punched, his decision to punch depended on certain factors, many uncontrollable by him. (not that the question of controllable or
uncontrollable factors really matters in this)
Originally posted by iamdavid
Do we choose who we are? what we think is right or wrong? What we like and dislike? I must admit, I don't think so. However, you can choose not to
act on those things. I'm sure most have had thoughts about stealing, murdering or raping, but they control their impulses, and that is free-will.
You can choose not to act on things, but that decision comes from every single thing that contributed to that decision, again not by free will.
I think for every single action, the number of causes is so large, that you could never trace it back to a single source. Be glad, we at least have
the illusion or sense of free will.