Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil; Free Will

[Diogenes the Cynic]

How is will EVER dependent on a variable of any kind?

How is it ever not? It has to be caused by something. Unless you think it's random, in which case it still isn't free. Can you decide what your next thought is going to be? How will you decide that without first deciding to decide it?

Libertarian Free Will is logical gibberish. Most philosophers recognize that and go with compatibilism instead.

[Mental flatliner]

How is will EVER dependent on a variable of any kind?

How is it ever not? It has to be caused by something. Unless you think it's random, in which case it still isn't free. Can you decide what your next thought is going to be? How will you decide that without first deciding to decide it?

Libertarian Free Will is logical gibberish. Most philosophers recognize that and go with compatibilism instead.

Causality and randomness are not your only options.

We have dynamic and creative minds and can invent things that have never been seen (and have never existed to be a cause of anything).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Minds don't exist?

When a mind invents something, how does it decide what to invent?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Libertarian free will is incoherent because it requires an infinite regression of "deciders." To say that people only seem to have free will does not mean that they are automatons, or that they don't have will, but that they logically can't choose what that will is going to be. We can control what we choose, in a sense, but we can't control what we want to choose. We will always choose what we want to most, but we have no control over what we will want the most. In order to choose to want something, you have to want to choose to want something, and something has to cause THAT want. Will cannot be self-chosen without a regression problem.

I also disagree that animals or small children can do things that are immoral. I don't see how it makes any sense to say that a dog is being immoral for being a dog. A dog might hurt somebody, but that's no more "immoral" than a tornado hurting somebody.

I agree with your last as children do not pass the demands of mens rea. Latin for evil intent.

I disagree with your first.

There is a proof or test for free will if you care to take it. It proves you have a free will and is irrefutable.

It is based on the premise that if you have a free will then you can give it up. If you do not have a free will then you cannot give it up.

The test just invites you to give it up in a simple way.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Diogenes,
When you write:

"In order to choose to want something, you have to want to choose to want something, and something has to cause THAT want."

Why is the "something that causes the want", not “me”? Even if it's my subconscious or an impulse generated by my amygdala, isn't that still “me”? Maybe the infinite regression is the result of a category error caused by labeling some parts of the decision making process part of the “self” and others not.

I wholeheartedly agree that volition is a critical element for morality.

Respectfully,
Rich

+ 1

The law calls it mens rea.

Regards
DL

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There is a proof or test for free will if you care to take it. It proves you have a free will and is irrefutable.

It is based on the premise that if you have a free will then you can give it up. If you do not have a free will then you cannot give it up.

The test just invites you to give it up in a simple way.

Regards
DL

What does "give it up" mean? I have no idea what you're saying. How do you give up what you don't have?

[Gnostic Bishop]

There is a proof or test for free will if you care to take it. It proves you have a free will and is irrefutable.

It is based on the premise that if you have a free will then you can give it up. If you do not have a free will then you cannot give it up.

The test just invites you to give it up in a simple way.

Regards
DL

What does "give it up" mean? I have no idea what you're saying. How do you give up what you don't have?

As I indicated above, you cannot give up what you do not have. You can only give up what you have.

If you have free will, as I insist that you do, within the bounds of nature and physics. You cannot fly without a plane.

You are normally free to choose to begin a reply as you like.
That is free will.

I invite you to give up your free will choice in your reply to me, to my will, by beginning that reply with the letter (Y).

Regards
DL

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't believe in free will, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Your test is invalid anyway, Will can only be surrendered by will and that surrender can only be sustained by will.

[Tonto Goldstein]

Diogenes,

”Maybe, but it would still be non-volitional. The will is still a dependent variable and cannot chosen or changed without another will to do so. If the decider is a willful decider, then something has to determine THAT will, and another decider is required and that decider needs to have a will and something has to cause THAT will and on it goes and it's turtles all the way down.

Love the turtles all the way down reference.

Ok, so in your model how does this bundle of nerves and muscle wrapped in an epidermis learn things? When I’m a child I may touch a hot stove being ignorant of such things, but the pain tells me that’s a “bad” thing to do. The experience teaches me something that I probably won’t forget until I get dementia. Under your model wouldn’t I randomly touch hot stoves if a flying mass of “other wills” happened to be in my radar range? But yet this doesn’t seem to happen. Why not?
Regards,
Rich

[Gnostic Bishop]

I don't believe in free will, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Your test is invalid anyway, Will can only be surrendered by will and that surrender can only be sustained by will.

Your judgement and choice to not take the test shows you have free will. Thanks for making my point. You chose not to give up your free will. As I stated; the test is irrefutable.

Regards
DL