[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion I have a good scenario for all of you. What if this hotdog was incredibly incredibly dense such that when John P got too close to it it's gravitational field sucked him in? Now obviously he wouldn't be able to lift the heavy hotdog, let alone eat it, but would he be destined to come into contact with the preserved meat due to the shere strength of its gravity? Does gravity then represent a force which can make certain outcomes incontrovertible? Does destiny then represent a pure and invisible force of gravity and visa versa? What choice does a particle have on the event horizon of a black hole?

Perfect problem you give here. I want to introduce the two varieties of soft determinism. Traditional combatibilism defends that an action is free if and only if: the action is caused by the will of the agent AND the action is not forced. But deep-self combatibilism had to enter the discussion because there is a mayor problem with traditional combatibilism. Consider the following example: Hanna is a girl of my age whose junkie boyfriend trinncks her intotrying heroin. He tells her that the white powdery stuff he bought is cocaine andnot heroin. Hanna, who is an occasional cocaine user, agrees to use the powder. After Hanna realizes that she was tricked into snorting something she never would have snorted if she had known what it was, she runs out of the house and ends her relationship with her so-called boyfriend. Alas, she also finds to her surprise that she now has a strong urge to use heroin again. She struggles with all her might against this urge. She goes to suppoert groups, talks to counselors, and undergoes therapy, but the urge is still there and grows stronger every day. Finally, she succumbs aand uses heroin again.

What should we say about Hanna's decision to use heroi for the second time? According to traditional combatibilism, Hanna's action was free and she is fully responsble for performing it. Her decision to use heroin for the second time fulfills the two crucial conditions that a traditional compatibilist has aspecified for responsibility and freedom. But hanna's action was not an authentic dessire. This term is what is used by Harry Frankfurt (developer of deep self-combatibilism) to denote all those dessires which are turlly of our own free will.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody Because the future includes the micro world which is described in propabilites and not certainties

1. One thing is how we humans interpret, explain and describe quanta and another is how these really work.

2. Even if the fundamental particles behave by probabilities, this doesn't mean that the future isn't determined: if A happens instead of B and C because it is more probable, that is the reason. because it is more probable.

The problem here is that some here think that the fact that something is caused impplies that it is fix and exact, but no. And another problem is tht we are looking at it at a too scinetific poitn of view: if we solve it in philosophical manner we can explain all we see in science.

[HappytheStripper]

the way I see it - it is neither determination nor free will ....

The three Qualities defined after the elements: Cardinal - Fixed - Mutable

These qualities are 90 degrees apart or opposite each other - 180 degrees, also known as Polarity - have the same quality.. so what is it that exists between them...?

Cardinal is the idea that is driven by motivation ... (the universe is weighted towards Cardinal energy)

Fixed has a certain amount of determination.. however is more weighted towards persistence and is stable ...

Now as for "mutable" .... being what the universe is .... about adaption and changeability.... ?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by HappytheStripper the way I see it - it is neither determination nor free will .... The three Qualities defined after the elements: Cardinal - Fixed - Mutable These qualities are 90 degrees apart or opposite each other - 180 degrees, also known as Polarity - have the same quality.. so what is it that exists between them...? Cardinal is the idea that is driven by motivation ... (the universe is weighted towards Cardinal energy) Fixed has a certain amount of determination.. however is more weighted towards persistence and is stable ... Now as for "mutable" .... being what the universe is .... about adaption and changeability.... ?

The mutable cardinal is fixed. The cardinal thing is fixly mutable. The mutablity of the fixed cardinal is fixed in cardinality... Many absurd phrases can be made. What I mean is that yes, ok, we know what these three ideas more or less mean, but, how can you solve the problem of free will by them?

[Mr. Nobody]

One thing is how we humans interpret, explain and describe quanta and another is how these really work

The quanta is described in propabalities because that is how reality works. It is not a failure of obervation nor misinterpretation but how things are. Were they described in certainties, then no change would be possible, everything would be predetermined (which it is not), no room for evolution, without change you also would not have time.
Hence, the wave nature of particles decribed as propabilities is the real thing. What we see as particles is only the description (information) of the wave.
Information then becomes reality. This is how the real world emerges from the quantum propabilities

Anton Zeilinger: "A world, a reality existing independantly of what can be said about it, is void of any meaning. It is obvious that any property or feature of reality "out there" can only be based on information we receive. There can not be any statement whatsoever about the world or about reality that is not based on such information. It therefore follows that the concept of a reality without at least the ability in principle to make statements about it, to obtain information about its features is devoid of any possibility of confirmation or proof. This implies that the distinction between information, that is knowledge, and reality is devoid of any meaning. In other words, it is impossible to distinguish operationally in any way reality from information. Therefore, following Occam's razor, the notion of the two being distinct should be abandoned, as the assumption of the existence of such a difference does not add anything that could not also be obtained without it"

[Mr. Nobody]

most powerful example of free will is suicide or murder.

[michellemfry]

Mr. Nobody, why did you choose such an impossible entity to be. It's a curious phrase that loses it's meaning when we read your posts. Just thought I would share that with you, Mr. Nobody. Is it your anti-matter name? In that case, way cool.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody most powerful example of free will is suicide or murder.

I arrive at hom, I make little noise as usual. When I hear some strange calls and screams, I go to where they come from, my parents room. I see a guy with a knife and holding my mother whiles stealing things. I silently get a ceramic jar and throw it killingly hard at his head. He falls and dies at the instant. We call the police. Was it free will? Here does also deep self-combatibilism, which I find to be the best of the theories up to know, fails: for I was not force, and it was my will, and it was an authentic dessire of me to kill that guy, and yet, it was not a free act or am I responsible of it.

Another example for suicide is: I'm a 50 year old man, just divorced from my wife who took my kids, I have the right to see them 1 in a month, I loose my house, I have to give everything valuable I have to pay the dept I have because I lost the money of others investing, nobody wants to give me work, or start it with me. I can't leave, I have no place, no people... One day, 2 am, I'm drunk and I'm saying to myself how a $h!& is my life and I am, and I get a gun, and I put it in my head, and I cry, and I shoot: There's a boom, there's a fall, there's a silence, there's a death. I was not forced, and it was my will, and it was my authentic dessire to suicide, but I can't be said to be completely free of that action.

[Mr. Nobody]

Guillie:
We live in a society where everybody tries to find blame and fault in something but himself. We have learned to use psychology and other similar soft sciences to explain motivations and tendencies and use these to forego the responsibilities of free will.
Every act can in same way be described as a reaction to something, of course. And that is all you portrait. Subconsciously we are driven to feel, talk and behave a certain way. Your up-bringing, life experience and expectation all contribute to this state of mind.
However, in our most lucid moments, when life beckons for decisions, it is you who decides, it is you who moves, types, thinks, acts and reacts. You have the power to determine what you say and how you react. I have had many instances in my life where I could have chosen differently and my life would be totally different. This is MY FREE WILL. Not my destiny, it is my choice and mine alone..........

I write as Mr. Nobody because my words are meant as objective observer, standing by watching reality. I am nobody, I am no-one and yet I stand for every one as well. Characteristic handles would prejustice my intent

If nobody has attempted to simplify a definition of free will, let me give it a try:

Free will is autonomous action within the known and established physical laws of this reality without determinable cause.

[Guille]

Mr.Nobody,

I understand completely what cause-effect means, and how free will can still exist with it. I said before that the theory I find better is deep self-combatibilism. I also understand what you mean by your post, but your free will is just as inconsistent as all. I'm not a determinist nor do I think there is no free will, just that this position is much better attacking others than are the rest of the theories in doing enything. Of course, we know from history that position which attack others a lot, have no possible defence. You say it is me, the real substantial authentic pure essential me, that takes the decisions and elections that guide me through my life and existence. Well, first no, because when we are born we neither determine of who we are born, or the spacetime point, or how we are born. Second, as our life starts by a determined conditions and attributes, our begining "I" is therefore determined. And our first decisions we make fromt his starting I. And as we grow up, this I changes, and this I evolves, and gains and looses, and modifies. But it's still of course the same I just changed. The thing is that this I was at the start determine, and that has determined how it is now, weather it has nothing left fromt he origional I: this is itself a cause of the original I.

I don't agree with this objection I give, but it's just too strong. We are talking now about two very related themes, which are the two fundamental subjects in metaphysics that are not core metaphysics: Free Will and Personal Identity (to shorten: FW&PI).