StarGateWars Forums

Thriller wrote:

Taure wrote:I feel the whole issue of free will is a confused one, brought on by people combining a "common sense" idea of free will (i.e. one which has not been thought out in a philosophical way) with the philosophical doctrine(s) of determinism.

The traditional idea of free will is something like this: being unrestrained in your choices by any factor which is not under your control.

When you think about it, this definition turns out to be nonsense.

To be unrestrained by anything would mean that you're not restrained by your own beliefs, character, experiences - anything that makes up the "self". For the self itself is beyond our conscious control: it is a result of our genes and our experiences, neither of which we have control over.

So a "choice" that was made with no restraint would be completely unformed - there could not be any reason for it, for this odd definition of free will takes it that if something has a reason then it is determined, and thus not free.

But this would mean that, under this definition of free will, "free choice" is the same thing as "random choice". And something random, I would say, is not a choice at all. There is no choice involved in the rolling of a die. A choice which is removed from the self isn't your choice at all.

So if you're using this definition of free will, of course we're not going to not possess it, because it's a load of nonsense.

The problem isn't determinism. The problem is our definition of free will.

I don't have a completely satisfactory definition to provide. However, I would argue that it would be something along the lines of Spinoza's ideas: that free will lies in yourself being the cause of your activity, rather than a cause external to you causing your activity.

Nice, but i don't think anyone nowadays would be using your first definition of free will, at least i haven't got that sense from reading along. But thanks for bringing up spinoza