How On Earth Can We Be Free?

[Philosophy Now]

Raymond Tallis wrote this column of his own free will.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/110/How_On_Earth_Can_We_Be_Free

[Nick_A]

The universe is governed both by interacting universal laws we recognize as determinism and by consciousness which determines our being. Man on earth is dual natured. His animal nature is deterministic while what Plato called his higher parts are conscious and can be remembered by the wholeness of the human organism. Freedom can only mean free from mechanical laws. It is only possible by mastering the one quality we can call our own namely conscious attention and freedom from imaginary attachments which determine our lives.

[attofishpi]

Raymond Tallis wrote this column of his own free will.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/110/Ho ... We_Be_Free

NEVA.

[bahman]

Raymond Tallis wrote this column of his own free will.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/110/Ho ... We_Be_Free

Well, we are made of distinct minds and bodies. The mind is free. The body seems to be deterministic.

[jayjacobus]

The universe is governed both by interacting universal laws we recognize as determinism and by consciousness which determines our being. Man on earth is dual natured. His animal nature is deterministic while what Plato called his higher parts are conscious and can be remembered by the wholeness of the human organism. Freedom can only mean free from mechanical laws. It is only possible by mastering the one quality we can call our own namely conscious attention and freedom from imaginary attachments which determine our lives.

You are correct. What (imaginary) mechanism controls us? The answer is, "NONE".

[psycho]

Raymond Tallis wrote this column of his own free will.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/110/Ho ... We_Be_Free

Our experience also does not show our supposed freedom of choice in actions.

It is obvious that humans do not choose their emotional reactions to life circumstances and it is also obvious that decisions have emotional and unconscious factors.

The possibility of a completely rational analysis prior to each decision is a myth. Everyday experience shows in the mental intimacy of each one of us that an idea or action seems intuitively better than the other options. It is in those cases that an idea or action that we like appears to be hampered that we analyze its rational justification in order to force its possibility of making it effective.

You don't choose your friends by systematically evaluating the positive and negative factors and then deciding that such person will be your friend or not.

In the same way, one does not decide who to love. One concludes that there are good reasons to love someone later. If you don't know why you love someone, then how you rationally determine any action that results from that emotional framework.

A glance, still slight, of our behavior reveals that most of our decisions are made up of factors completely unnoticed by us.

The illusion of free will is good but not so good. It is clear to all people that sometimes they are compelled to act differently from their convictions, even in cases where there are no external factors that force them to act in a certain way.

In any case, unless one supposes to be an entity of a different nature from reality, it is not possible to consider oneself exempt from obeying causality.

There is a basic contradiction at the heart of the idea of ​​human free will. The possibility that something is both affected and unaffected by reality. The soul's indifference to reality belies its supposed nature.

In reality and within logic it is not possible that something affects someone and that someone notices it and then at the same time that someone has not been affected by that something.

[Advocate]

The only sense in which we are free is the feeling of freedom based on ignorance.

[bahman]

The only sense in which we are free is the feeling of freedom based on ignorance.

This is certainly not correct. Free will is necessary otherwise you could not perform an action in a situation when the outcomes of options are not known.

[psycho]

The only sense in which we are free is the feeling of freedom based on ignorance.

This is certainly not correct. Free will is necessary otherwise you could not perform an action in a situation when the outcomes of options are not known.

Why?

[bahman]

The only sense in which we are free is the feeling of freedom based on ignorance.

This is certainly not correct. Free will is necessary otherwise you could not perform an action in a situation when the outcomes of options are not known.

Why?

How you can decide if you don't know the outcomes of options if you are not free to decide?

[psycho]

This is certainly not correct. Free will is necessary otherwise you could not perform an action in a situation when the outcomes of options are not known.

Why?

How you can decide if you don't know the outcomes of options if you are not free to decide?

It is not possible to know the consequences of any action. That would imply knowing the future. One supposes that such an action is likely to have such a consequence.

Nor is it possible to know all the factors that make up a circumstance.

A hypothetical example:

I interpreted that the ground was firm and decided to jump on it. The ground was actually not firm, it broke and I fell from twenty feet.

I was also unaware that my impulsive decision was influenced by the need to be masculine and daring to a woman who was witnessing the situation.

[bahman]

Why?

How you can decide if you don't know the outcomes of options if you are not free to decide?

It is not possible to know the consequences of any action. That would imply knowing the future. One supposes that such an action is likely to have such a consequence.

Nor is it possible to know all the factors that make up a circumstance.

A hypothetical example:

I interpreted that the ground was firm and decided to jump on it. The ground was actually not firm, it broke and I fell from twenty feet.

I was also unaware that my impulsive decision was influenced by the need to be masculine and daring to a woman who was witnessing the situation.

Yet we do things in spite of not being aware of the future to 100% degree. A deterministic system cannot decide. Therefore, we are free.

[henry quirk]

How you can decide if you don't know the outcomes of options if you are not free to decide?

It is not possible to know the consequences of any action. That would imply knowing the future. One supposes that such an action is likely to have such a consequence.

Nor is it possible to know all the factors that make up a circumstance.

A hypothetical example:

I interpreted that the ground was firm and decided to jump on it. The ground was actually not firm, it broke and I fell from twenty feet.

I was also unaware that my impulsive decision was influenced by the need to be masculine and daring to a woman who was witnessing the situation.

Yet we do things in spite of not being aware of the future to 100% degree. A deterministic system cannot decide. Therefore, we are free.

exactly right

if man is fully deterministic, then he is a robot...robots follow programs; they choose nuthin', decide nuthin'

[psycho]

How you can decide if you don't know the outcomes of options if you are not free to decide?

It is not possible to know the consequences of any action. That would imply knowing the future. One supposes that such an action is likely to have such a consequence.

Nor is it possible to know all the factors that make up a circumstance.

A hypothetical example:

I interpreted that the ground was firm and decided to jump on it. The ground was actually not firm, it broke and I fell from twenty feet.

I was also unaware that my impulsive decision was influenced by the need to be masculine and daring to a woman who was witnessing the situation.

Yet we do things in spite of not being aware of the future to 100% degree. A deterministic system cannot decide. Therefore, we are free.

Decision is a human concept.

The factors point the arrow of our actions and yet we consider that the arrow could have pointed in any direction.

That is an illusion. The arrow points where the factors force it, even if we suppose there was another possibility.

Trying to prove that other possibilities were equivalent is hopeless.

[bahman]

It is not possible to know the consequences of any action. That would imply knowing the future. One supposes that such an action is likely to have such a consequence.

Nor is it possible to know all the factors that make up a circumstance.

A hypothetical example:

I interpreted that the ground was firm and decided to jump on it. The ground was actually not firm, it broke and I fell from twenty feet.

I was also unaware that my impulsive decision was influenced by the need to be masculine and daring to a woman who was witnessing the situation.

Yet we do things in spite of not being aware of the future to 100% degree. A deterministic system cannot decide. Therefore, we are free.

Decision is a human concept.

It is not. It is real. As I argued, a deterministic cannot resolve a situation where there are two options. By definition, a deterministic system gets one state of affair and give another state of affair. So we are free unless you argue that options are not approacable to a level of certainty.

The factors point the arrow of our actions and yet we consider that the arrow could have pointed in any direction.

That is an illusion. The arrow points where the factors force it, even if we suppose there was another possibility.

Trying to prove that other possibilities were equivalent is hopeless.

You have options? Don't you?