What is Free Will?

[Balder]

DocRob,

Note, that by my definition, a free will decision is not uncaused. A variety of factors go into free will decisions including, but not limited to, our relationship with God, our personality and psycholgical makeup, external circumstances, etc.

How does this compare to other views of free will?

I don't know if you've noticed, but I've been having a discussion with BChristianK about a related issue. If ...

1) Choosing Christ is the only moral decision one can really make, and
2) not choosing Him is the same as choosing evil, and
3) if those who end up in Hell are those who have chosen evil while those in Heaven are those who have chosen good, and
4) if our choices are influenced by such things as our psychological condition, etc,

... would you say that Christians are fundamentally different (by nature) from other people, since only they choose "true goodness"?

In previous discussions, Clete and I have also talked about whether God is capable of choosing evil and sinning, and from what I have gathered there are different opinions on this matter. Most Christians agree that we can count on God not to suddenly change his mind in the future and choose evil, begin torturing us, etc. But not all agree whether or not he is truly free to do so. Some say that his own nature prevents him from ever making that choice, and in that sense alone is God's will constrained. Others, though, say that God is capable of choosing evil at any point, but that he nevertheless will not do so. I believe Clete has supported this position by bringing in God's past "track record" and the testimony of the other Persons of the Trinity as reliable assurance that God won't suddenly change tracks.

There is a third issue here that I'd like to bring up. Some more contemplative traditions, Christian and non-Christian (theistic), assert that ultimately there is only One Will, and that that is God's will. Choice appears when there is a limitation on perspective that enters the picture, a limitation which includes the (mistaken) idea that one can truly exist or act apart from God. From this perspective, submitting one's will to God's will, through conformity to a standard of some sort, is a transitional stage of realization. In the ultimate realization, continuous "submission" of one's will to an external will is no longer required, because one has fully realized one's inseparability from divine will. In this self-emptying and transparentization of the soul, one says, "Not I, but Christ in me." Personal will then is like a "wave" on the ocean of Will, at best: bearing distinctness that is creative, but ultimately inseparable from the Water of Life that is the source, ground, and essence of all currents of conscious movement whatsoever.

What do you think of such a perspective? If you find it problematic -- as I expect many here might -- how do you understand "Not I, but Christ in me"?

Peace,
Balder

 

[Clete]

Clete

We have choice, we make poor choices without God.
punishment = chastisement or discipline.

I will be glad to continue discussing this topic. I started a thread called "Created Beings." I don't know how to send a link, I'm sure you'll find it though.

I found it. I'll post something over there as soon as time allows.

Here's a link for anyone else who might be interested...

Created Beings

 

[Clete]

seekinganswers,

You are so far out in left field that I don't really even know how to respond.

Just answer one question for clarity's sake please.

Regardles of the ultimate outcome for yourself, which is death of one sort or another, can you decide for yourself to go to bed at 10:00 or to stay up till 11:00? Do you have the authority to make that one decision?

Yes or no.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Balder,

I may be reading more into your post than is there but Christianity is not the same a Buddhism.

If you weren't attempting to make any such parallel then ignore that last statement and simply answer the following questions for me.

What does it mean to love someone?

What is justice?

What is morality?

Is it possible for us to love God?

Is God just?

Is God moral? (Don't make this one more complicated than it is, I'm simply asking whether it can be accurately claimed that God is good.)


I will be attempting to assertain whether the answers you give to these questions are consistent with your statement that, "Choice appears when there is a limitation on perspective that enters the picture, a limitation which includes the (mistaken) idea that one can truly exist or act apart from God."


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

DocRob,


I don't know if you've noticed, but I've been having a discussion with BChristianK about a related issue. If ...

1) Choosing Christ is the only moral decision one can really make, and
2) not choosing Him is the same as choosing evil, and
3) if those who end up in Hell are those who have chosen evil while those in Heaven are those who have chosen good, and
4) if our choices are influenced by such things as our psychological condition, etc,

... would you say that Christians are fundamentally different (by nature) from other people, since only they choose "true goodness"?

In previous discussions, Clete and I have also talked about whether God is capable of choosing evil and sinning, and from what I have gathered there are different opinions on this matter. Most Christians agree that we can count on God not to suddenly change his mind in the future and choose evil, begin torturing us, etc. But not all agree whether or not he is truly free to do so. Some say that his own nature prevents him from ever making that choice, and in that sense alone is God's will constrained. Others, though, say that God is capable of choosing evil at any point, but that he nevertheless will not do so. I believe Clete has supported this position by bringing in God's past "track record" and the testimony of the other Persons of the Trinity as reliable assurance that God won't suddenly change tracks.

There is a third issue here that I'd like to bring up. Some more contemplative traditions, Christian and non-Christian (theistic), assert that ultimately there is only One Will, and that that is God's will. Choice appears when there is a limitation on perspective that enters the picture, a limitation which includes the (mistaken) idea that one can truly exist or act apart from God. From this perspective, submitting one's will to God's will, through conformity to a standard of some sort, is a transitional stage of realization. In the ultimate realization, continuous "submission" of one's will to an external will is no longer required, because one has fully realized one's inseparability from divine will. In this self-emptying and transparentization of the soul, one says, "Not I, but Christ in me." Personal will then is like a "wave" on the ocean of Will, at best: bearing distinctness that is creative, but ultimately inseparable from the Water of Life that is the source, ground, and essence of all currents of conscious movement whatsoever.

What do you think of such a perspective? If you find it problematic -- as I expect many here might -- how do you understand "Not I, but Christ in me"?

Peace,
Balder

Balder,

You are a nice person and normally I would welcome your opinions. But here I really just wanted a discussion among Christians, so I hope you will honor the "exclusively Christian" thing here.

 

[docrob57]

seekinganswers,

You are so far out in left field that I don't really even know how to respond.

Just answer one question for clarity's sake please.

Regardles of the ultimate outcome for yourself, which is death of one sort or another, can you decide for yourself to go to bed at 10:00 or to stay up till 11:00? Do you have the authority to make that one decision?

Yes or no.

Resting in Him,
Clete

None of this has anyting to do with authority. It has to do with how desisions are made. Do you at some point in the day just decide to go to bed? Would it be anytime no matter how long it has been since you last awoke? Or is there some reason that you go to bed when you do?

 

[Sealeaf]

$.02

$.02

No human action, indeed no action by anything in our obsevable universe is totally "free". There are always constraints, influences, consequences. Neither is any action totally constrained. I am not free to fly to Alpha Centauri next Thursday. Lack of a faster than light spacecraft constrains my choices. I am free to fail to go to work. But if I make that choice there will be consequences. I can chose which pair of appropriate work shoes to wear, in near perfect freedom.

Does fore knowledge make our choices less free? Your insurance company knows with a good deal of precision how many of a group of 20 yr olds will live to be 70. Does that effect an individual member of the group's freedom to take up base jumping or shark wrestling?

How does our relative lack of freedom reflect how we will be judged? God knows just how much or little we are free in any given situation. We will be held responsible for what we had control over.

 

[Balder]

Balder,

You are a nice person and normally I would welcome your opinions. But here I really just wanted a discussion among Christians, so I hope you will honor the "exclusively Christian" thing here.

Doc,

My bad. I responded to your post without checking which room it was in. Hopefully your discussion with Christians here will eventually touch on some of the issues I am interested in.

Clete,

I will answer your questions if you like. Don't mean to intrude here.

Best wishes,

Balder

 

[Clete]

None of this has anyting to do with authority. It has to do with how desisions are made. Do you at some point in the day just decide to go to bed? Would it be anytime no matter how long it has been since you last awoke? Or is there some reason that you go to bed when you do?

I would say that there is a reason, generally. But the key point for me is not about causes. I do not doubt for a moment that our decision are caused. I do however insist that those causes are compatible with my having chosen a different course of action than what course I did in fact choose. The force of my will is itself a cause which I am in controle of.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[seekinganswers]

seekinganswers,

You are so far out in left field that I don't really even know how to respond.

Just answer one question for clarity's sake please.

Regardles of the ultimate outcome for yourself, which is death of one sort or another, can you decide for yourself to go to bed at 10:00 or to stay up till 11:00? Do you have the authority to make that one decision?

Yes or no.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I will answer with the one word that you asked for, and then explain.

NO!!

The reason I state this is that I am not an individual. I am a member of a greater framework and that framework depends on me just as much as I depend on the framework. My decision to go to bed is never seperate from that larger framwork, whether I am going to be on time to go to work, or whether I am staying up with my friends out of allegiance to them. My ties to the bodies of this world drive my decisions. And you can see how much your question is grounded in your framework when you discover that "10:00pm" is an element of the modern world, and there are peoples in this world to whom such a question would be absurd. It shows that you and I are tied to the clock. It means you and I are subject to changes in time. It means you and I are contingent upon something else. You think that you are an individual within this society, free to make a decision, whereas I see that we are both slaves to the framework in which we find ourselves. You and I are not individuals, we are members of a body, whether that be citizens of a "Nation-state" or that be our citizenship in heaven, but either way we are not free. You have ignored the fact that you would not be able to make any decision were it not for the formation you received as a child. The brain does not just automatically develop. It must be placed in a certain environment to develop properly. The fact that you can make a decision means you have been formed in a framework, an ideology, that has formed your brain, and that means you are a slave of that ideology. The same can be said of me, the question is, which framework do we submit ourselves to in faith, allegiance? We can't decide whether we can live in a framework, we are without question a part of one. And even in this so-called decision between the frameworks we cannot decide, for in the end we will be part of the only true framework, which is found in Christ, the judge of both the living and the dead, of the whole earth. The ultimate question makes void any temporal question we might ask. Our decisions will be brought to a single end outside of what we will. And so the free-agent remains in the one with authority, the only true agent, who is God. The reason I decide to go to bed at 10:00pm is entirely shaped by my circumstances, and there is a point at which I have no choice. I must go to bed, and the 10:00pm is only a semblance of control, as if I were giving myself sleep as I choose. Do I think every decision is planned out for us? No. But I do know that my decisions are always within a framework, and therefore, never truly free. And the ultimate framework is what drives my decisions beyond my own will. If I were to decide to stop breathing, I could not make such a decision. My body will make me breathe whether I want it to or not. And my "choice" to breathe is only a semblance of control or freedom. The truth is I have no such freedom.

Grace and Peace,
Michael

 

[docrob57]

My view of free will:

An Agent, S, has free will in some set of circumstances C, just in case when S is in C, S has the causal power to choose some action (or choice) X, or to not choose it(~X). I do not think it is required that S in C be able to choose some other alternative Y, it is enough that S has the power to simply not choose X. Notice, this is the power of contrary choice (X or ~X). I would also clarify that "causal power" above does not exclude the working of divine graces on the will, only that the agent, when faced with the choice has the power to choose it or not choose it (however that power is attained).

This seems to be the kind of free will that the libertarian is after, since it leaves the agent responsible for their choice of the action. And lastly, this kind of free will is clearly implied by Paul in 1 Cor 10:13:

"No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God Ris faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." (NAS)

This is to say that a person when being tempted has the power to give into temptation, or take God's appointed way of escape and to not give into the temptation (X or ~X). Thus, this type of free will is a necessary feature of any Christian theological system.

peace,
jd

This seems reasonable and I think would satisfy Clete's definition as well since the choice ~X satisfies Clete's condition that an alternative to X be available. At this point, I am trying to get closer to agreement on the issue of causality. What is causing the choice to be made? To stipulate the will as cause is not sufficient. It is basically saying "I did X because I wanted to." This clearly doesn't tell us anything.

It seems we are nearing agreement on causality in this discussion. So that is good.

 

[docrob57]

I would say that there is a reason, generally. But the key point for me is not about causes. I do not doubt for a moment that our decision are caused. I do however insist that those causes are compatible with my having chosen a different course of action than what course I did in fact choose. The force of my will is itself a cause which I am in controle of.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I'm okay with everything up to the last sentence. "The force of my will" may be a causal factor, and no doubt is, but there has to be a reason that the will chooses the way it does.

 

[Clete]

I will answer with the one word that you asked for, and then explain.

NO!!

The reason I state this is that I am not an individual. I am a member of a greater framework and that framework depends on me just as much as I depend on the framework.

It takes a village then, is that it? No wonder you classify yourself as more left than right. You're more wrong than right too, but I guess you can blame that on the "framework".

My decision to go to bed is never seperate from that larger framwork, whether I am going to be on time to go to work, or whether I am staying up with my friends out of allegiance to them. My ties to the bodies of this world drive my decisions.

They effect your decision, of course. No one is saying that your decision are random events.

And you can see how much your question is grounded in your framework when you discover that "10:00pm" is an element of the modern world, and there are peoples in this world to whom such a question would be absurd. It shows that you and I are tied to the clock.

Tied to the clock? You're nuts. This whole observation misses the point. The question had nothing to do with clocks, the time was chosen arbitrarily. It makes no difference how you keep track of the passage of time, in fact you don't even have to keep track of time at all. The same question could just as easily have been asked about whether or not you eat dinner before or after plowing the bean field. The specific time is irrelivent, the existence of clocks is irrelivent. The question has to do with making decisions for whatever reason, the time on the clock is only one of thousands of possible reasons for such decisions.

It means you and I are subject to changes in time. It means you and I are contingent upon something else. You think that you are an individual within this society, free to make a decision, whereas I see that we are both slaves to the framework in which we find ourselves.

In light of this depressing and leftist philospohy of life please explain something for me.

What is morality (what does it mean to be good or evil)?

What is Justice?

What is love?

Can we love God? If so how?

Is God just?

Is God moral (s God good)?

You and I are not individuals, we are members of a body, whether that be citizens of a "Nation-state" or that be our citizenship in heaven, but either way we are not free.

You've been reading too much of Hillary Clinton's and Hitler's books! Ayn Rand, while wicked, was closer to the truth, much closer.

You have ignored the fact that you would not be able to make any decision were it not for the formation you received as a child. The brain does not just automatically develop. It must be placed in a certain environment to develop properly. The fact that you can make a decision means you have been formed in a framework, an ideology, that has formed your brain, and that means you are a slave of that ideology. The same can be said of me, the question is, which framework do we submit ourselves to in faith, allegiance? We can't decide whether we can live in a framework, we are without question a part of one. And even in this so-called decision between the frameworks we cannot decide, for in the end we will be part of the only true framework, which is found in Christ, the judge of both the living and the dead, of the whole earth. The ultimate question makes void any temporal question we might ask. Our decisions will be brought to a single end outside of what we will. And so the free-agent remains in the one with authority, the only true agent, who is God. The reason I decide to go to bed at 10:00pm is entirely shaped by my circumstances, and there is a point at which I have no choice. I must go to bed, and the 10:00pm is only a semblance of control, as if I were giving myself sleep as I choose. Do I think every decision is planned out for us? No. But I do know that my decisions are always within a framework, and therefore, never truly free. And the ultimate framework is what drives my decisions beyond my own will. If I were to decide to stop breathing, I could not make such a decision. My body will make me breathe whether I want it to or not. And my "choice" to breathe is only a semblance of control or freedom. The truth is I have no such freedom.

Again I would ask you to answer my six questions above. I will be looking to see if you can answer them meaningfully while remaining consistent with this "I may as well kill myself now and get it over with" worldview.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[seekinganswers]

It takes a village then, is that it? No wonder you classify yourself as more left than right. You're more wrong than right too, but I guess you can blame that on the "framework".

These categories are the attempt of a framework to conform me to that framework. If you look at the registration page for this site there is no option for neither left nor right, and if I am to register I must choose a category. I had to choose one side or the other. In fact, my stance is much more radical. The Enlightenment altogether has no say in my book. The Enlightenment is my focus for attack.

Tied to the clock? You're nuts. This whole observation misses the point. The question had nothing to do with clocks, the time was chosen arbitrarily. It makes no difference how you keep track of the passage of time, in fact you don't even have to keep track of time at all. The same question could just as easily have been asked about whether or not you eat dinner before or after plowing the bean field. The specific time is irrelivent, the existence of clocks is irrelivent. The question has to do with making decisions for whatever reason, the time on the clock is only one of thousands of possible reasons for such decisions.

And what of the culture that sees no connection between events? Or that there is no such thing as time? What I was trying to point out is that the system only appears to give us a choice. We think that if we decide to go to bed at 10:00pm or not, that we have been given a decision to make. But it is absurd. It is an appearance of control. The reality is that you will go to bed regardless of your choice or decision.

In light of this depressing and leftist philospohy of life please explain something for me.

"Leftist," that would be your label not mine.

What is morality (what does it mean to be good or evil)?

Morality is the deception that somehow we can distinguish what is right and acceptable in this world. It is taking of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. It is to say that knit within the very universe is a system of right and wrong and that a human being can discern that system. It is the desire of the Pharisee to be clean before God. The Pharisee did not simply want to judge others, he thought that he could discern wrong and right, and that the law's purpose was in fact this. The law for the Pharisee was this universal principle. You are trying to separate yourself from the Pharisee by separating yourself from the law. But an ethical principle can be used in the same way. "Good" and "Evil" are things that only God can judge and discern. As far as we are concerned Christ tells us that good and evil come together, that is the Creation and distortion are reconciled in him. Jesus declares to us that there does not exist an enemy. It is our creation, and therefore he calls us to love our "enemy." Your moral system is the creation of the Enlightenment, in which a general principle, or a universal definition of "man" is created to decide what is right. God is not the universal principle, the "rights of men" are. So now that we know what the "rights" are we can live according to them. We can be like the Pharisees once again who conform their fellow men and women to this standard. And we can be even more corrupt than the Pharisees as we distort other human beings horribly through these principles of "rights." Bush can label his enemies "terrorists" and torture them, treating them as less than human, in violation of the geneva treaty. These men that we torture are not human beings; his label of terrorist makes it easy for him to use tactics that are not legal according to the standard of the geneva treaty, which works off of a standard of universal human rights. The problem is that humans are never able to adhere to a universal standard so they are never human by their context. "Terrorists" cannot be humans because they deny the universal principles and thus we are free to do anything to them. Morality is absurd because it cannot resist distortion. Evil is not an ontological reality. The only reality is God, and God made flesh in Christ, thus establishing "evil" as a corruption and nothing more. "Evil" does not have reality in itself. "Evil" is simply a distortion of what is good, making it impossible to create anything but a straw-man to fight against if we are to have a fight against "evil," like the "war on terror." Jesus' words and commands are enough for the disciple. And he says that evil is not only within our brother, but is just as much if not more a part of us. There is no need for a "moral principle." But most people don't believe that Jesus' commands and obedience to those commands are sufficient.

What is Justice?

It is an illusion. "Justice" in our world equals vengance. One who commits a crime must pay, in other words, and restitution must be visited on the one against whom the crime was commited. And what we are told about this system of "justice" in the scriptures is that vengance is no one's business but the Lord's. Justice before God is reconciliation. The Righteous one is not shaped by morality, as many have come to understand "righteousness" in a moral sense. Righteousness in the scriptures is the same word as justice. And to be just before God is to be reconciled not only to God but to others. Justice is held in God, the one who can judge and yet patiently witholds judgment in seeking reconciliation. The sentance for humanity in the garden of Eden was death. It is language used as a death penalty language, not just to make humanity mortal (they were already mortal when they were created). When God says, "You will surely die," it is not just that you will eventually die, but if you eat from this tree you will be put to death. And notice at the pronouncement of judgment the death penalty is witheld. It is not that God is weak and can't enforce the judgment pronounced. It is that God is the only one who can discern good and evil (as a free agent) and is thus able to withold judgment as well as pass judgment (and notice how it has nothing to do with sacrifice). God is the just judge and will do whatever God pleases to do.

What is love?

Once again, God is love. We know not what love is. Even our closest relationships with one another do not compare to love. The triune God is love: Father, Son, and Spirit. We are as far from love as we can possibly be. Just look at Christ and look at ourselves and we will see a vast expanse between the two. We cannot nor do we know how to love. Love is distorted among us as we wrap it up in shame and seek pleasure over the other's need. Even supposed love between a man and a woman in marriage is a distortion as that love is confined within them, instead of making them one flesh and living as one flesh to love the other, the neighbor, and the stranger (the child that comes into their marriage as a gift from God), their love remains within them. But God revealed God's love in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. That is love, and do not think that we can define love outside of that very particular enactment. Love is defined within the trinity, and only as we are sustained by God do we even begin to know what love is.

Can we love God? If so how?

No we cannot love God. But God can love us. "This is love, not that we loved God, but that God loved us and gave his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (I John 4:10). And this love is perfected within us so that we can then love: "This is love, that we follow his commandments" (II John 1:6). Love remains wrapped up in God. It is not a universal principle in which both God and men can participate. God is love.

Is God just?

This shows the absurdity of your system, for by your system you would judge God. Your standard of justice can even define the limits of the Creator. It is not my place to establish a justice by which to judge the Creator. Justice is held within God, and therefore only by God are we just. As I said before, God's command regarding justice is to be reconciled. But you go ahead and create that absurd situation where God will be judged by men.

Is God moral (s God good)?

Once again, this is absurd. You have created a system of goodness that superceeds the Creator. God is not good in your system, God participates in goodness that is even outside of God. You once again take judgment into your own hands in order to create that absurd situation where man judges God.

You've been reading too much of Hillary Clinton's and Hitler's books! Ayn Rand, while wicked, was closer to the truth, much closer.

This is the most ridiculous statement anyone has tried to make of me. Do you think that I am a liberal Democrat? If you have read anything that I have written on this site you would know that your categories of "right" and "left" do not apply to what I am saying. I have never read Hillary Clinton's books any more than I have read Hitler's!! If you would like to understand what I am saying, read Bonhoeffer (The Cost of Discipleship and Ethics).

Grace and Peace,
Michael

 

[Clete]

Michael,

My comment about Hillary and Hitler was intended only as a little jab. I didn't think you had actually read their pedantic books, although your "we are not individuals" speech was reminiscent of some of the things Hillary said in "It Takes a Village" where she places the good of the state far and away above that of individual human rights. But that's a subject for another thread. At any rate, I wasn't trying to be personally offensive, I was just having a little fun, although I can see why you might have not gotten that message. That's what I get for being in too big a hurry when writting these posts I guess. I'll try to be more clear next time.

I'll respond to the rest of your post when time allows. I'm going to be really busy at work this week so I won't be posting as much as usual.

God bless!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

My view of free will:

An Agent, S, has free will in some set of circumstances C, just in case when S is in C, S has the causal power to choose some action (or choice) X, or to not choose it(~X). I do not think it is required that S in C be able to choose some other alternative Y, it is enough that S has the power to simply not choose X. Notice, this is the power of contrary choice (X or ~X). I would also clarify that "causal power" above does not exclude the working of divine graces on the will, only that the agent, when faced with the choice has the power to choose it or not choose it (however that power is attained).

This seems to be the kind of free will that the libertarian is after, since it leaves the agent responsible for their choice of the action. And lastly, this kind of free will is clearly implied by Paul in 1 Cor 10:13:

"No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God Ris faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." (NAS)

This is to say that a person when being tempted has the power to give into temptation, or take God's appointed way of escape and to not give into the temptation (X or ~X). Thus, this type of free will is a necessary feature of any Christian theological system.

peace,
jd

I had over looked this earlier but had noticed it when the doc had responded to it a few posts ago. I think I generally agree with you insolafide except for one point that I think might need clarification.

You said that, "I do not think it is required that S in C be able to choose some other alternative Y, it is enough that S has the power to simply not choose X."

Isn't ~X=Y? I mean if you don't do one particular action it doesn't mean you don't do another, in fact you do indeed do some other action, don't you? If I don't go to bed then I do stay awake and while awake I'm performing other actions. Do you see what I'm getting at here? It seems to me that not doing X requires that you do something else (Y). How am I wrong?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

This seems reasonable and I think would satisfy Clete's definition as well since the choice ~X satisfies Clete's condition that an alternative to X be available. At this point, I am trying to get closer to agreement on the issue of causality. What is causing the choice to be made? To stipulate the will as cause is not sufficient. It is basically saying "I did X because I wanted to." This clearly doesn't tell us anything.

It seems we are nearing agreement on causality in this discussion. So that is good.

How are we getting closer to causality?

Do you believe that for any set of cuases (C) that there is one and only one possible effect (X)?

If so, we aren't as close as you might think because my given definition of free will (as well as the one given by insolafide) seems to require C to have at least two possible effects (X or ~X) when our will is involved (i.e. when our will is part of C).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[docrob57]

How are we getting closer to causality?

Do you believe that for any set of cuases (C) that there is one and only one possible effect (X)?

If so, we aren't as close as you might think because my given definition of free will (as well as the one given by insolafide) seems to require C to have at least two possible effects (X or ~X) when our will is involved (i.e. when our will is part of C).

Resting in Him,
Clete

Well, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist. No time now, but any causal mechanism almost by definitiion has to have at least 2 possible outcomes. But more later I'm afraid as I must go for now.

 

[docrob57]

How are we getting closer to causality?

Do you believe that for any set of cuases (C) that there is one and only one possible effect (X)?

If so, we aren't as close as you might think because my given definition of free will (as well as the one given by insolafide) seems to require C to have at least two possible effects (X or ~X) when our will is involved (i.e. when our will is part of C).

Resting in Him,
Clete

Okay, time to try for some more common understanding building. When I speak of causality, or a causal model, I am taking about a process that leads to a class of outcomes, not a specific outcome. If I have a model that describes going to bed, it also has to describe not going to bed. Okay so far?

 

[Delmar]

First off, thanks for the English, I was getting a little puzzled. Okay, if I say "I went to bed at 10 because I was tired," was going to bed a free will decision?

I could just as easily say that, because I was tired I took a cold shower and got hopped up on caffine. Is it your premise that the fact that you get tired means you don't have freedom of choice?