Free will is impossible unless one is omnipotent. Agree?

[Compassionist]

We are all unique prisoners of causality. Our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences make us who we are. Our awarness, our values, our interests, our goals and our choices all arise from the complex dynamics of our unique combination of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. We don’t all want the same things. We are not all equally able to do what we want. I think that we have a constrained will – our wills are constrained by causality. I think that free will is impossible unless one is omnipotent.

Although there are similarities between people and other living things, everyone is unique. Two people, share 99% of their genes. Two identical twins share 100% of their genes. A human and a chimp share 98% of their genes. While genes are the starting point, they are not the only ingredients in the complex broth that we are.
Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences make us who we are. These four groups of variables interact dynamically and in multiple layers.

While it’s relatively obvious what I mean by genes, I think I should clarify what I mean by environments. By environments, I am talking about the physical environmental factors e.g. temperature, acidity, air pressure, pollutants, etc. For example, if one is too hot or too cold in the womb one would not develop within functional parameters.

By nutrients I don’t mean just carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals. I am also including oxygen and water as nutrients.

By experience, I mean all we perceive through our five senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell) and our thoughts about what we perceive and our feelings about what we perceive and how we respond in terms of words, actions and omissions. For example, right here and right now, YOU are experiencing reading these words of mine. You are also experiecing consequential thoughts and feelings of your own. You will in turn respond with your own words which you will type (i.e. action) or you might decide that it’s not worth the effort and refrain from sharing your thoughts (i.e. omission).

I think that if I had your genes, environments, nutrients and experiences then I would be you, living your life, the way you have lived and continue to live. And if you have my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences then you would be me, living my life, the way I have lived and continue to live.

Depending on the degree of similarities in terms of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences , we can empathise to various degrees. For example, if you have gone swimming then you can empathise with someone else who has gone swimming but if you have never done it you would find it difficult to empathise. Swimming as a human is different from swimming as a dolphin or an otter or a fish or a squid or a whale or a shark, etc. The degree of empathy is directly proportional to the degree of similarity.

Given that no one has totally identical genes and environments and nutrients and experiences, I think that it would be impossible to have total empathy with another organism.

In the poll, I have chosen the first option. I don’t think I could have chosen the other options given my unique combination of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. I am all too aware that I am a prisoner of causality. I am all too aware that I do not have free will. I am all too aware that I have a constrained will. I have made many choices in my lifetime and I don’t think that even one of them could have been any different at the place and time of the decisions. Of course, I learn from experience but this too, is constrained by causality. I can’t learn Japanese without ever being exposed to Japanese or trying to learn Japanese and my ability to learn Japanese may not be as good as yours. All things happen inevitably according to causality. The inevitable has happened, is happening and will continue to happen. You are welcome to try to prove me wrong but you will inevitably fail. And that’s not your fault. Unless you are omnipotent, you are also a prisoner of causality – just like me.

[Goat]

Free will doesn’t seem to exist. Yet it is used as a defense or apologetic..

This is exactly what it is, a perfect apologetic defense, IMO. The same reason that I find physics to be of a mess. Very well said.

P.S. I just hate the extremities of both positions. I think the polarization of them both, leave something missing, or left properly unexplained.

I take it you disagree with my statement, then. Would you like to put forth your argument in a form that is more conducive to debate?

That is fair, but I can't. Honestly, I try to stay off these types of threads. I am not really convinced of either position. I think they both have their merits, I also think that both could simultaneously exist and avoid contradiction. Needless to say, I attack them both, and IMO, properly (of course!).

P.S. On a separate note, there are Christian apologist that take both sides at some level (Freewill vs. Determinism).

Holding Free Will and Determinism as not being mutually exclusive is called Compatibilism, the inverse is Incompatibilism. I have yet to hear a single good argument for Compatibilism, but if you think you know of one I would love to hear it.

I would like to see a legit argument for 'Compatibilism'. For that matter, I would like to see a better argument for Determinism too. I have yet to see any argument for either that I find convincing.

[TheMessage]

Free will doesn’t seem to exist. Yet it is used as a defense or apologetic..

This is exactly what it is, a perfect apologetic defense, IMO. The same reason that I find physics to be of a mess. Very well said.

P.S. I just hate the extremities of both positions. I think the polarization of them both, leave something missing, or left properly unexplained.

I take it you disagree with my statement, then. Would you like to put forth your argument in a form that is more conducive to debate?

That is fair, but I can't. Honestly, I try to stay off these types of threads. I am not really convinced of either position. I think they both have their merits, I also think that both could simultaneously exist and avoid contradiction. Needless to say, I attack them both, and IMO, properly (of course!).

P.S. On a separate note, there are Christian apologist that take both sides at some level (Freewill vs. Determinism).

Holding Free Will and Determinism as not being mutually exclusive is called Compatibilism, the inverse is Incompatibilism. I have yet to hear a single good argument for Compatibilism, but if you think you know of one I would love to hear it.

I would like to see a legit argument for 'Compatibilism'. For that matter, I would like to see a better argument for Determinism too. I have yet to see any argument for either that I find convincing.

Really? I can find you a good, condensed argument for Determinism, but I'm going to eat lunch first.

In the meantime, what would you consider a good argument for Free Will?

[Cathar1950]

Determinism seems implied when we ask why someone did something.
It seems free-will would be random.
Even feeling determines. It would seem even God is determined by His Holiness, goodness, and right.

If we didn't believe in determinism we would we bother learning?
Will looks like response and we evolve to respond. Determinism is the reasons we respond and reasons determines how.

[TheMessage]

Determinism seems implied when we ask why someone did something.
It seems free-will would be random.
Even feeling determines. It would seem even God is determined by His Holiness, goodness, and right.

If we didn't believe in determinism we would we bother learning?
Will looks like response and we evolve to respond. Determinism is the reasons we respond and reasons determines how.

Well, free will wouldn't be random... rather it would be utterly up to the individual to actively choose a course of action. just like most people initially assume they are doing.

A potentially random sort of concept in the 'free will debate' is called Indeterminism which is different from Determinism in that it posits that at least some events are not determined to occur. This essentially allows for uncaused events, which most forms of Determinism normally exclude.

For an example, let's say you're in a room with a clock and a note that says "Eat the clock". With Free Will, whatever you choose to do is totally up to you. With Determinism, your actions will always happen a certain way, though you may not know what they are beforehand and it may appear as though you chose them. With Indeterminism, it's potentially 'up in the air' as to what your actions are. You have no control over them either way, but they may not even be influenced by your past experiences like Deterministic responses would be.

[Goat]

Really? I can find you a good, condensed argument for Determinism, but I'm going to eat lunch first.

In the meantime, what would you consider a good argument for Free Will?

IMO, a good argument for 'free will' is if there is no such thing as Determinism, or at least limited determinism (for example, we all know we are going to grow old and die, or maybe just die, and there is nothing we can do to stop that().

[Cathar1950]

Really? I can find you a good, condensed argument for Determinism, but I'm going to eat lunch first.

In the meantime, what would you consider a good argument for Free Will?

IMO, a good argument for 'free will' is if there is no such thing as Determinism, or at least limited determinism (for example, we all know we are going to grow old and die, or maybe just die, and there is nothing we can do to stop that().

That is going to happen anyway Goat.
I see it just the other way around, if it wasn't determined what we did wouldn't matter.
It is knowing things change and that doing something will matter gives us hope things might get better.
I suspect it is partly because of our language and evolution that we respond from our experiences which determine us.

[polygonx]

Free will doesn’t seem to exist. Yet it is used as a defense or apologetic..

This is exactly what it is, a perfect apologetic defense, IMO. The same reason that I find physics to be of a mess. Very well said.

P.S. I just hate the extremities of both positions. I think the polarization of them both, leave something missing, or left properly unexplained.

I take it you disagree with my statement, then. Would you like to put forth your argument in a form that is more conducive to debate?

That is fair, but I can't. Honestly, I try to stay off these types of threads. I am not really convinced of either position. I think they both have their merits, I also think that both could simultaneously exist and avoid contradiction. Needless to say, I attack them both, and IMO, properly (of course!).

P.S. On a separate note, there are Christian apologist that take both sides at some level (Freewill vs. Determinism).

Holding Free Will and Determinism as not being mutually exclusive is called Compatibilism, the inverse is Incompatibilism. I have yet to hear a single good argument for Compatibilism, but if you think you know of one I would love to hear it.

I would like to see a legit argument for 'Compatibilism'. For that matter, I would like to see a better argument for Determinism too. I have yet to see any argument for either that I find convincing.

A possible choice or impossible choice made in ignorance or with force.

A possible choice in ignorance, with will? A determined choice with will? In other words, how do you have either exclusively with human will?

[Goat]

Free will doesn’t seem to exist. Yet it is used as a defense or apologetic..

This is exactly what it is, a perfect apologetic defense, IMO. The same reason that I find physics to be of a mess. Very well said.

P.S. I just hate the extremities of both positions. I think the polarization of them both, leave something missing, or left properly unexplained.

I take it you disagree with my statement, then. Would you like to put forth your argument in a form that is more conducive to debate?

That is fair, but I can't. Honestly, I try to stay off these types of threads. I am not really convinced of either position. I think they both have their merits, I also think that both could simultaneously exist and avoid contradiction. Needless to say, I attack them both, and IMO, properly (of course!).

P.S. On a separate note, there are Christian apologist that take both sides at some level (Freewill vs. Determinism).

Holding Free Will and Determinism as not being mutually exclusive is called Compatibilism, the inverse is Incompatibilism. I have yet to hear a single good argument for Compatibilism, but if you think you know of one I would love to hear it.

I would like to see a legit argument for 'Compatibilism'. For that matter, I would like to see a better argument for Determinism too. I have yet to see any argument for either that I find convincing.

A possible choice made in ignorance.

And how is that an argument for either? Please, expand on your claim so it's more than one sentence that has no meaning to me.