we create this

Very true, but continue.. To BE human, and more is the breaking point of understanding, and we continue,

Sincerely,

dls

Sort of like religious faith and beliefs, imo free-will is also an unprovable. I say that because we exist in a singular, linear path. We always say we 'could have' made different choices but in the end the story of your life is a linear one. The debate about free-will is this -- given the same input, would you have always gone down the same path? If so, can you really call it free will?

But that is reflection on the past, to have such reflections only means to want to continue, or give up, but its always up to you, the individual. There are many ways of giving up and many many more ways to continue. What do you choose? Was my question?..

Sincerely,

dls

This thread now has 165 posts debating whether or not free-will is an illusion – whether it’s real or illusion, whether it’s fact or belief, etc.

I have yet to see here a solid definition of what free-will is. Without a rational, agreed-upon definition, anyone can say anything about anything.

It’s not possible to rationally debate whether or not something exists if you haven’t defined what that something is.

So what is the agreed-upon definition of free-will?

Good point. Furthermore, any such definition's validity would be a function of the validity of that which creates the definition. So, before proceeding with building upon the definition, an examination of that which defines is in order.

Now you come to mention it i am not really sure. I don"t know whether to be grateful to you or pissed at you for making me aware that i may have been talking out of my backside for however many posts that i have made in this thread.
I guess i would define freewill as the ability to make decisions independently from outside influences.

This is a massive topic, and I have no comment, other than to suggest looking into the following articles for preliminary reading on determinism, foreknowledge and free will. Most courses begin with Aristotle but the Stanford articles summarizing Aristotle leading into Aquinas will likely make more sense to modern audiences.

Free Will
Foreknowledge and Free Will
Future Contingents

Summa Theologica, Question 83 (Free Will)
...What does this mean?

Well said, as per usual, gibran2. Free will would be contingent on fixing a specific definition of just whose will can act freely. Therefore, a definitive self-orientation must be established, by which freedom of choice and self-direction might feasibly apply. And I agree with many of the viewpoints expressed here, that multiple influences come into play about everything we do or conversely, decline the doing of... thus shaping how we react, as perception itself is based upon a necessary specificity in our own unique thought patterns, beliefs and self parameters. Honesty folks, none of us can truly be sure what we perceive is even real. Does the dreamer always know it's dreaming? This only compounds the challenge of clearly defining free will and some modicum of freedom of choice.

Ego is composed of many stimuli and countless influences. So, is said "free will" an aspect of the surface or the very depths of ourselves? Or can it be both? I often wonder and do question just where the lines are drawn, save within the human mind. I also feel that the isolated and individualized self is wholly bound by the interactions which directly stimulate and affect it's vortexial fulcrum of being. One dream sequence impacts the next. Karma is a bitch, right? Higher self or pure soul essence, on the other hand... is perhaps another story altogether? Yet, this may also be illusory in nature? Hence we ponder deeply and often.

I sincerely believe that in our deepest epicenter, we are free and unbound, we do indeed harness intent and so, we do freely and knowingly make choices. We choose to be. We choose to bloom beyond the static. We choose to be birthed into this swirling dichotomy, this realm of duality. And I suspect that a calling from within elicits a profound remembrance of our origins.

Awakening from one's set paradigm ignites an endless ripple and challenges the witness to one's dreamscape to pause and reflect... to come into a deep stillness. In such a state of entrancement, mind stops and a new attention blooms. Light streams from emptiness and another kind of knowing is birthed. Is this then, freedom and spiritual illumination? Who can say with an degree of certainty? Still we querry, we search and we unabashedly explore further down the proverbial rabbit hole. But ain't we got fun?

No one.






Of course we do!






Absolutely!!! Oh yeah!!!!

"Agreed-upon" haha, good luck with that online

It's impossible not to take a stand. If you are silent you are taking a stand for silence. If you speak in contradictions you take a stand for confusion and chaos. If you say you don't take a stand you take a stand for not taking a stand.

You know it.! I am sooooooo reminded of the Rush song, Freewill. "You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose free will."

And come on, just who wouldn't go for self direction, taking the wheel and steering decidedly into the realm of an intentionally chosen, soul direction? Shifting awareness towards the boundary-less expanse of one's affinity with the limitlessness of Infinity?

So by that statement you have decided that both exist and are dependent of each other, "free will" being the steering wheel, "fate" being the eternal road, and "you" being the vehicle.

Free will is dependent on fate because what is cause without effect?
Fate is dependent on free will because how can something exist with only one condition?
You depend on both.

But hey, this is only speculation, and I smoke a lot of weed, lol.

What would you do or think if infinity does have a boundary? It could be that its such a staggeringly enormous "thing" that we can only see it as never ending.

Thankyou for the links. I am trawling through them as and when my busy schedule allows (the same goes for links that other members have posted in this thread).
I thought about looking up what philosiphers thought that free will was when Gilbran asked for a solid definition, but i didnt wnt to be steered in to regurgitating someone elses concepts.





If you are going by that logic i don"t understand why you are confused about what Jamie "stands" for??




A few years ago i read an interview with Alex Lifeson on the making of the album Permanent Waves. When Neil Peart was writing the lyrics for "free will" Lifeson wanted to put a few disclaimer lines in to the song alluding to choice not being the same as free will.
Peart decilined his advice, saying that his words didnt have the correct rhyme and metre. The whole band then started arguing about the lyrics and as to what free will actually was for about 2 months, thereby wasting valuable studio time. The producer eventually forced them to draw straws in order to decide on what lyrics to use. I find it quite ironic that the words for a song condoning free will were decided upon by a game of chance!!!!!

This made me

Regurgitating concepts? When studying free will in university it's impossible to discuss the topic without first discussing Aristotle and Aquinas. All modern arguments regarding free will are based on the work done by these two (and a few others). So, I'm not sure how you come to a definition of free will without first discussing the work done before you. Esp. the Summa Theologica.

Just because the material is dense does not mean its regurgitating concepts. It's like trying to understand calculus without first learning algebra.

That is a shame, if i was a lecturer at college, i would ask my students what they thought free will was before introducing them to the works of others and then see where the discussion goes.



Why not? I have come to a definition of free will without discussing the work done before me and, according to some of the links you posted, some of my arguments echo these works. Whether my definitions are right or wrong is a different kettle of fish but if i just go "Aristotle said that" or "Descartes said this" then the conclusions that i have come to in regard to free will are not really my own.



I have no problem reading the thoughts of philosophers, no matter how dense, but i also think that it is healthy to think about philosophical concepts from an individual perspective using knowledge and experience that one has gained through life. Isn"t part of the beauty of philosophy that anyone can have a crack at it, no matter how well educated or uneducated they happen to be.No one was telling Socrates "Nope you can"t define such and such without reading so and so"....(please don"t read that last sentence as me comparing myself to Socrates)

@ Hug

It is incredibly beneficial (and painful ) once your personal philosophy is rock solid, to digest the thought logic of the great minds. I think you will find a multitude of parallels and associations that further strengthen your view. Who knows, you could find a revolutionary pattern that has remained hidden for centuries.

Plato's allegory of the cave should provide a sufficient explanation.