Free will and free choice

Out of curiosity- is there a moment when too much free will is too much ? It there a line that can be drawn from free will and free choice? Can there be a point where it hurts? Where - if any - is there a line ? Do we watch those free to choose - choose to harm?
Try to keep names and current events out and think about that for a bit - if you must use people as examples just use em but at least try - get better ? Maybe ? Any how - there are moments in life right now where officers won’t endorce laws due to fear of larger problems becoming key factors in every day life’s. How free is free ? How free can you be if you have limits ? Are limits needed with freedom? Rights to free speech and free action ... do they need to be policed and when is it ok to do that? Remember - try not to bring the not to bring dramma into the discussion if you can - at least try but it’s a real question we face even here ... how free to be and is it a necessity to police freedoms ?

Just going to give a humble opinion because I am actually reading a book for class that has a few related quotes and thoughts.

The Social Contract

So to answer the first question, free will can cross lines to where it hurts (yourself and others), if it is pointed out by a majority then it should be noted as free choice towards inflicting harm. Notice, I did not include intention there because that does not apply to all situations.

So, the issues with seeing laws being unenforced due to fear and ironically the visa-versa because of other ramifications, is IMHO a large enough set of subgroups of a society rejecting the social contract as a whole.

In this book Jean asserts the sovereign of a free state is not the individual but the general feeling of the society as a group of people.

So, if a majority is feeling fear than so will the state of the social contract and parts will begin to fall away or they will be amended. I have yet to see the I have yet to see the pattern where the subgroups of our current society coming to the actual medium needed to amend our social contract with each other to avoid these consequences we are seeing.

However, I am young (relatively), and society does not amend itself quickly so my data set may be short sighted.

Just an opinion,

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

On a more philosophical note, what even is this free will thing I keep hearing so much about anyway? Like, seriously, what is it supposed to be?

Either our thoughts and choices are determined from prior states of our nervous system and external stimuli in full, or in part, or they are independent of them entirely. Which of these three options is the "free will" one, I don't understand that. Surely, if our choices are determined by prior conditions, can we meaningfully speak of a choice at all? And if it is not determined, then we can point at no source of them to that extent and again I ask, where is the free agent in all of it?

Even with some kind of ghost in the machine it doesn't make any more sense than without, just shifts the problem. Did you pick the soul that lives in your body? Who is this "you" fellow, anyway? And is that soul free to make a choice, or does it choose in accord with its nature which in turn was no more chosen by it than the body it came to occupy? Can it anymore than you think about a thought and decide whether it wants the thought to occur to it, before having it occur to it, be it directly or for the pondering?

I don't understand what free will means and have yet to come across anyone who seems like they do. It doesn't make sense given the most charitable of religious liberties, it makes no sense in the context of what we know about how nature works and it makes no intuitive sense either once any thought has been given it at all, I find. With that in mind, just in what kind of context does it make any sense?

Gisteron wrote: On a more philosophical note, what even is this free will thing I keep hearing so much about anyway? Like, seriously, what is it supposed to be?

I would ask is the concept of freewill the same idea of being able to define I? It seems like an idea of there being a separate I from the whole.

Either our thoughts and choices are determined from prior states of our nervous system and external stimuli in full, or in part, or they are independent of them entirely. Which of these three options is the "free will" one, I don't understand that. Surely, if our choices are determined by prior conditions, can we meaningfully speak of a choice at all? And if it is not determined, then we can point at no source of them to that extent and again I ask, where is the free agent in all of it?


I tend to lean in the direction of nervous and external stimuli dictating thought and choice. However, this said, how do we explain the breaks and shift from a natural processes. For example, For the most part the modern world has allowed human to separate themselves fro many of the basic instinctual and directed stimuli. Is this a correct assertion? I would disagree on surface as we have just shifted it. I don,t have to hunt to eat, but I do have to go to work to pay my bills which meet my basic instinctual needs. So, this allows for "freewill" to be built as a social idea. Over the course of time then has the ability to consider freewill as a concept, left to changes in the internal nervous system reaction to event we would consider normal in the modern context? Does this lead at all to the concept of choice being predetermined or is it in some way controlled via an individuals biology entirely.

Even with some kind of ghost in the machine it doesn't make any more sense than without, just shifts the problem. Did you pick the soul that lives in your body? Who is this "you" fellow, anyway? And is that soul free to make a choice, or does it choose in accord with its nature which in turn was no more chosen by it than the body it came to occupy? Can it anymore than you think about a thought and decide whether it wants the thought to occur to it, before having it occur to it, be it directly or for the pondering?

I agree with you initial statement. I will ask though is the "you" fellow not just a physical concept but and idea of the individual outcomes of action experienced (both internally motivated or externally) by a semi-independent physical being? As we would understand it in the biological data of animals.

I don't understand what free will means and have yet to come across anyone who seems like they do. It doesn't make sense given the most charitable of religious liberties, it makes no sense in the context of what we know about how nature works and it makes no intuitive sense either once any thought has been given it at all, I find. With that in mind, just in what kind of context does it make any sense?

So, I struggle with the meaning or even the entire concept of freewill being real. In fact trying to find it's definition and enough experiences of my own as well as other's recorded experiences to support it either way.

So as a definition I would say it is the idea that the conscious individual is separate from the natural order, this allows for a set of outcomes to actions. Through cognition of previous experiences and natural learning an idea of choice of outcomes becomes applicable to said individuals thought. This in turn in social settings allows us to consider the idea that freewill is being able to choose the outcomes of situations not based entirely on either of the 2 theories you stated above but a mix of the 2. Now, this is all my personal thoughts on it, as I said earlier I am in the middle between is there free will or not.

Thank you Gist, that is awesomely put and pretty thought provoking.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

It's an interesting concept you propose Carlos.

In my opinion, yes people can be hurt from free will and free choice. However, whether there is a definite line that can fixed to a certain point of good and bad, that I would consider to be an abstract area. If a person were to make a decision to do carry out a task of their own free will and choice and this was to harm someone else as Kobos rightly points out there may be no intention to cause harm or to make what would be considered a 'bad' choice. In my opinion, this is not necessarily bad as this is the foundation for all of democracy, we choose an official to represent us through our own free will and freedom of choice. This is without thought of how this could affect someone else and is based on your own personal situation therefore, there is no intention for harm. Does it mean harm could be caused, probably? Does it make it selfish that we don't think of a greater populous with our vote? That's probably a question for another time.

Kobos wrote: Just going to give a humble opinion because I am actually reading a book for class that has a few related quotes and thoughts.

The Social Contract

So to answer the first question, free will can cross lines to where it hurts (yourself and others), if it is pointed out by a majority then it should be noted as free choice towards inflicting harm. Notice, I did not include intention there because that does not apply to all situations.

So, the issues with seeing laws being unenforced due to fear and ironically the visa-versa because of other ramifications, is IMHO a large enough set of subgroups of a society rejecting the social contract as a whole.

In this book Jean asserts the sovereign of a free state is not the individual but the general feeling of the society as a group of people.

So, if a majority is feeling fear than so will the state of the social contract and parts will begin to fall away or they will be amended. I have yet to see the I have yet to see the pattern where the subgroups of our current society coming to the actual medium needed to amend our social contract with each other to avoid these consequences we are seeing.

However, I am young (relatively), and society does not amend itself quickly so my data set may be short sighted.

Just an opinion,

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Out of curiosity, is that point called something? Where that point of harm comes. There’s gotta be some flashy new term ... maybe not. I’m glad that there is a point though.

Gisteron wrote: On a more philosophical note, what even is this free will thing I keep hearing so much about anyway? Like, seriously, what is it supposed to be?

Either our thoughts and choices are determined from prior states of our nervous system and external stimuli in full, or in part, or they are independent of them entirely. Which of these three options is the "free will" one, I don't understand that. Surely, if our choices are determined by prior conditions, can we meaningfully speak of a choice at all? And if it is not determined, then we can point at no source of them to that extent and again I ask, where is the free agent in all of it?

Even with some kind of ghost in the machine it doesn't make any more sense than without, just shifts the problem. Did you pick the soul that lives in your body? Who is this "you" fellow, anyway? And is that soul free to make a choice, or does it choose in accord with its nature which in turn was no more chosen by it than the body it came to occupy? Can it anymore than you think about a thought and decide whether it wants the thought to occur to it, before having it occur to it, be it directly or for the pondering?

I don't understand what free will means and have yet to come across anyone who seems like they do. It doesn't make sense given the most charitable of religious liberties, it makes no sense in the context of what we know about how nature works and it makes no intuitive sense either once any thought has been given it at all, I find. With that in mind, just in what kind of context does it make any sense?

Great questions, mind if we slit the Topic?

chaostheory95 wrote: It's an interesting concept you propose Carlos.

In my opinion, yes people can be hurt from free will and free choice. However, whether there is a definite line that can fixed to a certain point of good and bad, that I would consider to be an abstract area. If a person were to make a decision to do carry out a task of their own free will and choice and this was to harm someone else as Kobos rightly points out there may be no intention to cause harm or to make what would be considered a 'bad' choice. In my opinion, this is not necessarily bad as this is the foundation for all of democracy, we choose an official to represent us through our own free will and freedom of choice. This is without thought of how this could affect someone else and is based on your own personal situation therefore, there is no intention for harm. Does it mean harm could be caused, probably? Does it make it selfish that we don't think of a greater populous with our vote? That's probably a question for another time.

Thanks for the response. I often wonder in life and in a place like this too - how do we forget the things we know?
I guess it’s worth noting that there CAN be a place where to far is to far. I saw a video some where I think in our degree scheme called the paradox of choice. Some times too many choices causes no choice and some times to many choices cause panic and even uncertainty. The Book of Change and I think even the Bible and many religious texts say that too much is ... too much - even with freedoms I think to. You think ?

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote:

Kobos wrote: Just going to give a humble opinion because I am actually reading a book for class that has a few related quotes and thoughts.

The Social Contract

So to answer the first question, free will can cross lines to where it hurts (yourself and others), if it is pointed out by a majority then it should be noted as free choice towards inflicting harm. Notice, I did not include intention there because that does not apply to all situations.

So, the issues with seeing laws being unenforced due to fear and ironically the visa-versa because of other ramifications, is IMHO a large enough set of subgroups of a society rejecting the social contract as a whole.

In this book Jean asserts the sovereign of a free state is not the individual but the general feeling of the society as a group of people.

So, if a majority is feeling fear than so will the state of the social contract and parts will begin to fall away or they will be amended. I have yet to see the I have yet to see the pattern where the subgroups of our current society coming to the actual medium needed to amend our social contract with each other to avoid these consequences we are seeing.

However, I am young (relatively), and society does not amend itself quickly so my data set may be short sighted.

Just an opinion,

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Out of curiosity, is that point called something? Where that point of harm comes. There’s gotta be some flashy new term ... maybe not. I’m glad that there is a point though.

So, if there is one I personally have never heard it. As I see it it is the point of what we each decide is civil or not. I think it is almost an unspoken idea in a society in general. I think this is where we see some of the strife that we are speaking of in this thread. There is a general conciseness on what is, after all our society is operable at the moment so that implies it's presence. However, I do believe that as that shifts (as we may be seeing now) maybe it does have to be defined and named. Around the time of the writing this book it was centered around the idea of personal freedom (in context of living under strict monarchies). Now, we hear civil rights a lot so, maybe the point we need to define for this apply to modern day, we have to first define the point where someone's civil rights are violated. I think at this moment we as a society have not come to an agreement as to where that is and it is in fact hindering us as it splits us into subgroups of a population.

Subgroups in societies always form, however, it is when the subgroups meaning(or ideology?) takes a priority to the majorities of the split society, it becomes major threat to that definition as the subgroups face off in order to define that point (from their perspective) as opposed to multiple facets and general society as a whole.

Just an opinion on it, because I honestly, do not know.
Can you tell I have been reading enlightenment era texts lol?.......

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos