Is it really free will, If you only have one option?

[james bond]

Here is how it was explained to me. In the New Testament, it is written sinners are commanded over and over to “repent” and “believe.” Thus, every call to repent is a call to choose. Even the street beggar in Berkeley with the sign, "John 3:16 Repent the end is near" had it right. I think he got the most money from passerby haha.

 

[BreezeWood]

- If you only have one option?

"to be or not to be"

"In the next life." Are you up for it or not? Your choice.

.

"In the next life." Are you up for it or not? Your choice.

Your choice ...

that alone is only the beginning, to free one's spirit.

but you do not understand bond, the religion prescribed by the Almighty is one of accomplishment, the triumph over evil that is required for admission to the Everlasting - you are felled by your own 4th century 10,000 page book of forgeries. there is no messiah as you claim.

 

[PK1]

You know, if anyone has a chance to get a copy of a book called "The Tao is Silent", you should read chapter 20 of that book.

It talks a great deal about free will and why we have it. A man is talking to God and is asking for his free will to be removed so he will no longer be able to sin.

Rather interesting take on the whole concept of free will. According to the author, the reason we have it is so that we don't kill everyone around us, because we see the value in having others around and cooperation is much more valuable than confrontation.

That sounds like ants have free will too, then.

Maybe not ants, but what about cats, dogs, dolphins, chimps, elephants, or other mammals with sizable brains?

It is obvious to me that they all have CONSCIOUSNESS of some capacity, and “it” is used to make decisions for survival & comfort. However, their “free will” (sic) may be limited, compared to humans, due to differences in language & tool-making competence.

 

[PK1]

- If you only have one option?

"to be or not to be"

"In the next life." Are you up for it or not? Your choice.

Why are you convinced about a “next life”?
I am agnostic about that idea ...
No credible evidence!

 

[BreezeWood]

- If you only have one option?

"to be or not to be"

"In the next life." Are you up for it or not? Your choice.

Why are you convinced about a “next life”?
I am agnostic about that idea ...
No credible evidence!

.

Why are you convinced about a “next life”?

from whence we came, the metaphysical forces of the universe ...

our physiology, the physiology of all living beings is a metaphysical substance that diapers when the life spirit is removed from it - there is no physiology that is inert is the proof that life is definable and so possibly sustainable when released to the Everlasting. or someday to evolve from the physical restraints where life already prevails.

 

[PK1]

- If you only have one option?

"to be or not to be"

"In the next life." Are you up for it or not? Your choice.

Why are you convinced about a “next life”?
I am agnostic about that idea ...
No credible evidence!

.

Why are you convinced about a “next life”?

from whence we came, the metaphysical forces of the universe ...

our physiology, the physiology of all living beings is a metaphysical substance that diapers when the life spirit is removed from it - there is no physiology that is inert is the proof that life is definable and so possibly sustainable when released to the Everlasting. or someday to evolve from the physical restraints where life already prevails.

Perhaps “next life” discussions should be in another thread.
Does “life” mean only “consciousness/memory” to you? Then it’s unlikely it will have another life after death.

Yes, after bio death, the living matter & associated energy may survive & propagate, but the original “free will” will likely not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe not ants, but what about cats, dogs, dolphins, chimps, elephants, or other mammals with sizable brains?

Right!

is the proof that life is definable

Then define it.

 

[james bond]

- If you only have one option?

"to be or not to be"

"In the next life." Are you up for it or not? Your choice.

Why are you convinced about a “next life”?
I am agnostic about that idea ...
No credible evidence!

"To be or not to be in the next life."

Then you may as well be atheist. It's still your choice. Both agnostics and atheists won't make it as they will be spiritually dead.

 

[james bond]

Maybe not ants, but what about cats, dogs, dolphins, chimps, elephants, or other mammals with sizable brains?

It is obvious to me that they all have CONSCIOUSNESS of some capacity, and “it” is used to make decisions for survival & comfort. However, their “free will” (sic) may be limited, compared to humans, due to differences in language & tool-making competence.

It is an interesting question. The mainstream logic is animals are not considered to be like humans so they do not have free will. However, we can see that they do make choices. They can make choices based on what humans taught them to do or they may make choices based on instinct. I agree they are conscious and they make decisions for survival and comfort. Humans have mind, emotion and will. As you pointed out, humans have a greater degree of intelligence than animals and this is what makes the difference albeit a hungry tiger can make a meal of the smartest and survivalist human. They can have keen instincts and hunting skills. I don't think animals are limited in free will. They do not have free will. This is what Dawkins and Hitchens were arguing about.

 

[gfm7175]

Seems like there will almost always be at least two options; do nothing and do something.

Yup... This is what I came here to say.

In any situation, there are always at least two options to choose from.

 

[BreezeWood]

- If you only have one option?

"to be or not to be"

"In the next life." Are you up for it or not? Your choice.

Why are you convinced about a “next life”?
I am agnostic about that idea ...
No credible evidence!

.

Why are you convinced about a “next life”?

from whence we came, the metaphysical forces of the universe ...

our physiology, the physiology of all living beings is a metaphysical substance that diapers when the life spirit is removed from it - there is no physiology that is inert is the proof that life is definable and so possibly sustainable when released to the Everlasting. or someday to evolve from the physical restraints where life already prevails.

Perhaps “next life” discussions should be in another thread.
Does “life” mean only “consciousness/memory” to you? Then it’s unlikely it will have another life after death.

Yes, after bio death, the living matter & associated energy may survive & propagate, but the original “free will” will likely not.

.

Yes, after bio death, the living matter & associated energy may survive & propagate, but the original “free will” will likely not.

the living matter & associated energy may survive & propagate ... but the original “free will” will likely not -

your statement seems the opposite for the progression of living beings that have emerged on this planet - the metaphysical "original" free will is what was responsible for the physical, physiology that life emerges with for the duration of its presence as we know it on planet earth - the physiology disappears without its spiritual presence and reemerges with changes through evolution over time that implies the spiritual component communicates with the metaphysical to bring about the change.

perhaps living beings are only leaves to the original free will that do perish or that coming from the original free will allows some to return back to it as distinct individuals. by completing the required conditions.

 

[james bond]

Seems like there will almost always be at least two options; do nothing and do something.

Yup... This is what I came here to say.

In any situation, there are always at least two options to choose from.

There is a little more to it than that to have free will. One has to have will first. We, as humans, have a will or the power to control one's actions and emotions. We have volition or mental powers of wishing, choosing, desiring or intending. If a group of people get together for a common goal, then it is said they have "will of the people." An individual may have a strong will to do something, accomplish something or improve themselves through self-improvement. Then we have at least two options to choose from and have free will like to do or do nothing. To believe or not believe.

This is what separates us from animals as atheists want to believe humans are just like the animals. Of course, people like Richard Dawkins are wrong.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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

 

[gfm7175]

Seems like there will almost always be at least two options; do nothing and do something.

Yup... This is what I came here to say.

In any situation, there are always at least two options to choose from.

There is a little more to it than that to have free will. One has to have will first. We, as humans, have a will or the power to control one's actions and emotions. We have volition or mental powers of wishing, choosing, desiring or intending. If a group of people get together for a common goal, then it is said they have "will of the people." An individual may have a strong will to do something, accomplish something or improve themselves through self-improvement. Then we have at least two options to choose from and have free will like to do or do nothing. To believe or not believe.

This is what separates us from animals as atheists want to believe humans are just like the animals. Of course, people like Richard Dawkins are wrong.

Correct.

I, however, was merely addressing the question the OP asked, regarding "is it free will if there is only one option". His question has an issue right from the start, because there is never only "one option". There are always at least two options [do nothing, or do something].

Now, where your point rightfully comes in, is if someone were to instead ask if there is even "will" present in the first place? In other words, if we do nothing rather than something, or something rather than nothing, did we actually have control over that?

You are correct about the volition bit (desires, self-reflection, and etc.) It does seem to strongly suggest free will, and we regularly speak in a manner as if we do have free will ("You ought to", "You ought not to", "I desire to have such and such", "I like the satisfaction I get from volunteering", "I need to lose weight to better myself", "I'm angry, but I'm not going to say anything", and so on and so forth).

 

[PK1]

Maybe not ants, but what about cats, dogs, dolphins, chimps, elephants, or other mammals with sizable brains?

It is obvious to me that they all have CONSCIOUSNESS of some capacity, and “it” is used to make decisions for survival & comfort. However, their “free will” (sic) may be limited, compared to humans, due to differences in language & tool-making competence.

It is an interesting question. The mainstream logic is animals are not considered to be like humans so they do not have free will. However, we can see that they do make choices. They can make choices based on what humans taught them to do or they may make choices based on instinct. I agree they are conscious and they make decisions for survival and comfort. Humans have mind, emotion and will. As you pointed out, humans have a greater degree of intelligence than animals and this is what makes the difference albeit a hungry tiger can make a meal of the smartest and survivalist human. They can have keen instincts and hunting skills. I don't think animals are limited in free will. They do not have free will. This is what Dawkins and Hitchens were arguing about.

How do you define “free will”.

I define it as an ability & necessity to make decisions.
Most mammals, other than humans, have that.
Humans, however, have more complicated ideas/options to weigh in their conscious thoughts ... unless chased by a tiger.

 

[PK1]

- If you only have one option?

"to be or not to be"

"In the next life." Are you up for it or not? Your choice.

Why are you convinced about a “next life”?
I am agnostic about that idea ...
No credible evidence!

.

Why are you convinced about a “next life”?

from whence we came, the metaphysical forces of the universe ...

our physiology, the physiology of all living beings is a metaphysical substance that diapers when the life spirit is removed from it - there is no physiology that is inert is the proof that life is definable and so possibly sustainable when released to the Everlasting. or someday to evolve from the physical restraints where life already prevails.

Perhaps “next life” discussions should be in another thread.
Does “life” mean only “consciousness/memory” to you? Then it’s unlikely it will have another life after death.

Yes, after bio death, the living matter & associated energy may survive & propagate, but the original “free will” will likely not.

.

Yes, after bio death, the living matter & associated energy may survive & propagate, but the original “free will” will likely not.

the living matter & associated energy may survive & propagate ... but the original “free will” will likely not -

your statement seems the opposite for the progression of living beings that have emerged on this planet - the metaphysical "original" free will is what was responsible for the physical, physiology that life emerges with for the duration of its presence as we know it on planet earth - the physiology disappears without its spiritual presence and reemerges with changes through evolution over time that implies the spiritual component communicates with the metaphysical to bring about the change.

perhaps living beings are only leaves to the original free will that do perish or that coming from the original free will allows some to return back to it as distinct individuals. by completing the required conditions.

Even if you could come up with coherent definitions of your mystical words, this statement of yours cannot be corroborated:

“the spiritual component communicates with the metaphysical to bring about the change.“

 

[Wyatt earp]

Seems like there will almost always be at least two options; do nothing and do something.

Yup... This is what I came here to say.

In any situation, there are always at least two options to choose from.

There is a little more to it than that to have free will. One has to have will first. We, as humans, have a will or the power to control one's actions and emotions. We have volition or mental powers of wishing, choosing, desiring or intending. If a group of people get together for a common goal, then it is said they have "will of the people." An individual may have a strong will to do something, accomplish something or improve themselves through self-improvement. Then we have at least two options to choose from and have free will like to do or do nothing. To believe or not believe.

This is what separates us from animals as atheists want to believe humans are just like the animals. Of course, people like Richard Dawkins are wrong.

Correct.

I, however, was merely addressing the question the OP asked, regarding "is it free will if there is only one option". His question has an issue right from the start, because there is never only "one option". There are always at least two options [do nothing, or do something].

Now, where your point rightfully comes in, is if someone were to instead ask if there is even "will" present in the first place? In other words, if we do nothing rather than something, or something rather than nothing, did we actually have control over that?

You are correct about the volition bit (desires, self-reflection, and etc.) It does seem to strongly suggest free will, and we regularly speak in a manner as if we do have free will ("You ought to", "You ought not to", "I desire to have such and such", "I like the satisfaction I get from volunteering", "I need to lose weight to better myself", "I'm angry, but I'm not going to say anything", and so on and so forth).

There are always at least two options [do nothing, or do something].


I posted my OP from a Christian stand point on free will.

If you do nothing...look at James 4:17


So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.


.

 

[BreezeWood]

"In the next life." Are you up for it or not? Your choice.

Why are you convinced about a “next life”?
I am agnostic about that idea ...
No credible evidence!

.

Why are you convinced about a “next life”?

from whence we came, the metaphysical forces of the universe ...

our physiology, the physiology of all living beings is a metaphysical substance that diapers when the life spirit is removed from it - there is no physiology that is inert is the proof that life is definable and so possibly sustainable when released to the Everlasting. or someday to evolve from the physical restraints where life already prevails.

Perhaps “next life” discussions should be in another thread.
Does “life” mean only “consciousness/memory” to you? Then it’s unlikely it will have another life after death.

Yes, after bio death, the living matter & associated energy may survive & propagate, but the original “free will” will likely not.

.

Yes, after bio death, the living matter & associated energy may survive & propagate, but the original “free will” will likely not.

the living matter & associated energy may survive & propagate ... but the original “free will” will likely not -

your statement seems the opposite for the progression of living beings that have emerged on this planet - the metaphysical "original" free will is what was responsible for the physical, physiology that life emerges with for the duration of its presence as we know it on planet earth - the physiology disappears without its spiritual presence and reemerges with changes through evolution over time that implies the spiritual component communicates with the metaphysical to bring about the change.

perhaps living beings are only leaves to the original free will that do perish or that coming from the original free will allows some to return back to it as distinct individuals. by completing the required conditions.

Even if you could come up with coherent definitions of your mystical words, this statement of yours cannot be corroborated:

“the spiritual component communicates with the metaphysical to bring about the change.“

.

Even if you could come up with coherent definitions of your mystical words, this statement of yours cannot be corroborated:

“the spiritual component communicates with the metaphysical to bring about the change.“

cannot be corroborated ...

the answers for evolution are in the present tense the past examples are incomplete reminiscences long discarded for more desirable results incorporated metaphysically from one generation to the next by the physiology's spiritual content ... the same as the cicada -

transforming itself from one being to another the metaphysical, spiritual content exhibits the same ability in a single setting as the occurrence over time with the same result.

 

[james bond]

Seems like there will almost always be at least two options; do nothing and do something.

Yup... This is what I came here to say.

In any situation, there are always at least two options to choose from.

There is a little more to it than that to have free will. One has to have will first. We, as humans, have a will or the power to control one's actions and emotions. We have volition or mental powers of wishing, choosing, desiring or intending. If a group of people get together for a common goal, then it is said they have "will of the people." An individual may have a strong will to do something, accomplish something or improve themselves through self-improvement. Then we have at least two options to choose from and have free will like to do or do nothing. To believe or not believe.

This is what separates us from animals as atheists want to believe humans are just like the animals. Of course, people like Richard Dawkins are wrong.

Correct.

I, however, was merely addressing the question the OP asked, regarding "is it free will if there is only one option". His question has an issue right from the start, because there is never only "one option". There are always at least two options [do nothing, or do something].

Now, where your point rightfully comes in, is if someone were to instead ask if there is even "will" present in the first place? In other words, if we do nothing rather than something, or something rather than nothing, did we actually have control over that?

You are correct about the volition bit (desires, self-reflection, and etc.) It does seem to strongly suggest free will, and we regularly speak in a manner as if we do have free will ("You ought to", "You ought not to", "I desire to have such and such", "I like the satisfaction I get from volunteering", "I need to lose weight to better myself", "I'm angry, but I'm not going to say anything", and so on and so forth).

I thought if the OP or someone like Dawkins or Hitchens were stating human free will is an illusion or like than of an animal, then they are wrong. For animals, they may act like they have a choice due to will, but they do no have will. This is an illusion. You can't have a free will if you do not have will. With humans, it's a little more complex than what Dawkins and Hitchens make it out to be. Humans have will like ambition, to correct one's mistakes, to know when something is just or not just and so on.

 

[ding]

Right and wrong is a human construct that animals don’t have.