Philosophy Now Forum

Mark Question wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: is there always some reasons, (be)causes, why agents want to generate their own considerations?
Sure there are, that are determined by ones knowledge.

what makes author free from (be)causes, reasons?
(Be)causes and reasons are the will of the person, freedom is contained in a particular ones choosing, their knowledge.

It seems that you are trying to see freedom beyond human capabilities, but just because you can conceive of the possibility of it, does not necessarily indicate that in fact it can exist. The freedom of the human will, rests firmly, in what it is, in being human. To consider anything else, may be on the horizon, but it's foolish to compare it to now, as if a possibility, can have any necessary bearing.

what determines ones knowledge?
Their ability to seek and see the truth, which can only be derived from the universal perspective.

knowledge gives freedom over persons will((Be)causes and reasons)?
(Relative quantities of knowledge lends to relative freedom of will.)
freedom to choose?
Yes.
what determines choosing?
Any particular relative level of knowledge.

are we all with scientists trying to see beyond good old knowledge,
Knowledge is not necessarily good or old. Knowledge is definitely truthful, and continuously becoming new.
beyond free will,
so as to be freer of will
beyond bible and other stories,
Possibly.
beyond earth, sun, atoms?
Possibly.
making better possibility models,
Possibly.
god knows not true models beyond human knowledge?
All things must be questioned, especially those of people of old that may have had selfish ulterior motives, or simply been a victim of false knowledge, that was built into their dogma.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: what determines ones knowledge?
Their ability to seek and see the truth, which can only be derived from the universal perspective.

knowledge gives freedom over persons will((Be)causes and reasons)?
(Relative quantities of knowledge lends to relative freedom of will.)
freedom to choose?
Yes.
what determines choosing?
Any particular relative level of knowledge.

are we all with scientists trying to see beyond good old knowledge,
Knowledge is not necessarily good or old. Knowledge is definitely truthful, and continuously becoming new.

making better possibility models,
Possibly.
god knows not true models beyond human knowledge?
All things must be questioned, especially those of people of old that may have had selfish ulterior motives, or simply been a victim of false knowledge, that was built into their dogma.

rantal wrote:Free will is an appeal to the best explanation available, no other theory explains the phenomenon as well

all the best, rantal

Mark Question wrote:

rantal wrote:Free will is an appeal to the best explanation available, no other theory explains the phenomenon as well

all the best, rantal

is psychological "own will" more coherent with science than "free will"?

rantal wrote:

Mark Question wrote:

rantal wrote:Free will is an appeal to the best explanation available, no other theory explains the phenomenon as well

all the best, rantal

is psychological "own will" more coherent with science than "free will"?

What is that?

all the best, rantal

rantal wrote:

Mark Question wrote:

rantal wrote: Of course you cannot reliably predict free will purely because it is free. However, we can get a rough guide to it and theories in the philosophy of mind have been developed to account for this

1. is "you cannot reliably predict free will purely because it is free" begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point")?
2. what theory do you use to justify, rationalize the idea of free will?

Self-evident

all the best, rantal

Mark Question wrote:

Mark Question wrote:

rantal wrote: Of course you cannot reliably predict free will purely because it is free. However, we can get a rough guide to it and theories in the philosophy of mind have been developed to account for this

1. is "you cannot reliably predict free will purely because it is free" begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point")?
2. what theory do you use to justify, rationalize the idea of free will?

Self-evident

all the best, rantal

rantal wrote: No Allah is not self evident, everyone experiences making a choice not everyone experiences the divine: that common experience does not make it a fact but it does mean that it is something denial of which must be argued for

all the best,rantal[/i][/color]

Mark Question wrote:

rantal wrote: No Allah is not self evident, everyone experiences making a choice not everyone experiences the divine: that common experience does not make it a fact but it does mean that it is something denial of which must be argued for

all the best,rantal[/i][/color]

self-evident: everyone experiences (center of the universe, )earth is not moving?
self-evident: everyone experiences making a choice(, free from reasoning)?
self-evident: almighty can choose who experiences the divine?
they are all self-evident, evident from their self, not from others?

rantal wrote:

Mark Question wrote: self-evident: everyone experiences (center of the universe, )earth is not moving?
self-evident: everyone experiences making a choice(, free from reasoning)?
self-evident: almighty can choose who experiences the divine?
they are all self-evident, evident from their self, not from others?

No, no one directly experiences the centre of the universe, that is an absurd and false claim

If the almighty chooses who experiences the divine then it is not universal.

So clearly they are not all self evident in fact it is only making a choice that is universally experienced

all the best, rantal

Mark Question wrote:SoB: in red

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Mark Q: what determines ones knowledge?
SoB: Their ability to seek and see the truth, which can only be derived from the universal perspective.

Mark Q: what determines their ability to seek and see?
They do.

Mark Q: knowledge gives freedom over persons will((Be)causes and reasons)?
SoB: (Relative quantities of knowledge lends to relative freedom of will.)
Mark Q: freedom to choose?
SoB: Yes.
Mark Q: what determines choosing?
SoB: Any particular relative level of knowledge.

Mark Q: where is the freedom if knowledge determines choosing?
Are you free to seek knowledge?

Mark Q: (humans relative levels and abilities means they are not gods? ok.)
The concept of GOD is also relative.

Mark Q: are we all with scientists trying to see beyond good old knowledge,
SoB: Knowledge is not necessarily good or old. Knowledge is definitely truthful, and continuously becoming new.

Mark Q: knowledge about free will is continuously becoming new? like knowledge about flat earth became new?
And now we know otherwise, so, sure!

Mark Q: making better possibility models,
SoB: Possibly.
Mark Q: god knows not true models beyond human knowledge?
SoB: All things must be questioned, especially those of people of old that may have had selfish ulterior motives, or simply been a victim of false knowledge, that was built into their dogma.

Mark Q: is free will a dogma?
Relatively speaking, yes, it is a philosophy, at least as it's applied. Free will is always relative, and as one makes it, ever more, a part of their active philosophy, their will is ever becoming more free, within the constraints, of what it is, in being currently human, of course.