is it free will, or rather random choice?

Question

How often do we actually possess all necessary information before making a choice? Or how many times are we right in thinking that we possess true and not false information, before making a specific choice?

(ok, if you do not want "random choice", take "biologically/subconsciously caused choice" instead)

Answer 1

You are thinking of a spectrum as a logical, and that's not likely to work too well. Look:

On one end of the spectrum you have a completely random choice: choose A or B. You have no information to go on, so obviously whatever you choose has nothing much to do with anything. On the other end of the spectrum is a pretty much impossible complete-and-total-knowledge of every concievable outcome. Assuming you have the mental capacity to even process all that information, presumably there will be no randomness in the choice at all. Most choices a creature might make naturally falls somewhere in between.

Thus to say, 'this is random' and 'this is deliberate' isn't really proper except at the very ends. Instead it would be much more appropriate to ask HOW random a decision is.

For example, I could offer A and B, but say that A is hot. That is still an almost completely random decision. If, on the other hand, I tell you the choice A involves be pouring a gallon of water heated to 98 degrees celcius over your head in such a way that you cannot escape, then you have a lot more to go on, but still know nothing about B. It's a lot less random, but your decision will still be based on complete speculation about whether the unknown is better or worse that what you do know. And if I also tell you that B involves me paying you a hundred dollars there's comparatively little randomness (but not none... maybe I give you a thousand dollars in A, or maybe the money in B is stolen, or...).

Arguably just about every decision we make is going to involve a not insubstantial amount of randomness. None of us can perfectly predict the future or are likely to be able to follow every consequence through the totality of human experience. Still, we're also smart enough to be able to predict a lot of events even with relatively little information.

So it goes.

Answer 2

Quantitative questions that cannot be scientifically measured...but in the spirit....
By definition, "making a choice" is a free will decision.
Random results....
If we know "ALL necessary information", a "choice" would not be necessary as the "option" would be determined as finite...simply by the information at hand, which would be finite.

The concept of "true" and "false" are relative to each individuals perception and assumes a particular type of morality as well as comprehension of the "facts" which, as mentioned above, do not exist in a "finite" sense.

Answer 3

Your "random selection" as you call it is your destiny introduced by the on the spot environment once you have been born and additionally you have no longer have been given selection yet. As you improve up and starts to nicely known what you choose and what you choose, then you definately're making a option to no remember in case you will could make a metamorphosis on your development or stay the place you have self assurance is your convenience zone. each and every so often you think of to circulate alongside with the present and each so often you think of it will make a distinction to circulate against it. you choose which street to return and forth with the aid of your journey in existence and additionally you're making your guy or woman destiny with that. Your failure or your fulfillment will consistently count number on your judgement over the techniques laid right down to you. There are exterior forces even in spite of the shown fact that that would influence your selection and that's reason why you're given the intelligence to weigh issues before you act. Your concepts is provided with the logical and the intuitive; harness the skill to apply any of the two as mandatory. utilising too plenty good judgment might reason a postpone and too plenty instinct could be too rush to a haphazard result.

Answer 4

Free will is the ability to choose. We always possess that. However, we do not always choose to exercise it.

Absolute free will is devoid of preferences, prejudices, and attachments. Not something we are easily willing to give up.

For example: A man stands before you with a gun pointed at you and says, "Do what I say or you die?" Free will would be the ability to choose to comply or not. Even if the consequences are not the most attractive. However, our individual psychological make-up (again, our preferences, prejudices, and attachments) would influence if not determine our actions. (Most likely to comply, unless to do so harms something we value more than our own life.)

So to answer your question, we are not random, we do possess free will, but we are not in a habit of using it.

Answer 5

We often let our emotions rule over information when making choices. Whether we possess all the necessary information or not, our decisions are colored by our wants, needs and desires.
Yes, it is free will...we have the options to listen to ourselves or let another steer us. Were it not, then we would have all our "choices" made for us.

Answer 6

I'd say it's impossible to truly quantify.

Should I eat this cake now or tomorrow? Does it really matter if I don't have all the relevant data?

What major should I pick? Can I ever really have "all" the data to make this choice?

Should I buy this car or that one? Now there is a decision where I can have a lot of data pertinent to making my decision and "should" be doing some research.

Your question is far too vague for me.

Answer 7

It depends on the situation. The best decisions come from listening with an open mind to different opinions. Then to decide, utilizing our innate intelligence, taking into consideration what we have heard.

Answer 8

Well Mr. Schopenhauer once said that we all have the same universal will. That we all make the same choices that affect every organism in this planet.

Answer 9

You could not count the number of decisions made subconsciously in an hour.

Answer 10

If you set up the question like this, you'll get a predictable outcome. This is called a "straw man" way of arguing.
___Not possessing "all" the information in no way interferes with freedom of choice.
___Here's a kind of break in causal determinacy that most people don't think about:
___Gravity connects all material bodies, and is inseparable from them, so with respect to gravity, all material bodies in the universe are continuously connected, though their existential "density" varies locationally. But for all practical purposes we TREAT material bodies as independently existing, and treat gravity as something distinct, as an "invisible force", because this enables us to conceive the world intelligibly, and to do the associated math. But our considering material bodies as independently existing is a practical fudging of reality. In doing so, we conceptually break the causal connectedness of things, but this convenient fiction does real work in science and in practical matters, for the material bodies of the universe do authentically partake of distinctness in a big way. This convenient fiction is necessary because of the limits of human cognition. The universe, though, doesn't need to conform to the limits of human intelligibility on order for it to exist. It does quite well on its own, thank you.
___Similar dynamics operate in trying to understand human cognition, and human arrogance shows itself when we try to beat the square peg of the operations of human cognition into the round hole of our easy comprehension, and end up with a reductionist result that contradicts our experience of our own freedom. This is lousy empiricism.
___We posit notions of "independently existing" material bodies that are, for the purposes of practical considerations, shorn of their causal connectedness, and these notions "work" because their connectedness is non-absolute. So it shouldn't be so freaking mysterious that we can posit for ourselves free egos that are capable of accomplishing tasks of real, workable freedom.
___And randomness as conventionally defined doesn't cut it, either. If there were no hierarchical organization to the themes of human activity, then one might be able to call it random. Just because our motivations aren't PERFECTLY organized, it doesn't mean that they are random.
___It seems ironic that so many who want to make claims for skepticism and randomness have to employ such absolutism to justify these claims. Well, perhaps not. The notion that a cynic is just a disappointed romantic applies to epistemology, as well.