Another free will/determinism question

[paradoxparadigm7]

Do you think it's possible that a high level of self awareness/consciousness can free you from the shackles of determinism? Are there degrees of freedom or degrees of determinism?

 

[Bock]

With mankinds current level of science and insight into our existence, as backbone, i would say no; nothing can act beyond cause -> effect (disregarding any potential "randomness" on a micro level, i don't think that is relevant).

Sounds like another universe/existence with entirely different laws to me.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

With mankinds current level of science and insight into our existence, as backbone, i would say no; nothing can act beyond cause -> effect (disregarding any potential "randomness" on a micro level, i don't think that is relevant).

Sounds like another universe/existence with entirely different laws to me.

There could be another universe/existence with new laws WITHIN an individual that consciousness renders possible.

 

[RadicalDreamer31]

high level of self awareness/consciousness

High level on what scale? Humans could be like bacteria, on a scale of the possible heights of awareness.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

High level on what scale? Humans could be like bacteria, on a scale of the possible heights of awareness.

You make a good point but using the scale of our existence juxtaposed with other life on this planet (after all that is the only evidence we can draw on), humans are at the pinnacle of awareness. There is another scale, most likely a normal distribution, for humans only so that the highly self-aware might have free will on a limited basis.

If what you say has some kernel of truth, then could this be a direction life is moving toward?

 

[RadicalDreamer31]

Sure. We gettin' smarter.


There is really no conclusive answer to free will: Do we have it? If not, is it possible?

There is also the point of WHAT free will actually is. If I had free will, could I fly? Teleport? Time travel? Just by willing it?

What you, me, we, ARE is a construct from the chaos, an inevitable result from the environment; the conditions which brought us forth. You know, the cause and effect CHAIN which began with the universe(or before) and lead to this post(among other things).

Would free will be breaking this chain. What causes the break? If something caused it, the chain isn't broken.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Would free will be breaking this chain. What causes the break? If something caused it, the chain isn't broken.

Yes, it's a paradox. The moment you act, it becomes determined but before this, you have free will IF you're sufficiently self aware.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I think Cognisant gave a pretty good response to the question:

So freewill necessitates precognition (or something like it) but existing in a state outside causality also negates free will because although you may be free of causality the existence of your will becomes moot, if you can choose the optimal outcome every time you will choose the optimal outcome every time, your choice no longer matters because you're no longer making choices, you're just a cost/benefit calculator whose choices are thus determined by context.​

Self-awareness or deliberate action, with or without(but especially with) the knowledge of what can/will happen according to the choices you make, would only enshrine you further into the framework of determinism. Not in the sense that the cosmos has a divine order, but with respect to humans doing what they believe is best according to their own backgrounds and personalities.

Likewise, not emphasizing forethought and cautiousness will give you a feeling of freedom, but it's only a matter of statistics and probability what will happen to you.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

@radicaldreamer Your thread about loss aversion. Say those same subjects were given the results of the experiment and asked to re-do the same experiment this time with more self awareness. Would they be less loss averse? They could still choose to not do anything different or decide to change course. They didn't have those options before they were aware. The moment before deciding seems to be where free will could reside.

 

[BigApplePi]

Do you think it's possible that a high level of self awareness/consciousness can free you from the shackles of determinism? Are there degrees of freedom or degrees of determinism?

My answer to this is in the affirmative. A high level of awareness means seeing choices. As long as you may pick you are free of what is determined if choice wasn't available.

 

[Bock]

There could be another universe/existence with new laws WITHIN an individual that consciousness renders possible.

Everything points towards the illusion of a consciousness being a "projection" of the brain, or something like that.

You are basically talking about a level of being, somehow detached from its fabric (?), which is pretty much the same as the concept of souls.

 

[RadicalDreamer31]

Are there degrees of freedom or degrees of determinism?

Yes actually. Stepping back into human experience.

I think what you want is not determinism. But Self-determinism or rather self-ownership. But self-ownership not as in the sense of property; but rather in the sense of agency over oneself. I think what you want is control of yourself.

And yes. Through self-awareness, this is a exactly what you get, the ability to do as one intends without influence from impulse or external forces.

The more recently evolved parts of the brain do just that. The role of the pre-frontal cortex is inhibition, is self-control. So yes, if that's what you want, more self-awareness leads to you acting in accordances to ones intentions, regardless of influences. And there is definitely a 'normal distribution' of this... Ever heard of the marshmallow test?

Free will as in will power is an easier question, than free will in a Newtonian way.

 

[Bock]

Yes actually. Stepping back into human experience.

I think what you want is not determinism. But Self-determinism or rather self-ownership. But self-ownership not as in the sense of property; but rather in the sense of agency over oneself. I think what you want is control of yourself.

And yes. Through self-awareness, this is a exactly what you get, the ability to do as one intends without influence from impulse or external forces.

The more recently evolved parts of the brain do just that. The role of the pre-frontal cortex is inhibition, is self-control. So yes, if that's what you want, more self-awareness leads to you acting in accordances to ones intentions, regardless of influences. And there is definitely a 'normal distribution' of this... Ever heard of the marshmallow test?

Free will as in will power is an easier question, than free will in a Newtonian way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

 

[RadicalDreamer31]

Three replies happened as i was typing...

@radicaldreamer Your thread about loss aversion. Say those same subjects were given the results of the experiment and asked to re-do the same experiment this time with more self awareness. Would they be less loss averse? They could still choose to not do anything different or decide to change course. They didn't have those options before they were aware. The moment before deciding seems to be where free will could reside.

Yes, and yes. If I know why I act, I can adjust my actions.

What tripped me up, was your use of the word "Determinism" which is yet another difficult and open philosophical concept.

Again yes. I would also argue the same thing you are. I would say it in term of inhibition or intervention. If I know how or why I do what I do, I have a better chance of intervening, and steering my behavior.

 

[RadicalDreamer31]

Bock. Explain your last response. I feel like you're trying to tell me something....

 

[Words]

Cause and Effect/Determinism is merely a property of time. The concept of time implies an arrangement in the order of events. No time, no order in the form of "cause and effect." Therefore, If you want to get out of determinism, you have get out of this universe's time. But, before that, are you truly conscious? What is consciousness? What is self-awareness? Time. Infinity. Probability. Reality.

The other side of the argument is that the nature of reality is probabilistic or something like that. I think probability is just the way we deal with things that are both deterministic and monstrously complex and unknown like the entire universe; brains and human behaviour; some subtopics in physics, biology and other sciences; and even our daily lives. We have automatic probabilistic mechanisms in our heads that unconsciously process this terribly complex reality. No probabilistic mechanism, no human action. If we had to be perfectly precise with how we deal with reality, we would be waiting for an infinite period of time before we started acting. No computation can account for all variables in this universe, supposedly. I used to think that thinking probabilistically is the unimpressive way of trying to understand and work with reality. Infinity is something we can only deal with using probabilistic means. You keep going and you never reach it. Time is infinite. Space can be thought of as infinite if you don't think of it as discrete. The end point of our understanding ends only in probability.

 

[TheLordlyOne]

I find these threads, oddly enough, enjoyable, but ultimately pointless.

Cause and Effect/Determinism is merely a property of time. The concept of time implies an arrangement in the order of events. No time, no order in the form of "cause and effect." Therefore, If you want to get out of determinism, you have get out of this universe's time. But, before that, are you truly conscious? What is consciousness? What is self-awareness? Time. Infinity. Probability. Reality.

The other side of the argument is that the nature of reality is probabilistic or something like that. I think probability is just the way we deal with things that are both deterministic and monstrously complex and unknown like the entire universe; brains and human behaviour; some subtopics in physics, biology and other sciences; and even our daily lives. We have automatic probabilistic mechanisms in our heads that unconsciously process this terribly complex reality. No probabilistic mechanism, no human action. If we had to be perfectly precise with how we deal with reality, we would be waiting for an infinite period of time before we started acting. No computation can account for all variables in this universe, supposedly. I used to think that thinking probabilistically is the unimpressive way of trying to understand and work with reality. Infinity is something we can only deal with using probabilistic means. You keep going and you never reach it. Time is infinite. Space can be thought of as infinite if you don't think of it as discrete. The end point of our understanding ends only in probability.

Technically, wouldn't thinking in a probabilistic manner still, just be a form of determinism? Probabilities are just what we call determining whats next, as I see it. See attachment for a picture, of ultimately what free will and determinism actually turn out to be. Neither concept exists solely on its own, if they exist at all.

Also, again technically, something that is infinite, can't use probabilities, since probabilities require some end point, to be able to make a guess. Also, time doesn't exist, other than in the human psyche, as time is only something in motion through space. If nothing were to contain any form of motion, then from the motionless nothing, time would stop being.

I respect the concept behind infinity, but it is a useless concept, since our own consciousness can never fully grasp, just how infinite, infinite really is. I find it infinitely more pragmatic to use zero instead. As, nothing is infinite, but in disguise, hahahahahah.

Peace,
TheLordlyOne

 

[Coolydudey]

I find the distinction people make between the two to be something of a false dichotomy. If for a moment we ignore quantum mechanics and relativity and assume that an absolute ordering of all events exists (contrary to relativity) with absolute causal relationship between any event and all preceding events (contrary to quantum mechanics, both of these points to be expanded on), we still need not banish free will. The very fact that the choice you make can even be determined ahead of time does not imply that there was never a choice for you to make. Knowing the choice is not the same as never having had one.
More rigorously: a choice is the process of selection of one out of multiple possibilities. Free will is the choice made without restrictions. The fact that we are going to choose a certain option is not, as far as we are concerned, a restriction. While we are not in some sense "free" to think whatever the hell we please, there is no real restriction to what we may think. It depends simply on perspective, and in that sense both answers are correct; from ours, the choice is free, while from that of an omniscient observer, there never was a choice. In that sense, free will is not an inherent property of the world, simply something that is true for good old you and me from our own perspectives.

A note on physics: relativity implies that observers travelling in any which direction near the speed of light will disagree on the temporal ordering of many (but not all) events. This actually doesn't interfere with causality, but ignoring it makes life easier. On the other hand, quantum mechanics is important. Many processes in the brain do occur on a quantum mechanical level. This does not allow absolute causality. Ignoring this randomness makes for a more interesting argument though.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I find the distinction people make between the two to be something of a false dichotomy. If for a moment we ignore quantum mechanics and relativity and assume that an absolute ordering of all events exists (contrary to relativity) with absolute causal relationship between any event and all preceding events (contrary to quantum mechanics, both of these points to be expanded on), we still need not banish free will. The very fact that the choice you make can even be determined ahead of time does not imply that there was never a choice for you to make. Knowing the choice is not the same as never having had one.
More rigorously: a choice is the process of selection of one out of multiple possibilities. Free will is the choice made without restrictions. The fact that we are going to choose a certain option is not, as far as we are concerned, a restriction. While we are not in some sense "free" to think whatever the hell we please, there is no real restriction to what we may think. It depends simply on perspective, and in that sense both answers are correct; from ours, the choice is free, while from that of an omniscient observer, there never was a choice. In that sense, free will is not an inherent property of the world, simply something that is true for good old you and me from our own perspectives.

A note on physics: relativity implies that observers travelling in any which direction near the speed of light will disagree on the temporal ordering of many (but not all) events. This actually doesn't interfere with causality, but ignoring it makes life easier. On the other hand, quantum mechanics is important. Many processes in the brain do occur on a quantum mechanical level. This does not allow absolute causality. Ignoring this randomness makes for a more interesting argument though.

From our own perspective, do you think there are degrees of freedom that is related to self awareness? Maybe not more choices but more autonomy and freedom from interference?

 

[TBerg]

If we can predict a person's response to any given stimuli because that personal entity is arranged in a manner that disposes them to certain responses, then we must say that we are following the rules of determinism. Even randomness can be said to be deterministic, in that a phenomenon would be randomly determined. Randomness is actually only a supposed indicator of free will, and people mainly use it when they are ignorant of a particular deterministic rule. Even in metaphysics things are deterministic in that they follow a certain logic.

 

[MentalBrain]

I'm of the opinion that determinism is true. The universe is deterministic, in that each "step", or future moment, is directly dependent on the previous "step". Every moment follows directly from the moment before, and each particular arrangement has exactly one possible progression. That said, determinism is different from predetermination. The universe constantly computes itself in real time. This includes your brain. In theory, in order to perfectly predict your behavior, someone would have to perfectly model your brain inside a computer that could work faster than your brain. We don't have that technology, and maybe we never will. After all, if a perfect model of a person's brain can only be housed in a computer that is more powerful than the brain, who's to say if human brains could even build such a machine, much less its input device. So, even in a deterministic universe, you still have free will, because nothing you do is computed until you do it. In the event it were possible to compute what you'd do before you did it, that information would become part of the system, so you could choose to do something different.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I'm of the opinion that determinism is true. The universe is deterministic, in that each "step", or future moment, is directly dependent on the previous "step". Every moment follows directly from the moment before, and each particular arrangement has exactly one possible progression. That said, determinism is different from predetermination. The universe constantly computes itself in real time. This includes your brain. In theory, in order to perfectly predict your behavior, someone would have to perfectly model your brain inside a computer that could work faster than your brain. We don't have that technology, and maybe we never will. After all, if a perfect model of a person's brain can only be housed in a computer that is more powerful than the brain, who's to say if human brains could even build such a machine, much less its input device. So, even in a deterministic universe, you still have free will, because nothing you do is computed until you do it. In the event it were possible to compute what you'd do before you did it, that information would become part of the system, so you could choose to do something different.

I was reading a psych article (Daniel Stern's work) on what determines real change in therapy. It made me think of your post. The article talked about intersubjective moments of meeting between two people (could be therapist and client or a married couple etc...). An example was set forth in the article: As a regular practice, a therapist I [author] knew shook hands with his patients when they entered the consulting room. It was a way of saying hello before they started to work. And at the end of each session as the patient started to leave, they shook hands again as a goodbye. One day the patient recounted a very moving series of events that affected him (and the therapist) deeply. The patient was sad and almost overwhelmed. At the end of the session, during the "goodbye" handshake, the therapist brought his left had up and laid it on the patients right hand, which he was already holding, in a two-handed handshake. They looked at each other. Nothing was said. The whole thing lasted several seconds. It was not talked about in subsequent sessions either. Yet, the relationship had shifted on its axis. Something vital was added to whatever had been said in the session-something so vital that the whole session was altered. The moment entered consciousness and was memorable. In fact, that handshake may stand out as one of the most memorable moments in the entire therapy. Often when someone is asked five or ten years after concluding a successful therapy, "What were the most important or nodal moments in your therapy that changed things?" they may well reply, "A certain handshake we shared one day as I left." There are several points from this anecdote
*Whatever happened in this moment was understood implicitly by both of them and never had to be talked about to have its effect. It created implicit knowledge about their relationship.
*Each of them sensed the experience of the other, and both sensed the mutual participating in the other's experience. There was, in this sense, an interpenetration of minds-a new state of intersubjectivity was created between them.
*While the moment was prepared for by multiple events in the preceding minutes and probably weeks and months, the exact instant of its appearance was not planned or predictable. It emerged spontaneously. Life changes in leaps.
*During the moment, a story unfolded, albeit a very short, minimal, and tightly packed one. The story was directly experienced, not written nor told. The moment created a "world in a grain of sand" that came into being as the moment was lived, not afterwards.
*The moment was engraved in each of their minds. Even without being verbalized, it entered into memory, could be recalled, and become conscious.

Intersubjective moments of meeting can be described as "I'm seeing you, and you are seeing me, and we know we are being seen by each other, because we are both letting this happen". It happens when you stop using mind-mapping (understanding another's thoughts, feelings and motivations) to figure out how to present yourself, and instead allow yourself to be known.

All this seems to connect with what you said in your post. "The universe constantly computes itself in real time....So, even in a deterministic universe, you still have free will, because nothing you do is computed until you do it." The small sliver of seconds that an intersubjective moment of meeting experienced as a gestalt, provides the space for changing the direction of your life, through a profound shift that is co-created.

 

[Cognisant]

Do you think it's possible that a high level of self awareness/consciousness can free you from the shackles of determinism? Are there degrees of freedom or degrees of determinism?

No.
Intelligence can't operate without causality.

Which is not to say a high level of self awareness isn't desirable, if one seeks to manipulate another conscious entity the most effective way to do so is not to assert one's will directly but rather manipulate the context that is the basis of that entity's decision making, so only by having a high level of self awareness can you recognize when someone is trying to manipulate you and prevent it.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

No.
Intelligence can't operate without causality.

Which is not to say a high level of self awareness isn't desirable, if one seeks to manipulate another conscious entity the most effective way to do so is not to assert one's will directly but rather manipulate the context that is the basis of that entity's decision making, so only by having a high level of self awareness can you recognize when someone is trying to manipulate you and prevent it.

Thanks for this and I'll add high self awareness can be put to other uses than manipulation alone. I do however agree that intelligence and self and other awareness (including mind-mapping) play a strong part in manipulation.

On the issue of determinism and free-will, I think I was misconstruing determinism with predetermination as MentalBrain delineated. A recursive, real time, in the moment gestalt/phenomenological experiences where the universe changes/impacts the individual and the individual changes/impacts the universe, has individual free will within a deterministic casual universe. That sounds like gibberish but I'm formulating this in my mind

 

[Cognisant]

Free will is utter nonsense, but yes insofar as we are not perfectly self aware there is the illusion of choice, just as events recede invariably into the past as dictated by retrospective causality so too does causality mean our futures are effectively set, though of course there's no better way of predicting an outcome than influencing it even if the decision to do so is itself illusionary.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Cog, what do think about MentalBrain's post #21?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Eh there aren't degrees of free will just like there aren't degrees of cause and effect. If you're very self aware you'll act differently than if you weren't highly self aware, but your will wont be more or less free, that doesn't change. It's like proposing that if you had a third arm with a laser blaster you'd have more free will. You wont. Sure that third arm and laser blaster lets you do things you wouldn't have done without it but you will still only be able to do what you've cause to do.

Even if you were God and aware of everything you'd still have no free will.

 

[Cognisant]

Cog, what do think about MentalBrain's post #21?

He means the future cannot be exactly predicted, that's all.

I wouldn't call that free will.

 

[Latte]

Most has been addressed. I'm sort of echoing a lot that has already been said in some form, but I hope the perspective flavor difference will reduce redundancy levels.

In the realm of acceptance, the problem most people have with determinism in regards to choice and will is the disempowering feeling and view that the outside causes what is inside of oneself since always, and that one's own decision making is sort of "out of one's hands, so to speak", being a puppet dancing to the music of one's life. It would be equally true to see oneself as the cause of the way the outside universe progresses.
The choices one makes are for real reasons and deliberations, and need not be viewed as lessened in any way by the degree to which the universe could be deterministic. They are still real reasons, preferences, choices. Personal reasons, chosen from a personal perspective. That they could possibly be predicted given all possible information in the universe doesn't rob them of these qualities.

Even if I could be viewed as being predestined to drink what I currently drink, it does not make me a prisoner of that choice, for I am that process that chooses it, and without my choice, my will, I would not be drinking it. In my decision making, I am a prisoner only through the parameters that make up me as a specific individual. To be outside what decides based on how I see things and am, is to not be me, and that cannot be, and even if so, would not be desirable. I can expand to encompass ways of awareness of how I decide and see things, but I do not escape the self in that way. It merely becomes the new self. I can not escape making choices based on how I am and how I see what I see.

Insofar as the universe is deterministic, we do not need to see ourselves as being dragged along by deterministic events whether we want to or not, passengers on the great ship of destiny, for we are those events. We are those choices. You did not eat that biscuit because it was predestined. It was predestined through your choice of eating it. Our decision making is, like the rest of our existence, a mechanism through which we are not a puppet of, but an indispensable part of the unfolding of reality across the dunes of time.

 

[Black Rose]

(Freedom) of (will)

Determinism is not equal to causality because determinism implies a determiner implies telos.
Telos is a directed goal of an agent.
Telos cannot be free because goal depend on knowledge of previous states to make a choice?

Therefore
Telos is false
Determinism is true
and Telos = Determinism.

 

[Black Rose]

green is not red therefore green is false and red is true
this is the basic free will vs determinism debate

 

[MentalBrain]

Thank you, Latte, for expressing what I tried to better than I ever could. I could try, of course, but my train of thought doesn't run along quite those tracks.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Most has been addressed. I'm sort of echoing a lot that has already been said in some form, but I hope the perspective flavor difference will reduce redundancy levels.

In the realm of acceptance, the problem most people have with determinism in regards to choice and will is the disempowering feeling and view that the outside causes what is inside of oneself since always, and that one's own decision making is sort of "out of one's hands, so to speak", being a puppet dancing to the music of one's life. It would be equally true to see oneself as the cause of the way the outside universe progresses.
The choices one makes are for real reasons and deliberations, and need not be viewed as lessened in any way by the degree to which the universe could be deterministic. They are still real reasons, preferences, choices. Personal reasons, chosen from a personal perspective. That they could possibly be predicted given all possible information in the universe doesn't rob them of these qualities.

Even if I could be viewed as being predestined to drink what I currently drink, it does not make me a prisoner of that choice, for I am that process that chooses it, and without my choice, my will, I would not be drinking it. In my decision making, I am a prisoner only through the parameters that make up me as a specific individual. To be outside what decides based on how I see things and am, is to not be me, and that cannot be, and even if so, would not be desirable. I can expand to encompass ways of awareness of how I decide and see things, but I do not escape the self in that way. It merely becomes the new self. I can not escape making choices based on how I am and how I see what I see.

Insofar as the universe is deterministic, we do not need to see ourselves as being dragged along by deterministic events whether we want to or not, passengers on the great ship of destiny, for we are those events. We are those choices. You did not eat that biscuit because it was predestined. It was predestined through your choice of eating it. Our decision making is, like the rest of our existence, a mechanism through which we are not a puppet of, but an indispensable part of the unfolding of reality across the dunes of time.

Very poetic way of putting it. A recursive process-the universe acting on me and me acting on the universe. All is both the influencer and influenced leading to a unique expression of the unending enfolding of the universe.

 

[DakotaAllen]

I really don't know about free will, but I don't believe in determinism. If it were true then you could essentially replay the universe from the Big Bang and under the same circumstances and the same events would follow every time. Well I'm sure you know that in QM when a subatomic particle enters a superposition it exists in multiple states and none, when interacted with it randomly chooses one state or the other. That's true randomness. So let's say a scientist set up an experiment where an electron in superposition would either trigger switch a or b when measured. If a, he kills a butterfly on a rock next to him. If b he lets it fly away. Determinism just got terminated lol.

 

[TBerg]

Even a soul could be deterministic because it would comprise a form executing its own directives. The directives would themselves be determined by a certain sense of self and place in the universe, which would be confined to parochial understandings.

 

[The Grey Man]

I'm with Cognisant. Free will is nonsense, simply because you can only make one decision, you can't choose two mutually exclusive possibilities. We say that these possibilities are both possible, but this is only to say that we don't know which one will be. The only alternative to the predictability of determinism (theoretically) would be true randomness, which would be a divergence into possible realities from a decision point (or, from the perspective of any of those realities, deterministic retrocausality dictated by the conditions of the instance after the divergence), and not the deliberate elimination of possibilities that is decision-making. Decision-making, then, cannot be "free" from determinism.

1. All undetermined decisions are random.
2. Deterministic decisions are not free.
3. Random "decisions" (if they can be called that) are not willed.
Therefore, free will is a paradox.

 

[The Grey Man]

Belief in free will is a gateway to other nonsensical behaviour, such as hatred and notions of desert. The prevalence of these is evident whenever an especially outrageous criminal is given a light sentence. A lot of people don't want to talk about the precedent set by the sentence and its consequences for civil society, or even the consequences for the victims and the criminal; they enjoy hating the people condemned by their nebulous, banal morality, and fantasizing about what they "deserve" because it gives them a feeling of self-righteousness.

When we hate, the essential quality of the object that makes it somehow contemptible is imaginary and indeterminable. Hate is never justified, its just an unnecessarily solemn expression of the dissonance between beliefs and behaviour.* There is no absolute "evil" to target because free will doesn't exist; at worst, a criminal is simply out of order and to be corrected or removed, not unlike a faulty mechanical part, hardly worth one's hate. It is imperative that, if we recognize that something is out of order with our expectations, we consider why this is the case and how the situation should be remedied in accordance with our loftiest ideals, the logical "first movers" of the conduct of our existence.

* The basis of hatred and desert is formed by magical "phantom qualities" that manifest in behaviour. It's not that "Bob is wrong", it's that "Bob is bad, full stop", based on his behaviour judged against my moral standards to lax standards of first attempting to reflect the reality of the situation and its implications before attempting to explain why anyone should care. The product of this judgement is the attribution of good or evil to a person accompanied by the presumption that this product by itself is worth the consideration of other people despite being the ethically argumentative equivalent of superfluous noise.

 

[gilliatt]

It goes back to that old adage, the criminal cannot help it, he is not responsible for his own actions,his behavior cannot be explained. Another one, men should be given no credit for their achievements, virtues etc. It is pre-set beforehand. So, when we deal with the questions of morality, should we prescribe that men ought to act this way or that? or does man have volition & free will, he can think on his own? And is morality, behavior for the good of others? Why should I behave "for the good of others?" Is the pursuit of money good or bad? Controlling men, good or bad?
Free will is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom,that controls all choices,determines your whole life,character.
Determinism, if one seeks to enslave man, one first has to destroy all reason, judgments, choices, volition, etc. One has to accept the rule of force, the opposite of freedom.
That nothing in this universe can be different from what it is, that the future is pre-set, well, no, reject that theory. 'Know a lot more than I am saying.'

 

[gilliatt]

Would like to see a free marketplace of ideas & free competition with virtue, truth, reason.

 

[doncarlzone]

I'm with Cognisant. Free will is nonsense, simply because you can only make one decision, you can't choose two mutually exclusive possibilities. We say that these possibilities are both possible, but this is only to say that we don't know which one will be. The only alternative to the predictability of determinism (theoretically) would be true randomness, which would be a divergence into possible realities from a decision point (or, from the perspective of any of those realities, deterministic retrocausality dictated by the conditions of the instance after the divergence), and not the deliberate elimination of possibilities that is decision-making. Decision-making, then, cannot be "free" from determinism.

1. All undetermined decisions are random.
2. Deterministic decisions are not free.
3. Random "decisions" (if they can be called that) are not willed.
Therefore, free will is a paradox.

The classic Strawson argument. The problem with the free will term is that it's possible to turn it completely around quite easily.

I suspect premise #2 has one or both of the following implicit premises:

1. If you could not have done otherwise, then the action is not free
2. You are not the ultimate cause of your actions, thus you're not free

The first premise just does not make any sense. It implies that if you could have done otherwise, then that would enable you to have free will. As you have stated yourself, then that would just lead to randomness which I agree, has nothing to do with free will - as it's just random. So to state that you could not have done otherwise is just pointless.

2. David Hume said that we have this illusion of wanting to be a cause that is not caused. We want to be a non-deterministic cause in a deterministic universe. As Hume pointed out, that's an absurd idea. What makes human, if they can be, rational is precisely determinism. Just as we expect our house to stand tomorrow, we also expect that our close friends don't steal from us.

Most people want to be a cause in the universe. But any attempts to define a desirable cause which is not a part of determinism is absurd. If I am making a choice, I want that choice to be based on reasons, that's the most important thing when it comes to free will. The idea of being an "ultimate cause" is just based on confusion. An ultimate cause is just a cause which is not caused, which means, for us, that it would not be based on any reasons. Now clearly, everybody would want their actions to be based on reasons. If you cannot base your actions on reasons, what are your actions then based on? So we want determinism. To talk about free will without determinism is precisely nonsense, it would take all rationality away from humans.

Luckily we are determined with a will. This will - the will to have a career, the will to have a family - can be more or less free depending on external matters, such as manipulation etc..

 

[The Grey Man]

The classic Strawson argument. The problem with the free will term is that it's possible to turn it completely around quite easily.

I suspect premise #2 has one or both of the following implicit premises:

1. If you could not have done otherwise, then the action is not free
2. You are not the ultimate cause of your actions, thus you're not free

The first premise just does not make any sense. It implies that if you could have done otherwise, then that would enable you to have free will.

It would allow you not to have free will, but to be free from determinism, however the choice becomes randomness, which is not willed. Will, on the other hand, cannot be free from determinism because will is essentially deterministic, which you point out later on in your post. The point is to show that in both possible cases (determinism and randomness) either freedom or will is precluded, so free will is an oxymoron.

2. David Hume said that we have this illusion of wanting to be a cause that is not caused. We want to be a non-deterministic cause in a deterministic universe. As Hume pointed out, that's an absurd idea. What makes human, if they can be, rational is precisely determinism. Just as we expect our house to stand tomorrow, we also expect that our close friends don't steal from us.

Agreed.

Most people want to be a cause in the universe. But any attempts to define a desirable cause which is not a part of determinism is absurd. If I am making a choice, I want that choice to be based on reasons, that's the most important thing when it comes to free will. The idea of being an "ultimate cause" is just based on confusion. An ultimate cause is just a cause which is not caused, which means, for us, that it would not be based on any reasons. Now clearly, everybody would want their actions to be based on reasons. If you cannot base your actions on reasons, what are your actions then based on? So we want determinism. To talk about free will without determinism is precisely nonsense, it would take all rationality away from humans.

I wouldn't use the term free will to refer to the determinism present in human reason, but the cause "which is not caused", but is still willed somehow, which is nonsense. The "freedom" of the term free will is that from fate determining your actions. Showing that determinism allows for reason does not show that free will is in effect. But it's really just a semantic nitpick; understanding that two definitions of free will are in play, I agree with everything you've said.

Luckily we are determined with a will. This will - the will to have a career, the will to have a family - can be more or less free depending on external matters, such as manipulation etc..

I wouldn't say more or less free, just more or less attributable to external factors (self-determination is still determined). Again, different definitions.

 

[doncarlzone]

The point is to show that in both possible cases (determinism and randomness) either freedom or will is precluded, so free will is an oxymoron.

I wouldn't use the term free will to refer to the determinism present in human reason, but the cause "which is not caused", but is still willed somehow, which is nonsense.

Given your definition of free will, then you wouldn't even need to talk about determinism or indeterminism at all to to make this point. Essentially you could make the following argument:

1. Free will is the cause that is not caused but willed
2. Everything that is willed is also caused
3. Therefore, free will is caused.
4. What is both caused and not caused cannot exist
5. Therefore, free will does not exist

Now this is entirely possible though question-begging, unless as you did, acknowledges the possibility of other definitions.

The "freedom" of the term free will is that from fate determining your actions. Showing that determinism allows for reason does not show that free will is in effect. But it's really just a semantic nitpick; understanding that two definitions of free will are in play, I agree with everything you've said.

Right. Because few things, let alone determinism, can imply the existence of a contradiction which that would mean according to your definition.

I wouldn't say more or less free, just more or less attributable to external factors (self-determination is still determined). Again, different definitions.

The argument I put forward previously would welcome self-determination as the foundation upon which reasons arise. Without reasons we cannot even begin to talk about free will. So to argue that they are not free because of determination would imply that something other than determination would make them free. Unless of course freedom itself is defined in contradictory terms which I think is where your argument rests .

 

[The Grey Man]

Given your definition of free will, then you wouldn't even need to talk about determinism or indeterminism at all to to make this point. Essentially you could make the following argument:

1. Free will is the cause that is not caused but willed
2. Everything that is willed is also caused
3. Therefore, free will is caused.
4. What is both caused and not caused cannot exist
5. Therefore, free will does not exist

Now this is entirely possible though question-begging, unless as you did, acknowledges the possibility of other definitions.

Right. Because few things, let alone determinism, can imply the existence of a contradiction which that would mean according to your definition.

Exactly. What I call free will is a contradiction in terms.

The argument I put forward previously would welcome self-determination as the foundation upon which reasons arise. Without reasons we cannot even begin to talk about free will. So to argue that they are not free because of determination would imply that something other than determination would make them free. Unless of course freedom itself is defined in contradictory terms which I think is where your argument rests .

When I speak of free will, the freedom is that from causation. As you have shown, will is causation, so free will is defined in contradictory terms. There can no more be a free will than a free prisoner. What you speak of free will, you are really speaking of self-determination which, is a consequence not of indeterminism, but a person's control over their own life (the capacities for decision-making and effecting change that will reflect those decisions).

 

[doncarlzone]

When I wrote self-determination, I really meant just "determination".

When I speak of free will, the freedom is that from causation. As you have shown, will is causation, so free will is defined in contradictory terms.

A problem here. You say that free will is freedom from causation and then assert that it is contradictory based on the correct premise of the will being caused.

However, if free will is not freedom from determination, but instead, determination is, as I have stated, the foundation upon which reasoning arise and thus without determinism I cannot begin to talk about reasons for my actions, then determination does not rule out free will - no it is absolutely necessary. Of course free will is conceptually contradictory if you choose to define contradictorily.

There can no more be a free will than a free prisoner.

Again that begs the question. Because a prisoner is not free by definition and thus that would be a contradiction. If your argument is just that free will is a conceptual contradiction then that argument false flat the moment someone, legitimately I think, questions your own definition.

What you speak of free will, you are really speaking of self-determination which, is a consequence not of indeterminism, but a person's control over their own life (the capacities for decision-making and effecting change that will reflect those decisions).

The argument as I initially expressed it, credit to Hume, is that the will has to be caused and determined. Otherwise we cannot have reasons for our actions, that's a first. We want determinism. This determined will can be more or less free depending on external matters. That's all it is really.

From this it naturally follows that, a woman who makes the decision to enter into a relationship because her determined will (together with a number of other causes)gives her a reason to do so - has made more of a free choice, than a woman who is forced with a gun to her head, because in that case her will would be less free.

This is not to say that we all walk around making free choices, I think you and I would agree that most people, myself included, are largely ignorant of external affairs playing fundamental roles in our decision making.

Btw, I hope I do not sound polemic, that is not at all my intention at least : /

 

[The Grey Man]

When I wrote self-determination, I really meant just "determination".

Makes sense.

A problem here. You say that free will is freedom from causation and then assert that it is contradictory based on the correct premise of the will being caused.

However, if free will is not freedom from determination, but instead, determination is, as I have stated, the foundation upon which reasoning arise and thus without determinism I cannot begin to talk about reasons for my actions, then determination does not rule out free will - no it is absolutely necessary. Of course free will is conceptually contradictory if you choose to define contradictorily.

...as I did. As I said at the very beginning, free will is nonsense. That is, if that freedom is defined as freedom from determinism. Since free will is supposedly an alternative to determinism (even though, as you have shown, all will is determinism), this contradiction precedes my contributions to this thread. My posts have been to show that it is a contradiction.

Again that begs the question. Because a prisoner is not free by definition and thus you made a contradiction. If your argument is just that free will is a conceptual contradiction then that argument false flat the moment someone, legitimately I think, questions your own definition.

You may dislike my definition. You may think that what I call free will ought to be called something else. Regardless, it (volition somehow limiting or even "free from" (not a manifestation of) determinism, i.e. the subject of this thread) is nonsense.

I'm not sure you understand entirely what I speak of then. Please elaborate the above argument as I'm not following it. You're not suggesting that I'm speaking of indeterminism in any way related to free will are you? It is entirely possible that I misunderstood that.

Goodness, no.

This difference in definitions seems to be the issue we're stuck on, so I'll define mine and attempt to describe yours based on what's been said:

What I call free will is will without a cause. It is a paradox that cannot be. I do not believe that it is real, and neither do you.

What you call free will is actions based on reasons. The extent to which the will is free is dependent on the extent to which external matters (such as manipulation) affect the decision making process and/or restrain the agent. You believe that it is real, and so do I.

^ This definition is why I'm pretty sure your free will can be called self-determination.

Btw, I hope I do not sound polemic, this is not at all my intention at least : /

Certainly not.

 

[doncarlzone]

...as I did. As I said at the very beginning, free will is nonsense. That is, if that freedom is defined as freedom from determinism. Since free will is supposedly an alternative to determinism (even though, as you have shown, all will is determinism), this contradiction precedes my contributions to this thread. My posts have been to show that it is a contradiction.

That's fair enough.

You may dislike my definition. You may think that what I call free will ought to be called something else. Regardless, it (volition somehow limiting or even "free from" (not a manifestation of) determinism, i.e. the subject of this thread) is nonsense.

Again fair enough.

Goodness, no.

This difference in definitions seems to be the issue we're stuck on, so I'll define mine and attempt to describe yours based on what's been said:

What I call free will is will without a cause. It is a paradox that cannot be. I do not believe that it is real, and neither do you.

What you call free will is actions based on reasons. The extent to which the will is free is dependent on the extent to which external matters (such as manipulation) affect the decision making process and/or restrain the agent. You believe that it is real, and so do I.

^ This definition is why I'm pretty sure your free will can be called self-determination.

I made an edit in which I outlined basically the same thing again - probably wasn't necessary.

I have nothing further to add. Thank you for the discussion!

 

[The Grey Man]

I have nothing further to add. Thank you for the discussion!

Thank you!

 

[Seteleechete]

I feel like this is one of the more pointless philosophical question. The manner in which I decide something is hardly affected by if it technically counts as free will or not(unless of course you allow it to affect your decision making).

 

[The Grey Man]

I feel like this is one of the more pointless philosophical question. The manner in which I decide something is hardly affected by if it technically counts as free will or not(unless of course you allow it to affect your decision making).

The question will be relevant as long as belief in fundamental attributes (such as good and evil and their abstraction, desert), in which a residual belief in free will as independent of determinism is implicit (because fundamental attribution flies in the face of all our notions of causation), continue to exist. The affirmation of a deterministic universe is the vindication of compassion; we are all the same, and only conceit derived from the solipsistic illusion keeps us from showing it. Interest in oneself ensures the survival of the self for a fleeting lifetime; interest in others will help ensure the progress of mankind. Survival and progress, rather than suicide, because we have faith that future developments will see them as justified somehow. To live is to have faith, with varying degrees of probabilistic reassurance. Faith and compassion are integral to a meaningful existence.

/ rant that may or may not make sense

You're right, though. The nature of the mechanisms of decision-making is not often a concern to decision-making.

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

No physical acitivities can be proven with 100% certainty..

There is no determinism. Determinism only exists for ideas ie, math or code or language dictionaries (abstract things)

1+1 will always be 2.

But you can never EXACTLY determine how far the ball will go when you throw it.

From the largest to the smallest Objects (ie, things which exist outside our mental designs), there will always be atlease SOME Error of prediction.

When nothing can be predicted, where is determinism coming from?
All we can do is make things practically deterministic for our everyday purposes.

So, as no real determinism exists anywhere, i dont see why one would have to think about free will..

All we can do is correlate.
Determinism needs you to " exactly DEFINE" an object and understand the CAUSALITY in systems. But, there is no way to really percieve "causality" we will never be able to reach determinism, all we can do is better and better approximations, with error->0 but never reaching zero.


So, be free because there are no chains because you are a real object not an abstract concept like the number 4 for example