Choice is an illusion.

[QuickTwist]

Some people think we have choice. Some people think it is the very essence that gives us being. I am going to challenge that.

So when tackling a question on a matter of something like this we must first have adequate dichotomies so that people can understand what we are really talking about. What then can we say of choice? In the most simplest of terms it is selecting one possibility over another.

A common example in defence of choice is to say "here we have a fork of possible things to select from where there is a moral dilemma in as to what to do becomes problematic in that there is really no clear rational favorable outcome". But here in saying there is no advantage over selecting one option over the other how can we say there is choice? We first must presuppose that this individual has the freedom to do as they please and are not hindered from making one choice over another. All things being equal without the premise of what one knows about this situation it is impossible to determine what any given person will choose in the situation.

Given that the individual can predict with some form of certainty what the outcomes will be of their choice we then must look at outside factors that may play a part in this person's choice. We must also look at the possible motives of the person who is making the choice. Such things are the true maker in this situation. One cannot first approach a situation with the outlook of the evidence alone of the situation, but must also take into account what the person's character is like.

Now look at it from the perspective of the person who is put in such situation. Before this person makes their choice and after they have all necessary information to make their choice the person must first ask what is important to them. How does one know what is important to them? They must first ask themselves what they think of themselves. How does one go about analyzing what they think of themselves? They must first ask themselves who they are if they are to have any idea of what is important to them. So what information does one use in determining what they are? It is largely dependent on what they have done in the past. So what is what they have done in the past determined by? I would answer it has little to do with what that individual has chosen and everything to do with what this individual has learned. How do we determine what an individual has learned? We now come to the crux of the supposed choice. Simply put, What it is we learn is what we are told.

So then someone might ask what are we told, or in other words what is the essence of what it means to be told something? This is answered easily enough. The essence of what we are told are what possibilities are presented to us and are aware of their existence.

Within the confines of an upbringing an individual is told what to do from a young age and this is the basis that they are to make all other decision on, moral dilemma or not. All a person's choices can be summed up by the experiences of their existence and what they are told what to do in those experiences and what they are told about each situation greatly affects every other decision they will make.

Now ofc a person doesn't do whatever they are told. The question to ask then is why would someone not do what they are told? The answer to this is simple: they have been told to do things with unfavorable results. People constantly are being told to do this or that and they are also constantly measuring what the outcomes of these results are. Over time an individual will learn through experience what is to be expected when they are told to do this or that. This constant measuring of what they are told and measuring the result of what they are told all goes into a storage of what is to be expected in any given situation. Soon enough this person feels like they have the power to choose what to do when in fact they are simply doing what they believe has the best possible outcome, even in the case where there is no clear advantage over one result or the other.

 

[Haim]

Because we can not predict the future we have free will,if I would know exactly what will happen that mean I am just a thing to goes on.The uncertain is a must of free will which is a must for a choice.
That you can not know if a choice is "good" or "bad" does not mean a thing,if an agent could know that then he isn't a part of a free will system.
Due we are all products of particles that will move in a certain way due to the result of other particles,we don't know what certain way it is,there is no destine and therefore you have free will.
If you have 5 buttons to press and you know all of them will do the same,you have no free will,but if you don't know you do have free will,free will can not happen in self aware deterministic system,on our human scale we are not self aware(of all the universe),we are at best partly self aware of our close environment.

Other example:
You watch a tv episode(with improvised acting) for the first time,at the first watch,it is unknown what the characters will do,from your point of view they have free will.But the second time you watch the same episode they inevitable will do the same thing,lack of free will from your point of view.
Free will is a product of the unknown.

 

[Stagename]

Because we can not predict the future we have free will,if I would know exactly what will happen that mean I am just a thing to goes on.The uncertain is a must of free will which is a must for a choice.

Even if you are blind to your own future, this does not mean that the future cannot be known. Therefore, if the future can be known (not necessarily by a human), then whatever you choose to do will already be known, and thus be predetermined, even if you are unaware. The fact that you do not know your own future is no evidence for free will.

Of course, even if the future cannot be known by anything or anyone, this is still not evidence for free will. It is only evidence for inherent uncertainty, which is a different thing. Complete randomness is an example of this. Is this evidence for free will? No. Complete randomness is only the loss of any kind of control at all, and therefore the complete lack of will.

In fact, I think "will" or "choice" can only exist because of our sense of estimated causality. But this sense, and the way we calculate probabilities are determined by reality around us, and therefore, "will" is bound by causality, and cannot be free.

 

[Tannhauser]

Even if you are blind to your own future, this does not mean that the future cannot be known. Therefore, if the future can be known (not necessarily by a human), then whatever you choose to do will already be known, and thus be predetermined, even if you are unaware. The fact that you do not know your own future is no evidence for free will.

Of course, even if the future cannot be known by anything or anyone, this is still not evidence for free will. It is only evidence for inherent uncertainty, which is a different thing. Complete randomness is an example of this. Is this evidence for free will? No. Complete randomness is only the loss of any kind of control at all, and therefore the complete lack of will.

In fact, I think "will" or "choice" can only exist because of our sense of estimated causality. But this sense, and the way we calculate probabilities are determined by reality around us, and therefore, "will" is bound by causality, and cannot be free.

If the future is indistinguishable from being indeterminate, what does it matter that it is determined? That is, if there does not exist any experiment which reveals the future, then what is the basis for saying that the future is determined.

 

[Stagename]

If the future is indistinguishable from being indeterminate, what does it matter that it is determined? That is, if there does not exist any experiment which reveals the future, then what is the basis for saying that the future is determined.

It might exist in the future, and it might have existed in the past. Its existence does not alter the state of which reality works.

However, it can only exist if the future can possible be predicted. Or else, anything that can predict something unpredictable is a contradiction, and cannot exist.

 

[Tannhauser]

It might exist in the future, and it might have existed in the past. Its existence does not alter the state of which reality works.

However, it can only exist if the future can possible be predicted. Or else, anything that can predict something unpredictable is a contradiction, and cannot exist.

Well, yes. That is my point. The statement that everything is deterministic is a hypothesis, which, if anything, seems to only have been falsified by things like Heisenberg's uncertainty and chaos theory.

 

[Stagename]

Well, yes. That is my point. The statement that everything is deterministic is a hypothesis, which, if anything, seems to only have been falsified by things like Heisenberg's uncertainty and chaos theory.

Yes, it is not proved. And neither is the hypothesis of free will. One cannot go back in time to prove that one could have chosen something else than what one did. And if one could, no one would ever know.

Our perspective and perception of reality is limited by our time and place in the universe.

 

[Yellow]

Our perspective and perception of reality is limited by our time and place in the universe.

This is all we can say for certain on just about any topic.

As to choice -- Whether or not we actually have choice, we do. Our conscious mind makes decisions from our available options nearly constantly. Regardless of whether the outcomes are knowable or not, predetermined or not, limited and programmed or not, etc., we make choices.

Right now, I am choosing to use my 10 minute break between clients to goof off here, rather than process my notes. Later today, I will probably choose to skip my lunch break to catch up. Tomorrow, I plan to choose between a variety of < $0.75/lb. turkeys because they are so ridiculously cheap between 12pm and 8pm on Thanksgiving Day.

I think the illusion lies in the idea that our choices are unrelated, unfettered, and that they always matter.

 

[Stagename]

As to choice -- Whether or not we actually have choice, we do. Our conscious mind makes decisions from our available options nearly constantly. Regardless of whether the outcomes are knowable or not, predetermined or not, limited and programmed or not, etc., we make choices.

...

I think the illusion lies in the idea that our choices are unrelated, unfettered, and that they always matter.

This depends on the definition of "choice". If "choice" means anything, it must mean that we could have done something else, all things being equal. But this hypothesis is unprovable as we cannot go back in time and relive the situation as we did the first time.

So what is a choice? It is merely the point in time where we become aware of our influence on our external and internal surroundings. If we identify with this influence, then the choice is perceived as more or less "free". If not, then it is forced or subconscious or otherwise "outside of our control".

Edit: By identifying with the choice, I mean that the choice is perceived as being congruent with our conscious intention and/or values.

 

[emmabobary]

I think choice is a construct created from the subject as well as determinism. These are topics that only concern to the subject. Therefore if everything can be predicted at some point or not, is irrelevant.
What matters is the subject, and why the idea of choosing, freedom and free will is so important; I would say, constitutive of the subject.
Schelling says that for every positive notion there´s a negative frame, made of all the incomprehensible chaos. This is: the notion of god is the answer of human subjectivity to the inexplicable. And everthing that doesnt fit with the created idea of god is evil, which has its face in the pagan gods. So, in some way the pagan gods are previous to the consciousness of "god", they are the ghost of all that is incomprehensible.
These "ghosts" are present in lenguage and that´s why lenguage is so limited, because it comes from a subject that is unable to cover everything in his understanding.
So there´s this crazy thesis that says that our conscious side of the self is always completely determined by the negative frame, by the ghosts (because these ghosts are like a distorted window to the fatual reality, subject´s desire to access to absolute knowledge on the other side is what actually drives the conscious life). So, there´s no actual freedom, choice or whatsoever in the conscious life, there has only been freedom in the creation of this self where this dark side was born along.

Quite crazy huh?
But I do like the direction of this thesis.

 

[Grayman]

This depends on the definition of "choice". If "choice" means anything, it must mean that we could have done something else, all things being equal. But this hypothesis is unprovable as we cannot go back in time and relive the situation as we did the first time.

So what is a choice? It is merely the point in time where we become aware of our influence on our external and internal surroundings. If we identify with this influence, then the choice is perceived as more or less "free". If not, then it is forced or subconscious or otherwise "outside of our control".

Edit: By identifying with the choice, I mean that the choice is perceived as being congruent with our conscious intention and/or values.

There is a way to go back and relive it.

 

[Haim]

Even if you are blind to your own future, this does not mean that the future cannot be known. Therefore, if the future can be known (not necessarily by a human), then whatever you choose to do will already be known, and thus be predetermined, even if you are unaware. The fact that you do not know your own future is no evidence for free will.

Of course, even if the future cannot be known by anything or anyone, this is still not evidence for free will. It is only evidence for inherent uncertainty, which is a different thing. Complete randomness is an example of this. Is this evidence for free will? No. Complete randomness is only the loss of any kind of control at all, and therefore the complete lack of will.

In fact, I think "will" or "choice" can only exist because of our sense of estimated causality. But this sense, and the way we calculate probabilities are determined by reality around us, and therefore, "will" is bound by causality, and cannot be free.

Like the famous question meaning of life,the source of the discussion is in the erroneous thinking that words can ever exist outside our brains,free will must have some perspective,it is something that exist in intelligent being,complete randomness is not intelligent being and isn't even possible in reality as "random" is also deterministic,random is like free will,what make us regard it as random isnt the true randomness of it,is that we don't know what number the cube will show otherwise we wouldn't call it random.Yes the cube cannot change it own end number,we still call it random.

 

[QuickTwist]

Because we can not predict the future we have free will,if I would know exactly what will happen that mean I am just a thing to goes on.The uncertain is a must of free will which is a must for a choice.
That you can not know if a choice is "good" or "bad" does not mean a thing,if an agent could know that then he isn't a part of a free will system.
Due we are all products of particles that will move in a certain way due to the result of other particles,we don't know what certain way it is,there is no destine and therefore you have free will.
If you have 5 buttons to press and you know all of them will do the same,you have no free will,but if you don't know you do have free will,free will can not happen in self aware deterministic system,on our human scale we are not self aware(of all the universe),we are at best partly self aware of our close environment.

Other example:
You watch a tv episode(with improvised acting) for the first time,at the first watch,it is unknown what the characters will do,from your point of view they have free will.But the second time you watch the same episode they inevitable will do the same thing,lack of free will from your point of view.
Free will is a product of the unknown.

Because we cannot predict the future we have free will: because we can judge things in retrospect is ultimately what causes us to pick one thing over another.

This is all we can say for certain on just about any topic. I use a moral dilemma because it is easiest to see there is not clear best option, but still plays a part in what the person will choose. Because there are other entities who also have possibilities presented to them is no evidence that we have choice. The fact that we are only partially aware is evidence that we have a clear path doing one thing over another.

As to choice -- Whether or not we actually have choice, we do. Our conscious mind makes decisions from our available options nearly constantly. Regardless of whether the outcomes are knowable or not, predetermined or not, limited and programmed or not, etc., we make choices.

Right now, I am choosing to use my 10 minute break between clients to goof off here, rather than process my notes. Later today, I will probably choose to skip my lunch break to catch up. Tomorrow, I plan to choose between a variety of < $0.75/lb. turkeys because they are so ridiculously cheap between 12pm and 8pm on Thanksgiving Day.

I think the illusion lies in the idea that our choices are unrelated, unfettered, and that they always matter.

This is not an argument with new information given Yellow. You are basically saying we have choice because we make decisions. I'd argue that just because we make decisions does not mean that we have choice; all it means is that thought goes into making a decision.

 

[Yellow]

This is not an argument with new information given Yellow. You are basically saying we have choice because we make decisions. I'd argue that just because we make decisions does not mean that we have choice; all it means is that thought goes into making a decision.

Exactly. I was just clarifying that choice defined as "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities" is not an illusion. The freedom/free-will implied in the act seems to be what you are calling into question.

 

[QuickTwist]

Exactly. My point was merely that choice defined as "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities" is not an illusion. The freedom/free-will implied in the act seems to be what you are calling into question.

I'd say that decisions can be determined from an outside source thereby making the "choice" arbitrary. Think of a child who when asked what toy they want to play with, they most often pick their favorite toy. Does the mother not have any idea what toy the child is to choose, or can they say they have a good idea of what is chosen more often than not?

But I will agree with you where we agree. The idea of freewill has never really had any empirical evidence to support it.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I'd say that decisions can be determined from an outside source thereby making the "choice" arbitrary. Think of a child who when asked what toy they want to play with, they most often pick their favorite toy. Does the mother not have any idea what toy the child is to choose, or can they say they have a good idea of what is chosen more often than not?

The mother can make a prediction based off observations made over time. That doesn't effect the child choosing the toy it wants of its own free will. If the mother were to directly interfere, say by taking the favorite toy away, the child still has other choices it can make. The mother only restricting the choices available.

The child then would probably become noisy and throw a tantrum. It doesn't have to, but it has the choice to.

 

[Grayman]

There is no free will. You can certainly do what you want but do you get to choose what you want? Even if you deny those wonderful mcdee fries you will still wanting something else more. Like looken slim Jim. Face up to it! You are all slaves of your desires whether they be abstract like morals or they be concrete like this mcdees fries. So eat up!

Edit: Currently enjoying greasy words of ego enhancing deliciousness.

 

[QuickTwist]

The mother can make a prediction based off observations made over time. That doesn't effect the child choosing the toy it wants of its own free will. If the mother were to directly interfere, say by taking the favorite toy away, the child still has other choices it can make. The mother only restricting the choices available.

The child then would probably become noisy and throw a tantrum. It doesn't have to, but it has the choice to.

Perhaps it does not have a bearing on what the child may choose at any given time, BUT it does prove the choice can be predicted there by not at all random, which I would argue is evidence that there is really no choice being made.

 

[QuickTwist]

There is no free will. You can certainly do what you want but do you get to choose what you want? Even if you deny those wonderful mcdee fries �� you will still wanting something else more. Like looken slim Jim. Face up to it! You are all slaves of your desires whether they be abstract like morals or they be concrete like this mcdees fries. So eat �� up!

Edit: Currently enjoying greasy words of ego enhancing deliciousness.

I should report your post for advertising for McD's. :P

 

[TheScornedReflex]

There is no free will. You can certainly do what you want but do you get to choose what you want? Even if you deny those wonderful mcdee fries �� you will still wanting something else more. Like looken slim Jim. Face up to it! You are all slaves of your desires whether they be abstract like morals or they be concrete like this mcdees fries. So eat �� up!

Edit: Currently enjoying greasy words of ego enhancing deliciousness.

That just sounds like a convenient excuse to give into those desires and ones own weaknesses of character.

I like the edit.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

Perhaps it does not have a bearing on what the child may choose at any given time, BUT it does prove the choice can be predicted there by not at all random, which I would argue is evidence that there is really no choice being made.

How is that evidence of no choice? What are you wearing today? Did you choose to put those clothes on? Why did you choose them? Was it the availability of them? You didn't have to wear clothes at all.

Choices exist from tiny, seemingly, insignificant decisions to life altering ones. Even if we feel trapped by the current options available to us. It's our choices that lead us on our path. How we respond to them is where we define our free will.

 

[Grayman]

That just sounds like a convenient excuse to give into those desires and ones own weaknesses of character.

I like the edit.

So you desire to be a person of strong character? This doesn't alter the fact that you are still enslaved. You simply have different desires than some other people might have.

 

[QuickTwist]

How is that evidence of no choice? What are you wearing today? Did you choose to put those clothes on? Why did you choose them? Was it the availability of them? You didn't have to wear clothes at all.

Choices exist from tiny, seemingly, insignificant decisions to life altering ones. Even if we feel trapped by the current options available to us. It's our choices that lead us on our path. How we respond to them is where we define our free will.

That is really the choice dilemma: either we have choice in everything or we have choice in nothing. Regardless, you haven't said anything that can be quantified with abductive reasoning, so while I get your point I simply disagree.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

So you desire to be a person of strong character? This doesn't alter the fact that you are still enslaved. You simply have different desires than some other people might have.

No. I know my character is weak. I have multiple scars on my body to prove as much, but that's beside the point.

I may have misunderstood the first statement after re-reading your post.. After writing a argument out, i ended up seeing your point on desire. My desire to win.

I still believe in freewill. I just can't come up with a compelling argument.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

That is really the choice dilemma: either we have choice in everything or we have choice in nothing. Regardless, you haven't said anything that can be quantified with abductive reasoning, so while I get your point I simply disagree.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Feather]

Free-will

In reality, many phenomenon has a source that is beyond our ability to control or directly hold in our hands or recreate.

1. Brownian Motion
2. Dark matter/energy
3. Fundamental forces
4. Speed of light constant
5. Quantum mechanics
6. Higgs

Simply trying to say we don't have access to the rules. We can't change or effect the rules that our world moves by. We can only model them in a computer.

Where do these rules live? Why can't free-will be their neighbor?

The claim of "illusion" is more scientifically saying the phenomenon can be resolved into a more fundamental world.

:::::::::::::::::::::::

We get to the issue in what world do these phenomenon really live once resolved? Our world or another world we don't have access too.

:::::::::::::::::::::::

For example quantum mechanics resolved all we experience as a creation from a world beyond us. It broke down the “illusion” of what you see is all there is.
The illusion of Free-will is an idea that wants to resolve all we experience mentally as a true creation of our world and all we see. Meaning that it “can” be controlled, held in hand, and created from that which we have access too – most importantly to this idea – is the belief that only things that can exist is that which we have access too, that what you see is all there is.

There is a head to head match up here. The illusion of Free-will is a premise that should be entirely scientific but produces little science. Comparably quantum mechanics has produced an entirely new branch of credible science and has stood the test of time and refuted every attempt to falsify. I tend to notice that those who favor “the illusion of Free-will” doesn’t understand or know about quantum mechanics and/or they regress to siding with somebody who has credentials who professes hope that quantum mechanics in the future will fall to materialism.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Now, I think the “illusion of Free-will” can still be on to something if we don’t demand it be resolved into all we see is all there is. This world that all our rules of nature come from, should be invaded and from there we must see the true nature of our mind. But that’s a place you can’t take pitch forks and torches.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
More specifically to the original thought idea:
I do think that thought process is on to the true nature of the mind.
We have degrees of freedom in our choices. Or a decision space.
That decision space is influenced by many factors:

1. Physical mechanics
........a. Familiarity
........b. Genes
........c. Biology
2. Awareness
........a. Physical perception
...............i. Environment
........b. Mental perception
..............i. Memory & History
..............ii. Intellect power
..............iii. Intuition
..............iv. Focus

These set the range of choices one can choose from.
From those choices it can be a “Battle of Will” to make any actual choice

That “Battle of Will” is between these Values:

1. Physical Urge: Addiction to physical response
2. Ego: Addiction to a mental response
3. Moral: dedication toward a goal

Note: For a goal to be moral it must lead to an evolution of decision space. Physical urge may or may not diminish decision space. Ego is a synthetic mental goal that degrades decision space through delusion of awareness. This claims that there are goals and morals independent of our minds but a truth of nature that can lead to a larger decision space and a life form that can create to higher degree.
:::>>>
Imagine an itch on your arm you have to use a “Battle of Will” to not scratch.
:::>>>>
Our values that are moral are “learned”.Free-will is a required ingredient to learn. For note-pad to evolve into word, it needs the ability to “Self-Program”. A deterministic system can’t be more than it is originally programmed and cannot truly learn. To learn you must have a history to build on. All our past choices shape our current decision space and it shapes how the” battle of will” will play out because that battle is based on what we have learned and what we have learned is based on our past. Our past history is not something you can “find” in the physical world. You can’t crack open the brain and collect the past.
::::::::::::::::::::
Also and lastly, the claim on an illusion requires to me one important element. There needs to be an explanation of why that illusion appears to exist and for what purpose. Take that person who feels that this “battle of will” doesn’t matter, just a random effect we feel or is purposeless. You will find a person who is either on crack, homeless, in jail, about to commit suicide or a devote cult member.

{dammit I told my self I would stop posting on free-will topics}

 

[addictedartist]

All learning is remembering, choosing to remember is to forget the illusion; creativity is original only by its ability to set itself apart from the definition of itself, in as such as any faith in perception quantifies itself throughout said perceptions.

 

[Grayman]

I still believe in freewill. I just can't come up with a compelling argument.

I feel the same way actually.

 

[Haim]

There is no free will. You can certainly do what you want but do you get to choose what you want? Even if you deny those wonderful mcdee fries �� you will still wanting something else more. Like looken slim Jim. Face up to it! You are all slaves of your desires whether they be abstract like morals or they be concrete like this mcdees fries. So eat �� up!

Edit: Currently enjoying greasy words of ego enhancing deliciousness.

You wants are part of you,you can have one want(one part of you) change other want,these changing your wants(and yourself)."I" is really consistent of many "I"s each with a diffrent want,each "I" have certain influence on the other "I"s.You can claim one "I" does not have control of it wants to change other wants or itself,but anyway that "I" is I so it does not matter.

 

[QuickTwist]

All learning is remembering, choosing to remember is to forget the illusion; creativity is original only by its ability to set itself apart from the definition of itself, in as such as any faith in perception quantifies itself throughout said perceptions.

That is some deep shit man. I welcome any more contribution you might have in this thread.

 

[QuickTwist]

If the future is indistinguishable from being indeterminate, what does it matter that it is determined? That is, if there does not exist any experiment which reveals the future, then what is the basis for saying that the future is determined.

Through patterns that our brain has evolved to process.

 

[Stagename]

...free will must have some perspective,it is something that exist in intelligent being...

This assertion requires some explanation. It is not a given that intelligent beings have free will. This is the subject of the free will discussion. To simply assert that this is the case, is a little too easy.

But I rather think your point is that free will can only exist in intelligent beings, if it exists at all, which makes more sense. Yet it still is something that needs an explanation. How can you know that free will cannot exist in beings like bacteria? Even if bacteria cannot contemplate a comprehensive plan to create a sustainable habitat for their own survival, they still might prefer solution A to solution B when given the choice. If they cannot choose both, then what makes them choose one over the other? Randomness, causality, or will? And why is this any different in regard to humans? How "intelligent" must a being be in order to have free will? Does a cat have free will? A muse? A fly? A monkey?

...it is something that exist in intelligent being,complete randomness is not intelligent being and isn't even possible in reality as "random" is also deterministic...

It is true that many of the things we regard as "random" only seem to be random because of the incomprehensible uncertainty in predicting the outcome. For instance, one would regard the outcome of throwing a die to have a 1/6th chance to land on either side. Yet, there are underlying variables that predict the outcome (speed, direction, shape of the die, surface of the table it is thrown on, gravity etc), as evident by the event itself.

The closest thing to true randomness we can observe in reality is in relation to quantum mechanics. Radioactive materials decay spontaneously in a probabilistic manner, but the exact time of decay within the probability interval is inherently random. At least that's what scientists currently believe.

However, even if true randomness only exist conceptually, no combination of randomness and determinism can produce free will - which is an intent and a capability that is not bound by anything but itself (to my understanding). If free will and a free choice truly is free, then it is different from anything we currently know about in reality. It is detached from causality in the universe. I think to even entertain this idea requires some good argumentation or evidence. Why else would anyone believe this at all?

To simply ask "why do you have your intentions?" will uncover your motive for taking action, and thus, your own mental justification for your behaviour - a.k.a. the causal chain that lead to your action, as perceived by yourself. Also, there are lots of scientific evidence that shows how things like subliminal messaging will change our behaviour without our conscious knowledge - which is why subliminal marketing is restricted by law in several countries. So how is an intention or choice "free" when it is bound by prior events? And in the case that there is no reasoning for your action, then how can you justify your own control over it? If you can't justify your control of your own actions, and don't know why you do something, then how are your actions "free"? Aren't they either a) outside of your control, or b) based on your conscious rationale for your intention (which is a reflection of the underlying causation)?

 

[Haim]

By definition in order to have free will you have to have will.In order to decide if something has free will or not you must have some scope,you can not be "objective",you look at it from some viewpoint.In the "universe" point of view,we don't have free will and everything is deterministic,but from my point of view,as I can not possibly know exactly what will happen,things are not deterministic.
Randomness is an human concept,these must exist in intelligent being,it can not exist outside of it,randomness as free will is a label we put on a phenomenon we observed,which is an event we don't know the result of and can produce servel result.Free will does not exist outside of intelligent being,as free will is a label in our brain.When you think a mere label is a thing that exists you produce a thinking error,similar to a paradox.
For example "red" does not exist in reality,it is our interpretation of reality,free will,randomness,choice and meaning of life are the same,interpretation of reality not reality itself.

Bacteria case is complex,individual Bacteria is more like a dumb software,it does not have free will,it will do what its DNA programed it to do,but what make it more complex than that is evolution,a self modifying software,what to make of it?I don't know.
About the others,they do have free will,they have a brain.With the ambushes my cat is doing(to me,to my dog),he is more complex than perceived,he do what the fuck he wants,ignoring any "bad cat".

 

[Stagename]

By definition in order to have free will you have to have will.In order to decide if something has free will or not you must have some scope,you can not be "objective",you look at it from some viewpoint.In the "universe" point of view,we don't have free will and everything is deterministic,but from my point of view,as I can not possibly know exactly what will happen,things are not deterministic.

Then we agree. This is the difference between the objective and the subjective point of view. As you explain yourself, free will cannot exist objectively, it can only be perceived subjectively. This means that free will is an illusion, or a "misconception" that does not accurately represent reality.

 

[Haim]

Then we agree. This is the difference between the objective and the subjective point of view. As you explain yourself, free will cannot exist objectively, it can only be perceived subjectively. This means that free will is an illusion, or a "misconception" that does not accurately represent reality.

Free will can not be objective,how something that only exist in a brain can be objective?
Going back to the tv example,how can you decide objectively? when one time you conclude the characters have free will and the other that they don't.
You can also apply this to a video of dice rolling,where at first,the dice result seem random and in the second watch unrandom.

 

[Stagename]

Free will can not be objective,how something that only exist in a brain can be objective?
Going back to the tv example,how can you decide objectively? when one time you conclude the characters have free will and the other that they don't.
You can also apply this to a video of dice rolling,where at first,the dice result seem random and in the second watch unrandom.

You are going backwards. We've been through all of this.

 

[Haim]

You made me repeat myself.
How can you be objective about will?

 

[Stagename]

You made me repeat myself.
How can you be objective about will?

:

...free will cannot exist objectively, it can only be perceived subjectively. This means that free will is an illusion, or a "misconception" that does not accurately represent reality.

 

[Haim]

ha,sorry,I focused too much on the start of the sentence(which assumed there is objective view).
Now I understand you,well yes it is illusion if you based it on than our idea of reality is illusion,but that is also everything else in the brain,which lead us to nowhere,because of that we should use the tools we have which are of course subjective.

 

[Intolerable]

I like to think of determinism as the way in which lava flows. At first in the presence of nothing anything is possible. Over time foundations are laid, rules are established and the flow of free ideas narrows to the point of stagnation. Then all at once the foundation cracks open and anything is once again possible.

We're limited to our surroundings so long as we allow ourselves to be limited by them. It is a safe thing, a certain thing to choose from what you know. Yes, I think this is determinism. To exist in the what was from a safe position in life to take a safe choice is predictable behavior and not necessarily the actions of a critical thinker.

It doesn't mean we are limited to that though. Right now someone is doing something completely random. We're a forum full of INTPs for example.

 

[doncarlzone]

There is no free will. You can certainly do what you want but do you get to choose what you want?

I think your basic conception of free will is a bit confused though I do understand it, because I used to have the same conception. In essence, what you are saying is that I can't have free will if I have reasons for my actions. Because if I have reasons for my actions then I am a slave to my reasons.

I would say, in order to have free will, I would first need to have reasons for my actions - who would want their actions to be based on something completely random? Now what are my reasons? Well I am a determined social animal with certain desires determined by my DNA and other external forces. That, in a truncated version, is what my will is.

Now to follow your line of thought, in order for that will to be free, I would have needed to be another person with another nature (and will) who chose this other will (In order to want what I want). This procedure could follow in an endless regress. Now clearly this is a metaphysical question, so all we really got are our intuitions and arguments, but I would argue that this line of thought doesn't make much sense. It's basically saying that we don't have free will because we don't have an absurdity (the endless regress part), but why would anyone care that they don't have something which is absurd?

Now one can of course choose to define free will as an absurd idea in which case there is no problem in not having it. The confusion is that many, including myself earlier, think that there exist this conception of free will, call it x, that is worth wanting but that we don't have. I would argue, and have attempted to do so, that this conception of free will that has dominated this thread is absurd and precisely because of that, not worth wanting. In fact what we have, which is not this x, is much more preferable which is why many philosopher don't define free will as this absurd x that is not worth wanting anyway. I could continue this line of thought but I realize few will read it anyway, so will stop here for now.

How does one know what is important to them? They must first ask themselves what they think of themselves. How does one go about analyzing what they think of themselves? They must first ask themselves who they are if they are to have any idea of what is important to them. So what information does one use in determining what they are? It is largely dependent on what they have done in the past. So what is what they have done in the past determined by? I would answer it has little to do with what that individual has chosen and everything to do with what this individual has learned. How do we determine what an individual has learned? We now come to the crux of the supposed choice. Simply put, What it is we learn is what we are told.

This line of thought is based, I would argue, on the same confusion. Now there is nothing wrong with the reasoning on the contrary. Here again we have reasons but precisely because we did not "choose" these reasons then we do not have a choice. Again, this line of thought leads to what I already outlined. In order to have a choice, you would need to be another person with another nature and another will that willed or chose to have these particular reasons.

What is important, I'd argue, is not that you are influenced by external forces, I mean hopefully you are, but how you are influenced and herein lies the interesting question. If I choose to play video games because I was genetically presupposed to like games and my parents introduced me to play video games, that is one thing. However, if I don't like playing video games, say because I just prefer playing outside which could be influenced genetically, but my parents force me to play video games with a stick against my (determined)will, then that is a completely different matter.

If one defines choice in such a way that it is an absurd idea(not worth wanting I should add), then this concept would not allow you to distinguish between the two above cases, at least not by appealing to the fact that in the one case I chose to play video games and in the other instance I was forced against my will.

Again, choice is a metaphysical idea, it cannot be empirically determined, though of course some conceptions may be incompatible with empirical data. But nobody, including myself, get to have an objective-truth-card that they can beat other people with.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I would read if you continued that line of thought.

 

[QuickTwist]

Oddly enough, i was in the process of editing the OP at the very time the time expired on me to edit the OP. Apparently after 1440 min, you can no longer edit an OP.

Here's what I wanted to change it to (I put it in notepad after I contacted the mods to edit my OP):

Some people think we have choice. Some people think it is the very essence that gives us being. I am going to challenge that.

So when tackling a question on a matter of something like this we must first have adequate dichotomies so that people can understand what we are really talking about. What then can we say of choice? In the most simplest of terms it is selecting one possibility over another.

A common example in defence of choice is to say "here we have a fork of possible things to select from where there is a moral dilemma in as to what to do becomes problematic in that there is really no clear rational favorable outcome". But here in saying there is no advantage over selecting one option over the other how can we say there is choice? We first must presuppose that this individual has the freedom to do as they please and are not hindered from making one choice over another. All things being equal without the premise of what one knows about this situation it is impossible to determine what any given person will choose in the situation.

Given that the individual can predict with some form of certainty what the outcomes will be of their action we then must look at outside factors that may play a part in this person's action. We must look at the possible motives of the person who is making the action. Such things are the true maker in this situation. One cannot first approach a situation with the outlook of the evidence alone of the situation, but must also take into account what the person's character is like.

Now look at it from the perspective of the person who is put in such situation. Before this person makes their action and after they have all necessary information to act the person must first ask what do they use to base their action on. In asking what to base their action on they must first ask what is important to them. How does one know what is important to them? They must first ask themselves what they think of themselves. How does one go about analyzing what they think of themselves? They must first ask themselves who they are if they are to have any idea of what is important to them. So what information does one use in determining what they are? It is largely dependent on what they have done in the past. So what is what they have done in the past determined by? What they have done in the past is determined by their experiences. What are their experiences determined by? The answer that is random chance. It has little to do with what that individual has chosen to do and everything to do with what this individual has learned from what they have randomly been exposed to. How do we determine what an individual has learned? What we learn is determined by possibilities we are exposed to and our capability of understanding the consequence of our action.

Within the confines of an upbringing an individual is exposed to more and more possibilities from birth and this is the basis that they are to make all other decision on, moral dilemma or not. All a person's choices can be summed up by are the experiences of their existence and What they can rationally determine through either conscious thought or otherwise in finding patterns that they can reliably gauge through our anamnesis from past situations.

So then what are we to gauge when finding patterns of past situations? The determination of future outcomes is solely determined by similar situations we have had, the action we chose when doing so and whether that had a favorable outcome or not. People constantly are being exposed to new possibilities and they are also constantly measuring what the outcomes of these results are. Over time an individual will learn through experience what is to be expected when they are exposed to similar, but not the same possibilities. This constant measuring of what they did and the result of their action all goes into an anamnesis storage of what is to be expected in any given situation. Soon enough this person feels like they have the power to choose what to do when in fact they are simply doing what they believe has the best possible outcome, even in the case where there is no clear advantage over one result or the other.

@Doncarlzone, that was a good post, however, we then come to a very similar manner in what you suggest is actually subtle refuted in a roundabout way in the OP. It is the same exact predicament as the Example I base my reasoning on in the first place.

If I may get my point across this way, Since the big bang happened things have been on auto pilot ever since. Our whole existence is the cause of one big rube goldberg machine. Yes, I am a determinist, sue me.

 

[QuickTwist]

I have completely whiffed on one aspect that influences our actions and that is stimulus. We have a psyche and ofc it is all based on memories. Some memories are more strongly linked to our psyche, meaning, that we are not the same as one another. This can easily be explained in that we are all exposed to different things and unless we have a twin, we have ever so slightly different DNA that plays a small role in our choices. So while what one thing may not have a remarkable effect on one persons actions that very thing could drastically shift the action of someone else because of what each are exposed to.

Now, without getting too heavy into trauma, what we experience at birth and the manner that we are born affect us to the extent that we have been programmed. That being said, the vast difference of what each individual experiences has a huge quantitative difference in shaping how we see things ie. our perception.

Without getting too far into psychology (I want to keep this as philosophical as possible) I think the bottom line of what affects our self identity is what has resulted in our existence of experience. If a person who is told "you are worthless" over and over and over that is going to have an effect on that person's psyche in how they view themselves since it speaks to us on such a personal level. It is bypassing the shell and going straight to the ego. It is a negative stimulus that plays a part in what we learn about ourselves. Without being told anything would we really know anything? Without language would we even experience conscious thought? So what separates conscious thought from lesser intelligent beings? The difference is remarkably small. For just as a dog is trained to not pee on the carpet we are all told to be productive members of society.

 

[doncarlzone]

I would read if you continued that line of thought.

I find what is most effective is to show that the intuitions behind "We don't have free will because B" can be turned around, intuitively.

This B can be a few different ideas though all of them boil down to determinism which means that in essence, what I intent to show here, is a conception of free will where determinism is necessary. Now this is not a position shared by all compatibilists but it will challenge the usual arguments head on.

One of the most predominant arguments against free will based on determinism is the idea that you could not have done otherwise. Now why say this? One way to interpret it is that free will requires that you have the ability to have done otherwise. Many people, again including myself earlier, never really looks into whether this would give us an idea of free will worth wanting.

Let's say I am about to get married and I say "yes" up on the alter. Now on this conception of free will, if we role the tape back and I say "no" 6/10 times then I have demonstrated free will, because this showed that I could have done otherwise. This would imply that my will is not constant/determined and that randomness played a part. Is this a conception of free will worth wanting? If I save a child from drowning in the water, would I need the ability to not have saved this child in order to have free will? Would you only compliment my action if you knew that 2/10 times I would have left the child to die? I would argue here that the more determined the universe is, the more constant my free will is. Without determinism then my actions are completely random and my reasons could not be put into any causal relations, such as: "I know my friend wont steal from me because he is a very trustworthy person". In other words, just as I expect that my house wont suddenly fall apart, I also expect that my friend wont suddenly steal from me (Hume paraphrase).

The point is that there is nothing about "You could not have done otherwise" that is troublesome. Now a distinction here can be made such that if I acted in a certain way only because I could not have done otherwise, then of course that is an issue. For instance, if I watch TV because I am being forced with a gun to do it, then that is an issue of course. But if the reason that I watch TV is because that is what my will desires, then that is different. Since there is nothing worth wanting about the ability to have done otherwise in an indeterministic fashion then there is no reason to proclaim that we need it. It is simply an intuition based on flawed assumptions.

If you want to engage further in this line of thought, as to why the ability "to have done otherwise" is not really worth wanting then I can suggest the following articles though I am happy to proceed this thought further:https://www.unc.edu/~dfrost/classes/Frankfurt_PAP.pdf & https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/sites... Done Otherwise--So What - Daniel Dennett.pdf

__________________________________

Another common idea of B, is the idea that "You are not the ultimate cause of your actions"

Let's first engage in the idea of an ultimate cause. An ultimate cause is a cause which is not itself caused. A cause that is not itself caused cannot be based on any reasons. So this conception of free will is based on the idea, that something from within us, which is not based on any reasons at all, is the foundation upon which we can have free will. An ultimate cause is, by definition, random as there are no causes behind it. Again ask, is such a conception of free will worth wanting? Clearly not I'd argue and as such, there is no reason to proclaim that we need it.

I am glad that there is this vast and long causal chain going back to the big bang, because without that, how could I be this social animal with desires and complex thinking patterns and reasoning abilities? Now of course my will can be more or less free depending on external forces, but the more determined the universe is the better, as I like to think that my thoughts and reasons can put into a causal pattern others, as well as myself, can understand. Without a form of determinism, we would be unable to have meaningful reasons for our actions not to mention discuss the concept of free will.

Even if we had a soul which was not determined by matter (whatever that is), then that soul too would have to be determined in some sense, otherwise that soul would be unable to reason at all.

 

[Feather]

You argument modeled free-will in a limited light saying either it is determined or random. Under those options I think your flow of reasoning is pretty reasonable. Except that making a different choice if "replayed" due to randomness is still void of free-will. Just because the action was different doesn't mean the person actually had a meaningful choice.

Free-will definition needs to be more than just performing a different action under the same conditions. We can create this on the computer but we would not say it is living.

Free-will that makes something living requires non-programmed learning. I don't know how to create that. I think that is one of the secrets to it all that you can't "create" free-will. It is something under the hood or something taking place on the grand server of reality not in the rocks or mud we walk on.

Because we can't create free-will I can't describe a model or how "non-programmed learning" works. Often people see this and in order to write books and such, they simplify the situation into a simpler model they understand like materialism. Then make the claim that materialism proves free-will doesn't exist.

This is flawed because it "demands" that for something to exist in reality we "must" be able to create it. There is no logic supporting that.

Further those simplifications get tangled up trying to describe the "functionality" of free-will. No the back bone of the argument is not in the functionality because that demands we must be able to create it. No it is in the "necessity" of free-will or the "necessity" of no free-will that matters.

The "necessity" of no free-will is one nobody has ever mentioned because it doesn't make sense or provide any insight into reality.

The "necessity" of free-will can make sense in the way that it allows for the experience of having it and is a requirement for life being able to create and for self advancement and learning. It also can be a necessary part of science.

For example, there are PSI experiments where the mind can alter the natural uncertainty of a quantum effect to a significant and repeatable amount.


{{{ASIDE on RANDOMENSS}}}}}

Sciences Observations of Reality:

1. Some behavior "appears" deterministic on a narrow scale of observation.

2. Some behavior is "true" randomness. This means that the results have "NO" relationship to the physical world! This is conceptually impossible for materialistic type determinism. Yet this is what we find in electrons, Brownian motion etc.

3. Some behavior is "variant" by not random. This is always confused for randomness. For example a dice has "variance" but is not actually random, meaning that the odds of each face are consistent. When the variance is consistent or fits a mathematical curve it has relationships to physical world such as with quantum mechanics but the nature of the variance itself cannot be influenced by anything in the reality.

4. Some behavior "appears" random. This is due to errors in measuring and the real nature is {1}{2}{3} depending.


Materialism’s wild card that gets played when there is confusion is that “randomness” did it. This is inconsistent and illogical because the definition of “true” randomness is the denial of materialism because there is behavior in reality that has zero relationship to anything in reality.

This confusion gets in every bodies coffee and you see it floating around in the water cooler. Then the understanding of life is filled with contradiction and misunderstanding.

I talked my self out…

 

[Brontosaurie]

So your point is to redefine the unfalsifiable metaphysical notion of "free will" into something concrete and demonstrably existing that is compatible with causality?

I think you are complicating the discussion greatly. The whole question is precisely whether one "could have done otherwise". There is no disagreement about the rest. There is no confusion as to whether having a gun toward your head makes you less free.

Christian apologists like to equivocate free will as you have done. They want to smuggle in moral absolutes so they can keep blaming their token sins. They want to maintain the right to deem some things irreducible beyond personal choice, because their model cannot accomodate for unforeseen complexity.

It is simpler than you'd like it to be. "Free will" as conceived is an untenable, false idea. No savory intricacies are to be found really.

 

[doncarlzone]

If you're replying to me then I think you may have misunderstood a crucial point. I was not attempting to argue that having the ability to have done otherwise, by replaying the tape, would enable a conception of free will worth wanting - quite the contrary. I am not even saying that we need more than than, I am saying that we don't want that at all. Performing an action differently under the exact same conditions as you put it, to me, is not worth wanting at all, as I attempted to argue in my previous post.

 

[Brontosaurie]

On that we agree and hence so i saw no need to object.

I can sympathize with your ambition to reclaim "free will" for secular, rational purposes. But why not simply call it "reason" or something equivalent? Why not at the very least make it clear that you are talking about a different notion altogether instead of trying to skew the actual discussion to fit your mold by using the rhetoric of someone clearing up a misunderstanding? The free will-ists aren't misunderstanding anything. They, knowingly or not, are pushing an agenda. The determinists opposing free will aren't misunderstanding anything either.

The concept is all about sin and blame. That's the function of it. Free will to choose god or not. Free will, therefore no science. Free will, therefore reject or ignore human nature. It's just a population control power tool and a meme virus protecting its mindless conservational interests - the antithesis of knowledge.

If you provide a means of resolving the conflict, it means that you are giving religion a means of survival, a smuggling route through discourse.

 

[doncarlzone]

So your point is to redefine the unfalsifiable metaphysical notion of "free will" into something concrete and demonstrably existing that is compatible with causality?

I think you are complicating the discussion greatly. The whole question is precisely whether one "could have done otherwise". There is no disagreement about the rest. There is no confusion as to whether having a gun toward your head makes you less free.

Christian apologists like to equivocate free will as you have done. They want to smuggle in moral absolutes so they can keep blaming their token sins. They want to maintain the right to deem some things irreducible beyond personal choice, because their model cannot accomodate for unforeseen complexity.

It is simpler than you'd like it to be. "Free will" as conceived is an untenable, false idea. No savory intricacies are to be found really.

Ok. Let me first point out that I thought the same thing about compatibilism before, now this is not to indicate than I am therefore right. The reality is that Philosophers who are argue compatibilistic theories are predominately atheists and most would require a complete reformation of our justice system - this is not the case christian apologetics are making. I will give you a clear example, William Lane Craig is probably the most famous christian apologetic:
Watch from 50:12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo

Christian Apologetics usually do not like compatibilism because it is based on determinism and the laws of nature, and thus not by God.

Again, there is nothing leading to moral absolutism about this view, in fact I would be willing engage in a meta-ethical discussion if you want. I am not a moral realist and thus not a moral absolutist.

All I attempted to show was that having the ability to have done otherwise by replaying the tape is not, as it can seem at first intuition, something worth wanting.