Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Mcdoodle
Posts: 230
Joined: April 12th, 2012, 3:48 am

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Mcdoodle »

RJG wrote:
Mcdoodle wrote:I'm game for this. Concrete examples help sometimes anyway, because sometimes people are misunderstanding each other's nomenclature.

The answer is, I don't know why I settled on the third response. Afterwards I thought I should have hunted more clearly for a reason to justify one response rather than another, but by then it was too late.
Was it that you don't remember or do you think it was just something that popped in your head?
Well, the idea of meeting the challenge instantly just popped into my head. Then I prevaricated, worried you might not get the jokey side of it. If I were looking for reasons for my eventual choice, I'd say I was under a bit of time-pressure so it was practically easier to do it right then. I do think option (1), not responding at all, dropped out of the running before the final decision leaving me to choose between (2) and (3). I hope this is a fair answer :)
Windy34
Posts: 275
Joined: July 13th, 2011, 4:20 pm

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Windy34 »

cynicallyinsane wrote:If everything in the universe is determined causality (cause and effect), then how can we have free-will? Do we even have free-will?

Yes and no we have free will, but then again the universe is determined causality. For example you can plan on getting a job, and you have the free will to apply for a job, but then again you might not get the job. So if you didn't get the job, and really wanted to work there you wouldn't have free will to just walk into the company and start working there because the company decided they didn't want you. So you have free will to a certain degree because in certain situtations you might not be able to exercise your free will because the environment or other people prevent you from doing so.
JSunya
Posts: 29
Joined: May 25th, 2012, 3:08 pm

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by JSunya »

The universe is not a causal machine*; it "freely" does what it does. As expressions of that process we are also free. As egos we feel unfree. Seize up with desires and an ego-centered perspective and you will feel determined or unfree.
User avatar
Douglaspocock
Posts: 52
Joined: May 26th, 2012, 5:11 pm

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Douglaspocock »

Free Will and Agency. Each “Agent“, a being with Free Will, has the ability to make a choice in a causality defined Universe. This Agent would be subject to the physical laws of the Universe, but able to make conscious decisions that lay outside the realm of physical reactions. The reaction of a proposed idea is not an unconscious decision, it is a choice that is made from observations, reason - and for some - faith. Free Will is [italic]not[/italic] the flickering of binary on and offs in the brain. If that were so, we would have no mental control over our actions that are not in response to a physical determination. As in, I life my arm because my brain wants it to, not because of a physical reflex. If your argument is that I lifted my arm because of an infinite array of electronic pulses that made me lift my arm to prove my point, then that should be the argument instead of Free Will vs. Causality.

Subjective Will (Personal creation, may be written about elsewhere but I don’t know of it). Our personal Agency and ability to effect the world outside of the physical realm, called Willpower, is our form of interpersonal and interenvironmental consciousness. That is to say, the way my arm reaches out and touches something is my physical interpersonal/environmental agent. Just as my Willpower is my mental/emotional/(spiritual) agent.

[bold] If free will were actually true, then why would it be limited and whose Will would supersede another’s by virtue of control over reality? Could two or more opposing Wills exist in the same time and place? [/bold]

Free Will and the interconnection with others would be defined as Willpower for my writings.

Willpower is not limited, in that any Agent has a possibly infinite interaction potential with the world as much as they have a possibly infinite interaction potent ional (following physical laws) with the physical world. Willpower, in my understanding, follows laws that are non-physical and therefore, improvable by conventional scientific understanding. If you are disinterested at this point, just argue the points that are already stated. ;)

When there are two or more opposing, or cooperating, Willpowers of Agents. (Which is daily life). It is possible for an Agent with a fine tuned understanding of their Willpower could overpower another Agent. This is represented in the physical world as a physical representation of an arm wrestling contest - the stronger would dominate the other.

When Willpowers are in conflict, then the “winner” would be the Dominating Agent and the “loser” would be Dominated Agent. This can be shown in any number of situations.

Another scenario is: Five people are in a room. One person, the charismatic speaker, holds the attention of the room. His/her Willpower is the Dominating player in the room. Speaking and listening are the physical representation of the Will representation of one imposing their will upon another. When another person speaks and tries to take the attention onto themselves, they are imposing their will upon the group. As the attention drifts and fights for who to listen to, multiple Willpowers exist in the same time and place.

When two or more exist in the same time and place, they are in conflict or cooperation. In conflict, physical representations may become present. This could be shown as direct eye contact between the two Agents. (Deny the feeling of eye contact and we have another discussion on our hands) When one Agent looks away, bows, quiets, or what have you - their physical representation is reflecting their Willpower, or lack thereof.
H2ouse
Posts: 68
Joined: April 16th, 2012, 3:22 pm

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by H2ouse »

Belinda wrote:McDoodle wrote:
Lastly, back at Occam's Razor: I find the use of this unconvincing about causality and human action. For instance, I'm writing a song at the moment. To me, a purportedly causal explanation of the key it's in - the melody - the theme - the exact words - the harmonies - the relevance to what I think and feel - such a 'causal explanation' would take a lifetime of computation and deliberation, just on my writing this one song. Whereas a paragraph of simple observations would explain a 'freewill' version, the constraints on me, the chance elements I seized on and the individual decisions I made. Surely Occam would opt for the one paragraph?
I don't think that a 'freewill' version of composing the song would be briefer, because a freewill version would involve not only the free will of the composer McDoodle but also the same causes of choice of harmonies, words etc.as for the possibly infinite set of causal explanations. The free will is an extra cause.
Good interchange here. I like McDoodle's example, and I like Belinda's sharp response. Predictably, I'm siding with McDoodle, though.

In my current version of the free-will argument, the factors that are considered by a decision maker become different in kind from other causes. Let's use RJG's earlier example of choosing chocolate or vanilla ice-cream:
RJG wrote:Say you are standing at the order counter at McDonald's and you want an ice cream cone. The counter lady says all they have is chocolate or vanilla, and asks which flavor you want. You pause so as to decide either chocolate (X) or vanilla (Y). So you contemplate A, B, C, and D. A = Chocolate tastes better, B = Chocolate has caffeine which I need right now, C = Vanilla is healthier for me, and D = Vanilla won't stain my white shirt as noticebly as chocolate would. Therefore A and B support X (chocolate), and C and D support Y (vanilla). But these causal links (A,B,C,D) are all interrelated. (i.e. 'chocolate tastes better' is the same as saying 'vanilla tastes worse') .... all the known (and unknown) causal links were factored into yielding the final 'reason' for my decision of Y (vanilla).
I would argue that there is a difference between unconscious causes for a decision and conscious reasons. Let's say that the instinctive biases of this customer are (1) he wants an ice cream cone and (2) he really likes chocolate. Clearly he hasn't questioned the first bias, even though this is probably the cause of his not making the implied third choice: not to have the ice cream at all. However, by thinking about the options, he has changed the status of the second bias: he now recognizes it as one reason to be considered in choosing, and will not act on it instinctively and reply "chocolate, please" without reflection.

When an instinctive (or learned) preference motivates our behavior outside of conscious reflection, I have no problem with accepting that this is a predetermined and purely material cause of a decision. Such biases are real constraints that can be said to have affected the decision maker's choice; they have worked in the background and never really been taken into consideration. But once a factor is acknowledged as being relevant to a conscious choice, I would argue that this can change that preference's relationship to the outcome. It can become a reason that feeds into (or does not feed into) the decision, rather than a direct cause of the behavior.

Suppose RHG's perceived need for caffeine and preference for chocolate led him to choose chocolate anyway. You may of course continue to believe that these made the decision inevitable, and that he only had the illusion of making the choice -- especially if it turned out he was also a caffeine addict. But a plausible argument can at least be opened up: perhaps he did truly weigh the options using free will and judge that best decision, all things considered, was to choose the chocolate.

And this is clearer if he ended up choosing the vanilla, which was against his predominant instincts. True, you can argue that the learned considerations (vanilla is more healthful and less likely to stain) just could have entered into a simultaneous and unconscious calculus that caused him to make the conscious choice "I'll have the vanilla please". But in this case it seems to me even more plausible that the learned considerations above were reasons for a conscious choice, made through free-will, rather than causes of an unconscious impulse to have that flavor (which for some reason has to be justified by an illusory conscious process.)

This approach to free-will, which I am claiming is more plausible than the determinist arguments that deny it, seems to lead to shorter explanations of decisions than the determinist one. Though the truly unconscious and thus unrecognized causes that influenced the decision stretch back in time to prior events and require complex explanation, the overt reasons that influenced the free-will component of the decision do not need to be explored in such depth, but only to the degree that they were pondered in the decision itself. So I do think that McDoodle's illustration of how Occam's razor might favor the free will explanation is very defensible.

(Of course, I've gone on record earlier saying that I don't fully buy Occam's razor -- but I don't think this affects the other arguments! :roll: )

-- Updated May 26th, 2012, 11:59 pm to add the following --
Mcdoodle wrote:
Belinda wrote:
Having said this, I think that the human agent who does bring scientific knowledge, and reason and compassion, into his choices does make freer choices than the human being who does little more than react to stimuli....
Personally, Belinda, I think if you concede as much, in the word 'freer', you are accepting free will. If there is a fraction of un-caused-ness (to coin a word!), then surely there is free will? I thought until this moment your position was absolute :) I trust you will elaborate and put me right, from your pov.
Yesss, McDoodle. I think you said this very well. I also had the same reaction earlier. Belinda's reply then (or my interpretation of what she wrote) was that the 'lubricant' for freer choice was reason, not free-will. But the fact that humans have the freedom to apply reason rather than going with their immediate reactions to stimuli -- or, the freedom to select the most aesthetic solution -- or the freedom to go back and choose the most selfish option after all -- or even the freedom to screw up entirely and make a totally senseless decision -- I do consider that this could support free-will as opposed to determinism.
The architectures of human languages probably contain more understanding of the universe than all the ideas of science and philosophy combined.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13820
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Belinda »

McDoodle wrote:

Personally, Belinda, I think if you concede as much, in the word 'freer', you are accepting free will. If there is a fraction of un-caused-ness (to coin a word!), then surely there is free will? I thought until this moment your position was absolute I trust you will elaborate and put me right, from your pov.
Yes! If there is a fraction of uncaused-ness there is Free Will. I am differentiating between attainable freedom on one hand , and the fraction of uncaused-ness on the other.I am claiming that there are ethical and logical reasons for choosing to trust the attainable freedom and not the fraction of uncaused-ness.

H2ouse wrote:
Yesss, McDoodle. I think you said this very well. I also had the same reaction earlier. Belinda's reply then (or my interpretation of what she wrote) was that the 'lubricant' for freer choice was reason, not free-will. But the fact that humans have the freedom to apply reason rather than going with their immediate reactions to stimuli -- or, the freedom to select the most aesthetic solution -- or the freedom to go back and choose the most selfish option after all -- or even the freedom to screw up entirely and make a totally senseless decision -- I do consider that this could support free-will as opposed to determinism.
MacDoodle's 'fraction of uncaused-ness' hits the spot that I aim for when I try to pin down the Free Will concept. Reason is not only a lubricant it is also all we have, apart from compassion, when we make decisions that are as free as decisions can be.


Even if the fraction of uncaused-ness existed it would add randomness, not freedom, to choices and decisions.


Reasoning and compassionate choices are available in a deterministic world. Reason and compassion are naturally -evolved givens as far as the human is concerned, and are stepping stones to as much freedom as we are able to have.The human is a battleground between reactive and unreflecting choices on one side and reasoning and compassionate choices on the other hand. The fraction of uncaused-ness would add nothing but randomness to choices and decisions.

H2ouse's usage of 'freedom' in the quote is not freedom at all, it is liberty which is good as far as it goes, but if liberty for some is based upon motives of unreason and cruelty instead of reason and compassion then the liberty results in unfreedom for those who suffer from its results. The dichotomy between good use of liberty and bad use of liberty is marked by whether or not reason and compassion have been brought to bear.
Socialist
Mcdoodle
Posts: 230
Joined: April 12th, 2012, 3:48 am

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Mcdoodle »

Belinda wrote:I am differentiating between attainable freedom on one hand , and the fraction of uncaused-ness on the other.I am claiming that there are ethical and logical reasons for choosing to trust the attainable freedom and not the fraction of uncaused-ness.
I don't understand the difference between 'attainable freedom' and 'uncaused' freedom. What differentiates them?
H2ouse
Posts: 68
Joined: April 16th, 2012, 3:22 pm

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by H2ouse »

Belinda wrote:McDoodle wrote:

Personally, Belinda, I think if you concede as much, in the word 'freer', you are accepting free will. If there is a fraction of un-caused-ness (to coin a word!), then surely there is free will? I thought until this moment your position was absolute I trust you will elaborate and put me right, from your pov.
Yes! If there is a fraction of uncaused-ness there is Free Will. I am differentiating between attainable freedom on one hand , and the fraction of uncaused-ness on the other.I am claiming that there are ethical and logical reasons for choosing to trust the attainable freedom and not the fraction of uncaused-ness.

H2ouse wrote:
Yesss, McDoodle. I think you said this very well. I also had the same reaction earlier. Belinda's reply then (or my interpretation of what she wrote) was that the 'lubricant' for freer choice was reason, not free-will. But the fact that humans have the freedom to apply reason rather than going with their immediate reactions to stimuli -- or, the freedom to select the most aesthetic solution -- or the freedom to go back and choose the most selfish option after all -- or even the freedom to screw up entirely and make a totally senseless decision -- I do consider that this could support free-will as opposed to determinism.
MacDoodle's 'fraction of uncaused-ness' hits the spot that I aim for when I try to pin down the Free Will concept. Reason is not only a lubricant it is also all we have, apart from compassion, when we make decisions that are as free as decisions can be.

Even if the fraction of uncaused-ness existed it would add randomness, not freedom, to choices and decisions.

Reasoning and compassionate choices are available in a deterministic world. Reason and compassion are naturally -evolved givens as far as the human is concerned, and are stepping stones to as much freedom as we are able to have.The human is a battleground between reactive and unreflecting choices on one side and reasoning and compassionate choices on the other hand. The fraction of uncaused-ness would add nothing but randomness to choices and decisions.

H2ouse's usage of 'freedom' in the quote is not freedom at all, it is liberty which is good as far as it goes, but if liberty for some is based upon motives of unreason and cruelty instead of reason and compassion then the liberty results in unfreedom for those who suffer from its results. The dichotomy between good use of liberty and bad use of liberty is marked by whether or not reason and compassion have been brought to bear.
I'm fully in agreement with Belinda's overall conclusions, though not quite content with how she got there. I don't accept the difference in definition between liberty and freedom: both can be relative or absolute. And I ask the question after her final sentence: "Brought to bear by whom?"

Yes, bad use of liberty, or what I have called free-will, (alas, bad use of liberty is not uncommon now or in any other day and age) needs to be condemned, just as much as good use (reasoned and compassionate use) of liberty needs to be encouraged and praised. This is because we as humans do seem free to choose between these good and bad uses -- thus, they are a part of what I call free will.

For me, 'reasoning and compassion' may be available in a deterministic world, but I think that the element of 'choice' is not possible without accepting the concept of liberty, and this, to my mind, precludes belief in a fully deterministic world. I think you have agreed that the concept of a possible 'fraction of uncaused-ness' is not a bad definition of your idea of free-will. Is it also the same as what you might call 'absolute liberty' (and what I call 'absolute' free-will)?

You expressed that this 'absolute' area is an area you don't trust because it seems truly random: no biases pushing in any direction whatever. It seems to you unlikely to exist (just I think as a perfect vacuum is unlikely to exist at least on this earth.) However, perhaps an artist's reaction to a blank sheet of paper or canvas or to an untouched musical manuscript page could come close to involving the exercise of 'free-will'/'absolute liberty'/'random and uncaused action' or, in my terms, 'absolute free-will'. This could suggest that the search for beauty may also be a desirable reaction to liberty. And not only in artistic endeavors: beauty is certainly accepted as a concomitant of both reason and compassion in other areas as well.

Of course, this still raises as many questions as it purports to solve -- but a least it might set a direction in which to continue the discussion.
The architectures of human languages probably contain more understanding of the universe than all the ideas of science and philosophy combined.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13820
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Belinda »

H2ouse wrote:
However, perhaps an artist's reaction to a blank sheet of paper or canvas or to an untouched musical manuscript page could come close to involving the exercise of 'free-will'/'absolute liberty'/'random and uncaused action' or, in my terms, 'absolute free-will'. This could suggest that the search for beauty may also be a desirable reaction to liberty. And not only in artistic endeavors: beauty is certainly accepted as a concomitant of both reason and compassion in other areas as well.
I don't think so because artistic freedom is not random, but is caused by a mixture of intuition, some expertise in the use of the medium, and considered conscious choice, all of which one supposes are untramelled by personal inhibitions, ignorance or legal contraints and which are partly learned responses and partly inherited ability. The search for beauty is itself explicable by reference to human psychology. If a Free Will believer adds on the thin little bit of Free Will nothing is subtracted from the full causal explanation thereby.

McDoodle, by attainable freedom, I mean the relative freedom which an informed , reflective , self disciplined and sociable person has compared with what the ignorant , impulsive, reactive and brutal person has.

A fatalist will say that the latter cannot change because it is his fate to be what he is. But fatalism is not determinism, and a determinist who is not a fatalist will say that the human is an agent for change because the human can with judgement, compassion and knowledge rearrange the predisposing causes so that the effects are different from what they would have been had the human not come along to act as agent of change.

E.g. President Bashir al-Assad of Syria is brutal not because he is free but because he is ignorant, stupid and too much disabled by lack of compassion to hold the office of president.

Non-human events are also agents of change it almost goes without saying, but as far as human agency goes, the reflective, knowledgeable, insightful and compassionate human is more powerful i.e. more free, than the human pawn of fortune.Arguably the fact that the human is conscious of issues of right and wrong gives the human more freedom than the non-human such as geological forces or even such as other animals.
Last edited by Belinda on May 28th, 2012, 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Socialist
Mcdoodle
Posts: 230
Joined: April 12th, 2012, 3:48 am

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Mcdoodle »

Belinda wrote: McDoodle, by attainable freedom, I mean the relative freedom which an informed , reflective , self disciplined and sociable person has compared with what the ignorant , impulsive, reactive and brutal person has.
But - I need to understand in what way this 'freedom' is not being expressed by 'free will', don't I?. How then is it being expressed? There needs to be clarity here, otherwise you're just saying, there's a kind of freedom I define my way which is consonant with dterminism, and there's a kind of freedom you define your way which is not consonant with determinism, and that's because yours is random and mine is not. Could we have examples of ways in which these two different kinds of freedom are exercised?
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13820
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Belinda »

Here's another wayto comment on relative and attainable freedom or absence of it, McDoodle. I already said how President Assad is not a free enough man to be a president. He is a slave to stupidity, and is severely disabled by lack of compassion.

Another example of unfreedom is the poor child in a poor country who has not been to school and cannot then get work that is better than drudgery or even slavery, or cannot earn at all. Inadequate education causes persons in more affluent countries also to be unfree because undereducated persons are those who lack skills of judgement and knowledge.It may be that some educated person chooses to do a lowly manual job, but she is more likely than the uninformed person to have made a free choice as to what she wants to work at.

The relative freedom which I believe is attainable freedom is attainable because it is not made from random choices but from (caused)trained abilities and from (caused) access to knowledge. Relative and attainable freedom is also peculiarly human because the non-reactive, informed and compassionate human is insightful into her own motivations.
Socialist
Mcdoodle
Posts: 230
Joined: April 12th, 2012, 3:48 am

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Mcdoodle »

Belinda wrote:Here's another wayto comment on relative and attainable freedom or absence of it, McDoodle. I already said how President Assad is not a free enough man to be a president. He is a slave to stupidity, and is severely disabled by lack of compassion.

Another example of unfreedom is the poor child in a poor country who has not been to school and cannot then get work that is better than drudgery or even slavery, or cannot earn at all. Inadequate education causes persons in more affluent countries also to be unfree because undereducated persons are those who lack skills of judgement and knowledge.It may be that some educated person chooses to do a lowly manual job, but she is more likely than the uninformed person to have made a free choice as to what she wants to work at.

The relative freedom which I believe is attainable freedom is attainable because it is not made from random choices but from (caused)trained abilities and from (caused) access to knowledge. Relative and attainable freedom is also peculiarly human because the non-reactive, informed and compassionate human is insightful into her own motivations.
I don't feel the conclusion you draw in your third paragraph is justified by your first two paragraphs, which are mostly socio-political observations which many will dispute, and which aren't built up from generally agreed premises.

In particular you say 'It may be that some educated person chooses to do a lowly manual job, but she is more likely than the uninformed person to have made a free choice as to what she wants to work at.' I just don't understand how this is compatible with determinism. Surely, in a deterministic universe, the educated person has made no more of a free choice than the uninformed one?

Nor do I understand how '(caused) access to knowledge' is deterministic. My access to knowledge and education, as a poor child, was enabled by the efforts of my parents, and of many predecessors acting in concert to enable State-provided education for those who couldn't pay for it. In your determinstic universe were these campaigns for universal education in their turn caused by something that was caused by something? If so, what is freedom to choose?
H2ouse
Posts: 68
Joined: April 16th, 2012, 3:22 pm

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by H2ouse »

I'm seeing shades of grey in Belinda's argument that aren't present in the same way in McDoodle's argument -- or my own, which I think mirror's McDoodle's in many ways.

Belinda seems to draw absolute distinctions between fatalism and determinism, and between liberty and free-will. To me, and I suspect to McDoodle as well. what she calls determinism is fatalism with an admixture of the freedom provided by free will, and liberty is free-will with an admixture of the compelling forces that are provided by the material force of fatalism.

Thus we are arguing that gray (determinism or liberty in her book) is a combination of white (the randomness of absolute free-will) and black (the absolute causality of absolute fatalism) where she is maintaining that gray (determinism with liberty) is a color that is totally distinct from black (fatalism) or white (free-will.)

I have to say that, while I usually argue for recognizing shades of gray as a preferable to seeing things in black and white, in this case I prefer our formulation: it accepts the shades of gray, and merely explains them in terms of black and white.

I wonder who will agree with this, if anyone.

-- Updated May 28th, 2012, 2:23 pm to add the following --

One more comment: if by any chance both McDoodle and Belinda agree with the point I have made, we could have a united answer to the original question (give or take a definition or two):

On the assumption that Causality is defined as Belinda defines Determinism, and Free-will is defined as we define it and she defines -liberty, then yes, the two can, and do, coexist. It is only when Causality is defined as she defines Fatalism, and Free-will is as absolute as she defines it, that they are incompatible. And our united answer (assuming that the other two go along with it) would be that the more plausible of these two interpretations is the former.

Of course, we can then debate another question: is the subjective world of consciousness and free-will just the flip side of the material universe, all to be explained by the same principles -- or is it distinct and so far a total mystery? But that is another story. :?
The architectures of human languages probably contain more understanding of the universe than all the ideas of science and philosophy combined.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13820
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Belinda »

McDoodle and H2ouse, please consider some choice that you might make, for instance you choose to drive to the supermarket on one of two routes.

Next, please think about what motivated you to choose what you did choose. You either had motives for your choice, or you chose by tossing a coin or some other random means. If you had motives of any sort, from knowing that there are road works on one of the routes to more obscurely psychological motives, the choice causes even if you cannot explain why you were motivated as you were.

I hope this helps.

I anticipate possible objection that you defy common sense in order to prove that you have free will in the matter. You brave the long wait at the single traffic system at the road works, perhaps to add some more free will you choose to drive during the rush hour.

I rebut this possible objection thus. You have adequate motives to try to prove by the above means that you have free will.I fact, if you are really keen to prove that you have free will you will try to prove that it exists in all manner of ways. For instance, you prove that you are free to put on your left shoe before your right shoe. Probably random, unless the dog has stolen one of the shoes or some such event.I think that you will be unable to identify any event involving your choices which is not caused , unless it is random.

Now it may be objected that there are many discoverable and many unguessed causes for some specific choice. But among the causes for a choice there still may be free will , an uncaused thing, even a tiny little piece of this uncaused thing. True, but what is the use of this free will then? Also, how could it possibly have evolved in the human by natural selection if it has no function in predicting where the sabre toothed tiger lurks? And also,how is there any ethical advantage of this putative free will if it is nothing but randonmness?
Socialist
Mcdoodle
Posts: 230
Joined: April 12th, 2012, 3:48 am

Re: Free-Will and Causality - Can there be both?

Post by Mcdoodle »

I'm not particularly keen to prove there's free will. I'm mystified by the idea that there isn't, though. To me it seems a hangover from belief in God, or a too-literal reading of a crude view of natural science. I just don't get it, but as you can see, I am struggling here to understand it.

The route-to-the-supermarket example seems to me only to say there are external influences on low-level decisions I make. I entirely accept that human activity is highly influenced by what has gone before; that behaviour can often be correlated with social class or nationality or a number of other variables.

But I say that humans exercise free will some of the time.

I am interested to know how my song can be explained without free will; or indeed any substantial work of art (not that I'm staking artistic claims for my song!).
Belinda wrote:Now it may be objected that there are many discoverable and many unguessed causes for some specific choice. But among the causes for a choice there still may be free will , an uncaused thing, even a tiny little piece of this uncaused thing. True, but what is the use of this free will then? Also, how could it possibly have evolved in the human by natural selection if it has no function in predicting where the sabre toothed tiger lurks? And also,how is there any ethical advantage of this putative free will if it is nothing but randonmness?
'True'? If there is even a tiny little piece, then it's irrelevant what its use is, or its evolutionary justification, or its ethical advantage. If you're saying 'True' then you're accepting the existence of free will aren't you?

Free will isn't, from my standpoint, 'nothing but randomnness'. That's an assumption brought across from your metaphysic. My view of free will is that it turns the world in a different direction from the direction it might equally well have gone in. It doesn't plunge us into metaphysical chaos. It just suggests that conscious beings sometimes have affected, do affect and will affect events in ways partly caused by past events, and partly un-caused by anything other their expression of I-ness, their exercise of their will.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021