Free will

[Thinking critical]

You've constructed a convenient but false dichotomy to support your desired conclusion. Either all my choices are fully caused or completely random, and therefore because I have no free will, then I must conclude that I have no free will. At least one other option is that my subjective experience matches reality, and I am in fact making a free choice. I may be able to give you reasons for my choice, and I may not. There may be reasons unknown to me, or there may be no reason but my arbitrary choice; I may be an ass, but I never met Buridan.

Nope, read the post I was replying to, it was Present awareness' dichotomy to which I was pointing out the flaws. I have not stated that free will does not exist, I'm just not convinced that our will is as free as some believe it to be.

You've assumed as true facts not in evidence to reach an answer which conflicts with your perceptions. Not only do I not believe you, but I don't believe that you believe it.

What is it exactly that you believe I have assumed and don't believe?

Isn't the right answer is to at least withhold judgment; if we don't know, we don't know, right?

Correct, but I am making an opinion, not a judgement.

What appeals to people about tossing their humanity in the trash bin? Assuming rational people could hold either view, or make no judgment, why do you want to hold onto that one? I can only assume you enjoy feeling smart for holding it, or want to absolve yourself of the accountability that goes with freedom. But, deep down, I still think you know you have choices, just as the alcoholic knows he can quit.

This subject appears to be some what sesitive to you? Do you have a choice in your emotional response to this? My point is, humans like to think we are rational and logical thinking beings, when in reality we act/react emotionally and then use reason to justify our actions.
We respond to environmental pressures, adapt to social constructs, behave differently in different situations, develop habits, submit to cravings and desires and most of these human traits I have mentioned are automated responses to our daily lives, we use patterns and algorithms based on previous experirnces to navigate day to day with out very little thought.

Then all of a sudden we are put in a position where choices and options become available which consciously give us the ability to change or choose a potential future outcome and I'm suppose to believe that this is clear evidence of free will?
What part of us is it that does the choosing? The mind is essentially the brain experiencing a form of neuro processing, so is it the brain,the part that stores information that's choosing or do you believe that the subjective persona which you refer to as I, is some sort of transcendent consciousness that operates independently from the brain that chooses?

[ThomasHobbes]

If there are any of you still holding on to the idea that free will makes any sense; can I ask you what use is any decision that you make that is not caused by antecedent conditions?
If we can just pull a decision out of the air without we actually base it on something, what use what that be to us?
Is it not the case that when you make a choice you base it on what you know, how you feel, you experience of past events as so on? And if not would that choice just be random?

I simply cannot see what you would want with free will.

[chewybrian]

Nope, read the post I was replying to, it was Present awareness' dichotomy to which I was pointing out the flaws. I have not stated that free will does not exist, I'm just not convinced that our will is as free as some believe it to be.

What is it exactly that you believe I have assumed and don't believe?

Clearly I thought you deny free will by taking your comment out of the broader context, not reading the entire chain of comments.

Isn't the right answer is to at least withhold judgment; if we don't know, we don't know, right?

Correct, but I am making an opinion, not a judgement.

So, maybe we are in some agreement.

This subject appears to be some what sesitive to you?

The question, to me, is how could anyone who thinks they have a free will not find it a sensitive subject? The assertion is that I never have and never will control my own destiny in the slightest. I am being told I am nothing but a complex tree, bending to the light or reaching for the water in interesting but involuntary ways. Why should I not be repelled by the notion?

Do you have a choice in your emotional response to this? My point is, humans like to think we are rational and logical thinking beings, when in reality we act/react emotionally and then use reason to justify our actions.
We respond to environmental pressures, adapt to social constructs, behave differently in different situations, develop habits, submit to cravings and desires and most of these human traits I have mentioned are automated responses to our daily lives, we use patterns and algorithms based on previous experirnces to navigate day to day with out very little thought.

Then all of a sudden we are put in a position where choices and options become available which consciously give us the ability to change or choose a potential future outcome and I'm suppose to believe that this is clear evidence of free will?
What part of us is it that does the choosing? The mind is essentially the brain experiencing a form of neuro processing, so is it the brain,the part that stores information that's choosing or do you believe that the subjective persona which you refer to as I, is some sort of transcendent consciousness that operates independently from the brain that chooses?

Your problem is answered directly and fully by stoic philosophy. The focus is to understand what is inside and outside your control, and apply your efforts where they can make a difference, which is in your desires and aversions, attitude and interpretation of events. The goal is to break those habits and create new ones. I can demonstrate the process toward the emotion and habit of anger.

I was always quick to anger, and inherited this tendency, perhaps genetically, but certainly by example from my father. I would perceive an injustice by looking only at my view of an event, like being cut off in traffic. From this perspective, I could 'know' with certainty I was right and they were wrong. The adrenaline would flow, and I would yell or give a 'hand signal'.

I had to work to improve in small steps. First, I would simply ignore the offender, even though the anger was still flowing on the inside. It would take a long time to return to normal, but even this was progress. Then, I tried to remember each time that the other person had a different view, and might have thought they were right, or not realized what they did. I was still angry initially, but it didn't last too long. Then, I reminded myself that such events were outside my control, and as such were not worth wasting emotional energy upon, and the anger diminished further. Finally, I was able to view the events from a larger world view. I could see right off that this event would not matter in a year, or even a day, or even an hour, and apply that feeling sooner rather than later. I began to view these incidents as gifts, almost, in that they gave me a chance to practice my reaction. I never reached perfection and presumably never will, but I've made progress.

I don't know how or if the mind is something separate from the brain, or where the will lies. But, I experience the will and see no reason to doubt it. My experience of the usefulness of philosophy is mostly as described, as a tool for self-improvement. Clearly others have a more scientific focus, but perhaps they should heed the warning of Epictetus about the hierarchy of understanding.

He warned that it was necessary first to establish correct desires and aversions. In this way, we can break old patterns of behavior and perspectives and create new ones. Second, we must learn to apply these properly to choices and rejections. We have to understand the duties implied by our various relationships with others and act according to them, for example.

Only when these two aspects are firmly in our control should we venture into the third aspect, which is the avoidance of errors and proper understanding of the world, including epistemology and such concerns. He cautioned that most of us were eager to jump to the third aspect without the foundation of the first two, and that it was dangerous to do so. Perhaps he might agree that accepting a lack of free will in the pursuit of science, without proof, is a great example of how things can go wrong in this way.

I know I feel this way. I think it is a foolish and dangerous notion, and see little reason to view it as true. I even go so far as to say that I doubt the complete truthfulness of those that say they doubt free will, as I know they must at least experience the perception of acting on their own will. I feel their view is gaining steam, and I am rather shocked both that some people say they accept that view, and that others do not share my dismay at the idea, even as they share my view that free will exists.

[Felix]

Thinking critical: My point is, humans like to think we are rational and logical thinking beings, when in reality we act/react emotionally and then use reason to justify our actions

.

I know that people use this as an alibi for their rash actions, but if it were true there would be zero hope for the survival of the human race - apocalypse here we come.

[LuckyR]

If there are any of you still holding on to the idea that free will makes any sense; can I ask you what use is any decision that you make that is not caused by antecedent conditions?
If we can just pull a decision out of the air without we actually base it on something, what use what that be to us?
Is it not the case that when you make a choice you base it on what you know, how you feel, you experience of past events as so on? And if not would that choice just be random?

I simply cannot see what you would want with free will.

Many have a problem with your use of the word "caused" and would substitute "influenced" because there is a huge difference between random outcomes with no cause whatsoever and numerous reasonable potential causes with the subject exercising free will to choose one of the many. Thus retrospectively having a "cause" even if it is not the one and only cause (predetermination).

[ThomasHobbes]

If there are any of you still holding on to the idea that free will makes any sense; can I ask you what use is any decision that you make that is not caused by antecedent conditions?
If we can just pull a decision out of the air without we actually base it on something, what use what that be to us?
Is it not the case that when you make a choice you base it on what you know, how you feel, you experience of past events as so on? And if not would that choice just be random?

I simply cannot see what you would want with free will.

Many have a problem with your use of the word "caused" and would substitute "influenced" because there is a huge difference between random outcomes with no cause whatsoever and numerous reasonable potential causes with the subject exercising free will to choose one of the many. Thus retrospectively having a "cause" even if it is not the one and only cause (predetermination).

There is no such thing as outcomes with 'no cause whatever', only unknown causes.

You have no right to suggest that "many" have a problem since you are ONE and not many. Where is your evidence?

You cannot exercise "free will". Where do you get that from? Do you dig into your "free will" bag? What happens when it runs out, and where do you replenish it from?

I did not imply ONE cause. So you last sentence, like the rest is a confused response.

If you really think only some things are caused and others not, how does that happen? What sort of capricious universe do you think we live in and how would anything work? How would science make any sense at all?

[ThomasHobbes]

If there are any of you still holding on to the idea that free will makes any sense; can I ask you what use is any decision that you make that is not caused by antecedent conditions?
If we can just pull a decision out of the air without we actually base it on something, what use what that be to us?
Is it not the case that when you make a choice you base it on what you know, how you feel, you experience of past events as so on? And if not would that choice just be random?

I simply cannot see what you would want with free will.

Many have a problem with your use of the word "caused" and would substitute "influenced" because there is a huge difference between random outcomes with no cause whatsoever and numerous reasonable potential causes with the subject exercising free will to choose one of the many. Thus retrospectively having a "cause" even if it is not the one and only cause (predetermination).

There is no such thing as outcomes with 'no cause whatever', only unknown causes.

You have no right to suggest that "many" have a problem since you are ONE and not many. Where is your evidence?

You cannot exercise "free will". Where do you get that from? Do you dig into your "free will" bag? What happens when it runs out, and where do you replenish it from?

I did not imply ONE cause. So you last sentence, like the rest, is also a confused response.

If you really think only some things are caused and others not, how does that happen? What sort of capricious universe do you think we live in and how would anything work? How would science make any sense at all?

And are you going to try to answer the question, rather than apply avoidance techniques?

[Steve3007]

If there are any of you still holding on to the idea that free will makes any sense; can I ask you what use is any decision that you make that is not caused by antecedent conditions?
If we can just pull a decision out of the air without we actually base it on something, what use what that be to us?
Is it not the case that when you make a choice you base it on what you know, how you feel, you experience of past events as so on? And if not would that choice just be random?

I simply cannot see what you would want with free will.

If we were to decide that words are kept or discarded purely based on their ability to usefully distinguish different concepts from each other, do you think there could be any use for the term "free will"? I do. I find it useful to use it in various sentences. This is true regardless of the fact that the acts I regard as being a product of my free will have antecedent causes.

I personally think the old "free will versus determinism" debate is a meaningless one because any imagined resolution to the debate involves doing things that are impossible both in principle and in practice. Specifically: it involves imagining being able to rewind time and set the universe into precisely the same state, to see if this results in the same outcome.

I tend to lean towards the positivist view that it is meaningless to contemplate doing something that is absolutely impossible even in principle. Except as art or poetry.

[ThomasHobbes]

If there are any of you still holding on to the idea that free will makes any sense; can I ask you what use is any decision that you make that is not caused by antecedent conditions?
If we can just pull a decision out of the air without we actually base it on something, what use what that be to us?
Is it not the case that when you make a choice you base it on what you know, how you feel, you experience of past events as so on? And if not would that choice just be random?

I simply cannot see what you would want with free will.

If we were to decide that words are kept or discarded purely based on their ability to usefully distinguish different concepts from each other, do you think there could be any use for the term "free will"? I do. I find it useful to use it in various sentences. This is true regardless of the fact that the acts I regard as being a product of my free will have antecedent causes.

I personally think the old "free will versus determinism" debate is a meaningless one because any imagined resolution to the debate involves doing things that are impossible both in principle and in practice. Specifically: it involves imagining being able to rewind time and set the universe into precisely the same state, to see if this results in the same outcome.

I tend to lean towards the positivist view that it is meaningless to contemplate doing something that is absolutely impossible even in principle. Except as art or poetry.

If the last paragraph is deleted then what you say makes sense, since even art has to obey the laws of the universe.

If you do the wind back time experiment the only valuable and meaningful outcome would be that it was exactly the same. Whether it makes any sense that the will is "free" (which I personally think is meaningless), were the outcome to be different that would mean one of two things: first that there are truly random things, or second that "free will" is capricious and therefore useless.

It seems to me that you share the compatibilist position with me. The only difference is that for me "free will" is misleading.
Schopenhauer sums it up best "we can do as we will, but we cannot will as we will". Our will is determined by the condition of the universe.

[LuckyR]

Many have a problem with your use of the word "caused" and would substitute "influenced" because there is a huge difference between random outcomes with no cause whatsoever and numerous reasonable potential causes with the subject exercising free will to choose one of the many. Thus retrospectively having a "cause" even if it is not the one and only cause (predetermination).

There is no such thing as outcomes with 'no cause whatever', only unknown causes.

You have no right to suggest that "many" have a problem since you are ONE and not many. Where is your evidence?

You cannot exercise "free will". Where do you get that from? Do you dig into your "free will" bag? What happens when it runs out, and where do you replenish it from?

I did not imply ONE cause. So you last sentence, like the rest, is also a confused response.

If you really think only some things are caused and others not, how does that happen? What sort of capricious universe do you think we live in and how would anything work? How would science make any sense at all?

And are you going to try to answer the question, rather than apply avoidance techniques?

This conversation, like many suffers from a lack of mutually agreed upon definitions of terms, hence why we are talking past one another. Let me put it this way, in an overly simplistic universe with only two possible states, one we'll call Free Will, I would call the other Predetermination. What would you call the alternative?

[ThomasHobbes]

There is no such thing as outcomes with 'no cause whatever', only unknown causes.

You have no right to suggest that "many" have a problem since you are ONE and not many. Where is your evidence?

You cannot exercise "free will". Where do you get that from? Do you dig into your "free will" bag? What happens when it runs out, and where do you replenish it from?

I did not imply ONE cause. So you last sentence, like the rest, is also a confused response.

If you really think only some things are caused and others not, how does that happen? What sort of capricious universe do you think we live in and how would anything work? How would science make any sense at all?

And are you going to try to answer the question, rather than apply avoidance techniques?

This conversation, like many suffers from a lack of mutually agreed upon definitions of terms, hence why we are talking past one another. Let me put it this way, in an overly simplistic universe with only two possible states, one we'll call Free Will, I would call the other Predetermination. What would you call the alternative?

The universe is as it is. You can't have two mutually opposed states.
In what way is determination predetermination? In what way is the will 'free'?
Those who try to argue fro free will tend to caricature the deterministic position by saying that determinism is 'fate' or predetermination. The fact is that the universe is far too complex to know what is going to happen next. Predetermination is false (unless you believe in an omniscient god) because nothing has been planned and the future is yet to unfold.

Nonetheless we have made giant leaps in understanding, and the more information we have, in term of raw data and good models has meant we can 'predict' outcomes of constant conjunction of known causes.
If the will is "free", then this is a clear contradiction of all the progress made by science, unless you think that humans are some sort of special case that exist outside the laws of physics?
Hume specifically defines what is meant by free in a way that does not contradict deterministic rules. "Free" means absent of external coercion, as from another person, to act as you will. It is not a license to set aside the laws of the universe and act without regard to the fact of causality. Yet that is the position taken by many people in this debate.

Hume, given this particular definition of freewill suggests that freewill is "compatible" with determinism, and preserves the simple fact that we are not free to ignore the fact that the state of our will, motivation, education, experience, and so on fully determine what we chose to do.
When we say we are determined to succeed, we are talking about the strength of our will. A will we cannot stand beyond to decide to act in some other way.

[chewybrian]

If the will is "free", then this is a clear contradiction of all the progress made by science, unless you think that humans are some sort of special case that exist outside the laws of physics?

You are putting the burden of proof on the wrong side of the argument. This is not a 'ceramic teapot' scenario. The vast majority of people believe they have a free will because they actively experience the sensation in every waking moment, as presumably you must as well. You are asserting that this is all an illusion, and thus the burden is on you to prove your assertion. If God was sitting right in front of you and appeared to all your senses, the teapot argument no longer would hold up. You would need to prove that this appearance was merely an illusion, rather than asking anyone else who also saw God right in front of them to prove that their perception was real. The burden falls on the one who either asks us to believe something we can not perceive, or to deny something which we do perceive.

If we both look down a street, and you perceive the street to be narrower in the distance, I can break out a ruler, and make various measurements, and prove you wrong, to the satisfaction of most rational people. The apparent narrowness of the street down the block was merely an illusion, and not reality. Can you so easily and convincingly show me that my will is not free?

Both God or free will may be said to run counter to some laws regarding material things, assuming either is material. But, if one of these is right in our face, acting in these ways which contradict such laws, then what are we to assume? Either this thing is not material, and not subject to such laws, or the laws do not apply in all cases. If it quacks like a duck, my working assumption is 'duck'. If you say 'kangaroo', I will reasonably ask for proof. If, as in the case of free will, proof is beyond our capacity, then why should I be moved from my 'duck' stance?

Either way, you have the burden to prove that our impressions are false. In most other cases, like the appearance of the width of the street, such false impressions are easily disproved if they are in fact false.

[LuckyR]

This conversation, like many suffers from a lack of mutually agreed upon definitions of terms, hence why we are talking past one another. Let me put it this way, in an overly simplistic universe with only two possible states, one we'll call Free Will, I would call the other Predetermination. What would you call the alternative?

The universe is as it is. You can't have two mutually opposed states.
In what way is determination predetermination? In what way is the will 'free'?
Those who try to argue fro free will tend to caricature the deterministic position by saying that determinism is 'fate' or predetermination. The fact is that the universe is far too complex to know what is going to happen next. Predetermination is false (unless you believe in an omniscient god) because nothing has been planned and the future is yet to unfold.

Nonetheless we have made giant leaps in understanding, and the more information we have, in term of raw data and good models has meant we can 'predict' outcomes of constant conjunction of known causes.
If the will is "free", then this is a clear contradiction of all the progress made by science, unless you think that humans are some sort of special case that exist outside the laws of physics?
Hume specifically defines what is meant by free in a way that does not contradict deterministic rules. "Free" means absent of external coercion, as from another person, to act as you will. It is not a license to set aside the laws of the universe and act without regard to the fact of causality. Yet that is the position taken by many people in this debate.

Hume, given this particular definition of freewill suggests that freewill is "compatible" with determinism, and preserves the simple fact that we are not free to ignore the fact that the state of our will, motivation, education, experience, and so on fully determine what we chose to do.
When we say we are determined to succeed, we are talking about the strength of our will. A will we cannot stand beyond to decide to act in some other way.

Now we are getting somewhere.

I was not trying to imply that there are two states, I was stipulating for the simplicity of this conversation there are two possible states, only one of which is true.

Let's start with determination/predetermination. If every action has granular causality (the physics model), that is my understanding of determination. Everyone agrees this works with the actions of billiard balls and planets. The question as you put it, is human (or other organic) behavior also subject to being reduced to the actions of subatomic particles originally set in motion by the Big Bang?

Well, if determination is true, then predetermination is just a different way of stating the same thing: namely that the universe's collection of subatomic particles were put in motion by the Big Bang and they are going to follow the Laws of Physics and everything we observe (and don't observe) is merely the predictable bouncing of particles one against another. You are, of course correct that we cannot actually predict many things, including behavior if determination/predetermination is true because there are too many variables associated with behavior, many more than with billiard balls and planets. In this scenario either we will never be able to make all of the calculations necessary to predict human behavior, or some day we will. I happen to believe that between those two choices the former is likely to be closer to the truth. Thus from my perspective forever and for everyone's perspective for the foreseeable future, even if determination is correct, human behavior will act to any outside observer identically to as if Free Will were true, even if it isn't. That is to say that human behavior will not be able to be predicted (the reproducability of correct predictions being the de facto proof of determination).

Now let's look at Free Will. We all know from above that behavior is not able to be currently (and possible ever) perfectly predicted. So determination/predetermination of behavior is not proven or disproven. Now because of quantum physics many are familiar with the fact that some behaviors of particles are inherently unable to be predicted, ie their behavior at the most granular level has an element of randomness. Thus the concept that something, (say behavior) could exist in a universe that is governed by the Laws of Physics yet be forever unpredictable, is completely logical. Thus the words: Free Will may just be a shorthand way of describing the current (or forever) situation where most things act according to the current understanding of the Laws of Physics through reproducability, yet some don't. Of course there are other Free Will scenarios that also fit our current understanding, but are slightly different, but there only needs to be one to make Free Will plausible.

[Present awareness]

Say I’m are walking down a trail and there is a fork in the path, one path goes left and one right. I must choose which one to take and yet have no idea where they will end up. Without free will, there would be no choice, and the proof would be in whichever path I took, since it is in the past and cannot be changed. However, with free will, I will freely choose which path to take and the proof would be in whichever path I took. So free will may not be proven either way. Most people FEEL they have free will and that feeling must come from somewhere. However, it is possible that free will is just an illusion, but either way, things are as they are, regardless of what one thinks.

[chewybrian]

Say I’m are walking down a trail and there is a fork in the path, one path goes left and one right. I must choose which one to take and yet have no idea where they will end up. Without free will, there would be no choice, and the proof would be in whichever path I took, since it is in the past and cannot be changed. However, with free will, I will freely choose which path to take and the proof would be in whichever path I took. So free will may not be proven either way. Most people FEEL they have free will and that feeling must come from somewhere. However, it is possible that free will is just an illusion, but either way, things are as they are, regardless of what one thinks.

Is there not a danger, though, in believing choice is out of your hands, if in fact you do have control? If we have free will, then it is important to work for virtue, to set our sights on the person we wish to be and make the effort to change ourselves. But, if people think they lack free will, won't they tend to accept their faults and not work to improve? Won't they absolve themselves of guilt or responsibility? As the old saying goes, whether you believe you can or believe you can't, you are right.

Just go back to the top of this thread to see what I mean:

For a long time I have suffered depression and one of the things that really gets me down is regrets, but since I discovered free will my be an illusion I have not dwelled on regrets so much because if free will is an illusion the nmy life was always going to end up where it is now, so there is nothing I could have done to prevent the things that I regret.