Free will

[ThomasHobbes]

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.

Not at all. This thread is making a claim that we can act 'free' from causality. We cannot.

This is not a 'ceramic teapot' scenario.

I don't know what that is.

The vast majority of people believe they have a free will ...

No. They exercise their 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.

Where do I state that? I've not used the word 'illusion' in this or any thread.

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.

WTF

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?

What good would a will be if your decisions were not caused by your exerience?

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?

What do you mean by "god". And why are you dragging this weird concept into this argument?

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.

Rubbish.
I know for sure that my choices are determined by my life experience, thankfully.
The word "free' has no place to play here, except in a legalistic sense of having to take responsibility for my choices.

[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.

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.

Yes, you are right about that Chewybrian and the defence in court that “ the devil made me do it” doesn’t fly.

Hindsight is 20/20 so it is easy to see how we might have done things better in the past. Regrets, however, are a waste of mental energy, since nothing will be changed by feeling bad about past decisions.

[chewybrian]

Hindsight is 20/20 so it is easy to see how we might have done things better in the past. Regrets, however, are a waste of mental energy, since nothing will be changed by feeling bad about past decisions.

Your point is true and valid about the past. I was only trying to show a real life example of someone feeling that not having a free will washed away responsibility for their actions. The same type of argument could be made about present or future actions.

This is not a 'ceramic teapot' scenario.

I don't know what that is.

WTF

It is a reference to the most famous and compelling argument against God. I thought most of us would know it, or know how to google:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odR4LkUELRo

So, nothing else you said made any sense because you did not get the reference and did not make any effort to find out what it was about. Maybe you would like to try and then give it another go.

But, if you are able to come up with a counter-argument that stumps me, be aware that by Hobbes' Rules of Order, I can simply say:

Rubbish.

and, thus win the argument while avoiding the burden of addressing any difficult concerns you might raise.

[ThomasHobbes]

Hindsight is 20/20 so it is easy to see how we might have done things better in the past. Regrets, however, are a waste of mental energy, since nothing will be changed by feeling bad about past decisions.

Your point is true and valid about the past. I was only trying to show a real life example of someone feeling that not having a free will washed away responsibility for their actions. The same type of argument could be made about present or future actions.

I don't know what that is.

WTF

It is a reference to the most famous and compelling argument against God. I thought most of us would know it, or know how to google:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odR4LkUELRo

So, nothing else you said made any sense because you did not get the reference and did not make any effort to find out what it was about. Maybe you would like to try and then give it another go.

But, if you are able to come up with a counter-argument that stumps me, be aware that by Hobbes' Rules of Order, I can simply say:

Rubbish.

and, thus win the argument while avoiding the burden of addressing any difficult concerns you might raise.

FFS
I was thinking about Russell's teapot when you were sucking on your mum's tit.
God has **** all to do with freewill, except that free will is that teapot.
Never seen it called "ceramic".

[chewybrian]

Your point is true and valid about the past. I was only trying to show a real life example of someone feeling that not having a free will washed away responsibility for their actions. The same type of argument could be made about present or future actions.



It is a reference to the most famous and compelling argument against God. I thought most of us would know it, or know how to google:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odR4LkUELRo

So, nothing else you said made any sense because you did not get the reference and did not make any effort to find out what it was about. Maybe you would like to try and then give it another go.

But, if you are able to come up with a counter-argument that stumps me, be aware that by Hobbes' Rules of Order, I can simply say:



and, thus win the argument while avoiding the burden of addressing any difficult concerns you might raise.

FFS
I was thinking about Russell's teapot when you were sucking on your mum's tit.
God has **** all to do with freewill, except that free will is that teapot.
Never seen it called "ceramic".

Rubbish.

[Thinking critical]

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.

If it were true? Look back throughout our history and explain to me how the mass torture and slaughtering of the millions of people who have fallen victim to the emotionally charged and delusional acts of other humans can be called anything but irrational and illogical?
It is only because humans react emotionally that there is hope for the human race.
As for an a apocalypse.....nothing more than dangerous fantasies of theological fundamentalists.

chewy
First things first, I am not saying that free will does not exist, I am saying that the free will your are advocating for does not exist.
The absence of free will does not equate to some form of pre determinism, pre determinism infers intention, in that some sort of author lays out a planned path with unescapable consequences.
The ability to make choices and consider options before acting is clearly a process, one driven by neuro activity. The act of choosing means the subject has the ability to potentially change an outcome or future event, this act/ability seems to be what you would describe as evidence of free will.
However, making a decision or choosing an option which alters the future or has a consequence is clearly a demonstration of causality, the present undeniably determining the future.

All matter that can be understood and observed obeys the law of causality, as the human brain is also composed of matter there is good reason in the absence of counter evidence to suggest that the stuff our brains are made of also follow the same laws. Of course we can't simply assert that the bi product of the brain conscious thoughts are subject to the same rules, however those who support free will are making a special plea for the exception of a principal which is fundamental to the nature of every other aspect of reality.

I agree that to a degree all humans must consider their own apparent free will, our artistic ability to create something new and invent new ideas are seemingly evidence of our freedom to wilfully create something new. The question however still remains, if this ability is actually a processless transition free from the restraints of causality, meaning the human mind has the ability to access it's full spectrum of knowledge and experience at will, there should be no reason to see authors and musicians with writers block, information should be available instantaneously, free of any process.

[chewybrian]

chewy
First things first, I am not saying that free will does not exist, I am saying that the free will your are advocating for does not exist.
The absence of free will does not equate to some form of pre determinism, pre determinism infers intention, in that some sort of author lays out a planned path with unescapable consequences.
The ability to make choices and consider options before acting is clearly a process, one driven by neuro activity. The act of choosing means the subject has the ability to potentially change an outcome or future event, this act/ability seems to be what you would describe as evidence of free will.
However, making a decision or choosing an option which alters the future or has a consequence is clearly a demonstration of causality, the present undeniably determining the future.

Does the action simply pass through us, or do we process all the inputs and sometimes decide that we would like to intervene and change the course of events? If we have no free will in the sense you describe, then we are subject to random probability but unable to alter the odds in the slightest. I can't see how that leaves us any level of freedom above following a script we can not change. At the critical moment when we decide, we would be unaware of any difference. The past would be already 'in the books', even if it had been decided by chance, and then there would still be only one possible choice, right? Are you saying the randomness occurs in the world outside our minds prior to decisions or after, or are you saying we are each a sort of roulette wheel, and all the causes must be filtered through a bit of randomness as we decide?

I would say instead that we are subject to influences that create a probability approaching certainty for our choices **if** we don't act to intervene. We can and do set the controls on autopilot most of the time; we can allow instinct and habit to make the decisions for us. It seems to be an essential part of our makeup, allowing us to manage many difficult processes by only giving focus when and where it is needed. But, when we are not in crisis mode, we can reflect on priorities, and change the programming so that the next time we go back on autopilot, the probabilities will have shifted. And, when we face an important decision with time for contemplation, we can take the controls in our hands and chart the course of action.

Many people seem to wish to avoid the responsibility of choice, and prefer to act as if life just 'happens' to them. "I just *can't* quit smoking", "I just *can't* make myself go to the gym". You don't buy that, do you?

All matter that can be understood and observed obeys the law of causality, as the human brain is also composed of matter there is good reason in the absence of counter evidence to suggest that the stuff our brains are made of also follow the same laws. Of course we can't simply assert that the bi product of the brain conscious thoughts are subject to the same rules, however those who support free will are making a special plea for the exception of a principal which is fundamental to the nature of every other aspect of reality.

Are we making a plea to exclude the will from these laws? Or, are we seeing that the will appears to operate outside these laws, and trying to force it back in? Presumably, all the physical aspects that remain in your skull when you die are subject to the laws, but there is clearly another element present when you are alive that does seem to defy these laws.

I respect the fact that you are being fair enough to acknowledge both sides. Many people in here do simply want to assert unproven claims as fact and seem to consider this terribly difficult problem resolved when it clearly is not. Reasonable people can fall on either side, and the complexity seems to defy testing by the scientific method which we might apply to simpler questions. The only possible experiments I can conceive to test free will are beyond our capacities. You might have a Nobel Prize in your future if you can devise one.

I agree that to a degree all humans must consider their own apparent free will, our artistic ability to create something new and invent new ideas are seemingly evidence of our freedom to wilfully create something new. The question however still remains, if this ability is actually a processless transition free from the restraints of causality, meaning the human mind has the ability to access it's full spectrum of knowledge and experience at will, there should be no reason to see authors and musicians with writers block, information should be available instantaneously, free of any process.

The question remains, certainly. It probably won't be resolved in this thread or even in our lifetimes.

I'm not sure what, if anything, writer's block has to say about the issue. It could be mechanical, as in trying to retrieve stored memories, or otherwise, as in trying to think of something new. On the mechanical side, we seem to have memories stored in a hierarchy determined by our perceived need to retrieve them. We can (usually) quickly access things we use frequently, or knew we would need to remember. Other facts can be lost, or stored at a lower level that takes time to recover. It's amazing how much is down there in the vault, that may come back to the surface when some related aspect comes to mind, like a smell that recovers a memory of a place we had long forgotten.

In terms of creating something new, I don't see how we would expect the process to be seamless. Even if our will had virtually no limits, it still must utilize mechanical aspects of the brain and body to function. We must use many senses, and call upon countless memories of words, location of letters on the keyboard and such to get the thoughts out. We may have the onset of the idea, yet need to consult the thesaurus of our mind for the best way to express it. Or, we may be lost, and throwing ideas at the wall inside our mind to see what sticks. We may still be driving the bus, perfectly healthy and able to continue driving, even as the bus may break down from time to time.

[SimpleGuy]

Free will is obvious to the casual observer. Predetermination is a very plausible theory for those who ponder causality. Either is ultimately possible, but unfortunately for the predeterminists, even if it could be proven, it would continue to appear to be free will to the casual observer.

Well the problem is that predetermination is dependent on the viewpoint of the observer. In quantum mechanics the whole system including the observer is even predetermined , due to the fact that every measurement is then included into the hamiltonian. But if one assumes a local standpoint
of personal observation and measurement this fails. Local measurement that is excluded in the global hamiltonian, then can just be described via projection operators and is non determistic in its actions due a probabilistic description. So just in case that you know everything from the universe the universe is deterministic (i.e. there is no outer person who can project or measure everythin is included) , otherwise due to a postulate this can never be the case not because of the impossiblity to measure with infinite precision but as a probablistic postulate of quantum mechanics. Philosophy should be embedded or at least connected to a physical world and with it to physics. But for sure if you change your standpoint to other metaphysical positions there is no real possibility to escape this fact due to your virtual embedding of your mind (i.e. the psyche as an operating system) into this world.

[ThomasHobbes]

There is a difference between determinism and predetermination.

There is no "pre" without a god-like POV.

Predetermination is closer to fatalism than determinism.

[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." ... "It is only because humans react emotionally that there is hope for the human race."

o.k... first you say our problems are due to to the fact that we are illogical beings ruled by our emotions and then you say that it is our emotions that will save us. How will that work?

[Thinking critical]

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." ... "It is only because humans react emotionally that there is hope for the human race."

o.k... first you say our problems are due to to the fact that we are illogical beings ruled by our emotions and then you say that it is our emotions that will save us. How will that work?

That is exactly what I'm saying, it is all a balancing act and evil will prevail when good people do nothing.
If our species weren't driven by emotion there would be no war, no racism or separation of cultures. It is the fear, anger, hatred and spite towards others that drives our species to war and motivates acts of cruelty. It is our ability to love, nurture, empathise and forgive which results in the rehabilitation and reconciliation of civilisations which will hopefully and enevidabley save us from ourselves.

[LuckyR]

There is a difference between determinism and predetermination.

There is no "pre" without a god-like POV.

Predetermination is closer to fatalism than determinism.

Well, yes and no. If by predetermined you mean that someone "knows" ahead of time what is going to happen before it does, then you are right, only an omniscient being (god?), can routinely know that. OTOH, if everything that happens (including human behavior/choices) is ultimately caused by and through the actions of subatomic particles bouncing against and interacting with one another, then perhaps no one will "know" what all the outcomes will be, but they are predetermined by the original Big Bang that set those particles on their respective paths.

[ThomasHobbes]

There is a difference between determinism and predetermination.

There is no "pre" without a god-like POV.

Predetermination is closer to fatalism than determinism.

Well, yes and no. If by predetermined you mean that someone "knows" ahead of time what is going to happen before it does, then you are right, only an omniscient being (god?), can routinely know that. OTOH, if everything that happens (including human behavior/choices) is ultimately caused by and through the actions of subatomic particles bouncing against and interacting with one another, then perhaps no one will "know" what all the outcomes will be, but they are predetermined by the original Big Bang that set those particles on their respective paths.

If the future remains unknown, then the prefix "pre-" does no work grammatically, and determinism does it all.

Fatalism is one step further. This means that the future is 'written', but even with free will, no matter what you choose **** happens in spite of it. That was Allah gets to have his way AND give you free will too. Having the cake and eating it.

[Thinking critical]

Does the action simply pass through us, or do we process all the inputs and sometimes decide that we would like to intervene and change the course of events? If we have no free will in the sense you describe, then we are subject to random probability but unable to alter the odds in the slightest. I can't see how that leaves us any level of freedom above following a script we can not change. At the critical moment when we decide, we would be unaware of any difference. The past would be already 'in the books', even if it had been decided by chance, and then there would still be only one possible choice, right? Are you saying the randomness occurs in the world outside our minds prior to decisions or after, or are you saying we are each a sort of roulette wheel, and all the causes must be filtered through a bit of randomness as we decide?

I apologise in advance for only replying to part of your response, due to other commitments, my time is limited.

Your use of the word random raises an interesting point random can be taken to mean one of two things.
1)An undetermined action free of any cause, not a result or consequence of a previous event, completely spontaneous.
2)Appearance of random, where the previous cause or prior state which influenced the outcome is unknown.
You appear to be insisting that free will is something like 1), where as I am saying it's more like 2).
Random insinuates that even after Y occurred and even with the benefit of absolute knowledge there was no X to cause it, this is obviously a logical fallacy meaning proposition 1) can not be true making proposition 2) the most rational explanation, concluding free will is an illusion

The future cannot be set in stone, there are only multiple potential futures which have yet to be determined, yet enevidabley it is always determined by the present and the present is always a result the past as the arrow of time (entropy) is a fundamental fact of reality.
So when we say something is probable we are essentially making a prediction of an event yet to occur, whereas in hindsight of the event we have the knowledge to say Y was caused by X.
The point is, using words like probable when discussing free will unnecessarily complicates things. The use of determinism can also have similar effects, as mentioned above the past determines the present, this is of course said in hindsight. To say that this therefore means that the distant future is also determined is a misrepresentation, confusing determined with predetermined, a predetermined future eliminates the possibility of variable outcomes meaning only one future and no potential ones can exist. As this can't possibly be known it would not be a logically invalid claim to make.

Free will is subject to the same principle, in any given moment there exists multiple potential future thoughts and choices, during the act of executing the particular thought/choice/action although we may not have knowledge of why or what caused the said event, in hindsight there will always exist an underlying cause or reason for the particular thought/choice/action.
If there are examples where we are unaware as to why we executed a specific thought e.c.t, does this mean one doesn't exist or is it simply the absence of knowledge?
Even if it were completely random, free of any cause, surely this doesn't really help the case for free will as it would mean the subject is not responsible for their own actions.

In conclusion, there seems to be no escape from the causal influence of our ability to make choices and decisions. The inspiration or idea which becomes the choice or decision does not simply pop into existence as a result of sheer will. It is the bi product of process, a process which is guided by our conscious efforts to produce information.

[chewybrian]

Your use of the word random raises an interesting point random can be taken to mean one of two things.
1)An undetermined action free of any cause, not a result or consequence of a previous event, completely spontaneous.
2)Appearance of random, where the previous cause or prior state which influenced the outcome is unknown.
You appear to be insisting that free will is something like 1), where as I am saying it's more like 2).
Random insinuates that even after Y occurred and even with the benefit of absolute knowledge there was no X to cause it, this is obviously a logical fallacy meaning proposition 1) can not be true making proposition 2) the most rational explanation, concluding free will is an illusion

The future cannot be set in stone...

The last bit would fit with my choice 1) and not your choice 2). Under your choice, there would be a cause for everything, and it would only appear to us, due to limited knowledge, that there may have been no cause. Yet, somewhere, unknown to us, there would have been causes and effects with every movement of every electron or beam of light and idea in your head since the big bang. If we were omniscient, then we would know how it all would shake out (I don't know about you, but I'd be out at the race track, but I digress).

The future would be set in stone, only we just wouldn't be able to predict it with certainty due to limited knowledge, not because it was uncertain. If there were real uncertainty (not simply perceived), then there would be someone re-charting the course of events at various points, like you or I exerting our will.

Of course, the chicken and egg nature of this issue is that these two worlds might appear the same to us, again due to limited knowledge.

Even if it were completely random, free of any cause, surely this doesn't really help the case for free will as it would mean the subject is not responsible for their own actions.

If deviations were caused by pure randomness, then it would not help us to be free, no. But you did not appear to be claiming this to be the case.

In conclusion, there seems to be no escape from the causal influence of our ability to make choices and decisions. The inspiration or idea which becomes the choice or decision does not simply pop into existence as a result of sheer will. It is the bi product of process, a process which is guided by our conscious efforts to produce information.

I do understand the strength of the argument. Do you not have the experience of being in control of your actions, though? And does this experience not put the burden of proof on the other side? If this one thing does not match the rest of our experience, then perhaps it is, as it appears to be, different from everything else. But, if the proof has not yet been made, then why do you want to be on the side that denies your experience, and worse, your ability to control your own destiny in the slightest way?

If more than half the world can believe in God without any live experience to back it up, then I feel no shame in believing that I control my actions, within limits imposed by outside forces past and present. I have the significant additional evidence of my active experience of having free will, along with knowing the same experience is occurring for everyone else, even the people who claim it is an illusion.