The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

The many faces of the free will problem

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by Togo1 » April 27th, 2017, 7:21 pm

Belindi wrote:
Togo1 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


So make it visible. Same issue still applies.
It is visible or audible or kinaesthetically felt, to the subject of the experience as subjective qualia. The same event is visible to the biologist , who of course might also be the subject, as neurons, neurochemicals, and behaviours of the body-proper.
Oohh.. yes, that's a good description - kinaesthetically felt - I like that one.

Ok, so you're going with the mental experience and the neurological activity being two aspects of the same event. As I do. Unfortunately, the mental experience appears to exhibit free will. So there's two solutions:

1) The mental experience involves free will and thus the biological event involves free will (because they're the same event)
OR
2) The mental experience appears to involve free will but this is actually an entirely false impression given by the biological event, which actually makes decisions on an entirely difference basis.

Which do you find more plausible?

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2666
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by Belindi » April 28th, 2017, 3:18 am

Togo1 wrote:
Belindi wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


It is visible or audible or kinaesthetically felt, to the subject of the experience as subjective qualia. The same event is visible to the biologist , who of course might also be the subject, as neurons, neurochemicals, and behaviours of the body-proper.
Oohh.. yes, that's a good description - kinaesthetically felt - I like that one.

Ok, so you're going with the mental experience and the neurological activity being two aspects of the same event. As I do. Unfortunately, the mental experience appears to exhibit free will. So there's two solutions:

1) The mental experience involves free will and thus the biological event involves free will (because they're the same event)
OR
2) The mental experience appears to involve free will but this is actually an entirely false impression given by the biological event, which actually makes decisions on an entirely difference basis.

Which do you find more plausible?
Indeed Togo, we are both neutral monists.
2) The mental experience appears to involve free will but this is actually an entirely false impression given by the biological event, which actually makes decisions on an entirely difference basis.

is more plausible.

Freedom which is a continuum, is often confused with so-called 'Free Will' which a man either has or has not. Do you think it's probable or plausible that use of reason confers freedom on a man to the degree that the man uses reason?

And do you agree that a society that endorses the use of reason by the governed is a free society?

Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by Togo1 » April 28th, 2017, 7:21 am

Belindi wrote:
Togo1 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Oohh.. yes, that's a good description - kinaesthetically felt - I like that one.

Ok, so you're going with the mental experience and the neurological activity being two aspects of the same event. As I do. Unfortunately, the mental experience appears to exhibit free will. So there's two solutions:

1) The mental experience involves free will and thus the biological event involves free will (because they're the same event)
OR
2) The mental experience appears to involve free will but this is actually an entirely false impression given by the biological event, which actually makes decisions on an entirely difference basis.

Which do you find more plausible?
Indeed Togo, we are both neutral monists.
2) The mental experience appears to involve free will but this is actually an entirely false impression given by the biological event, which actually makes decisions on an entirely difference basis.

is more plausible.
So, see, this is where we differ. I'm familiar enough with neurophysiology to regard this as implausible, assuming that both sets of decisions are biological. I think that, if the brain was supporting two different parallel decision processes, only one of which was acted upon, we'd see some kind of scientific evidence for it by now.

I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea of dispensing with observations on the basis of an a priori theory. This seems anti-scientific.
Belindi wrote:Freedom which is a continuum, is often confused with so-called 'Free Will' which a man either has or has not.
I'll cautiously agree.

I think freedom from undue influence (restraint, coercison, manipulation, etc.), or compatabalist freedom, is a continuum. Freedom from determination is a digital state, either you are determined, or you are not. Given the issues with determinism, I reject it, which leaves us somewhere on the freedom from undue influence scale by default. So far so good. But I suspect I'd disagree as to where the two are being confused. Casuality is all about influence, undue or otherwise, as is reason. I'm perfectly capable of working out that going to bed with that person over there is a bad idea, and then doing it anyway.
Belindi wrote:Do you think it's probable or plausible that use of reason confers freedom on a man to the degree that the man uses reason?
No, I don't. Freedom from determination is nothing to do with reason, it's to do with whether the universe operates according to a very strict set of limits. Freedom from undue influence can be about reason, in that it provides a stronger influence to counter influences that might otherwise lead to a decision made in ignorance, but it's not the only form of freedom from undue influence, so I can't see that freedom would depends entirely on the degree of reason used, and nothing else.
Belindi wrote:And do you agree that a society that endorses the use of reason by the governed is a free society?
I don't really see the connection between the two? Surely use of reason is only a subset of societal freedom, and societal freeom is only a smaller subet again of freedom overall?

Wayne92587
Posts: 1777
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by Wayne92587 » April 28th, 2017, 12:50 pm

There is total confusion as to meaning of Free Will.

Freewill do as thy wilt is not the Whole of the Law Law.

Look at what happened to Allister Crowley being that he believed, Imagined himself to be a prophet of a new age, the Æon of Horus.


By giving himself a name, an Identity to his sacred, secret, hidden nature, to his Rational mind, consciousness, Allister Crowley became an abomination, is now considered to go be the most Evil Man in the World.

Mankind having had the Spirit of God breath into his and her nostrils, no doubt were born in Image of God, however he and she as Mortal Beings are only a facsimile, an Illusion of God, God like, in the sense that Man has Freewill, Freedom of mind; is boundless when it comes to his and her will, thoughts, the Flesh Body however is not Boundless is bound to the Physics of cause and effect, the consequence of his and her actions.
Man has a helpmate that is boundless; the Freedom, the Boundlessness, of the Rational Mind, his and consciousness.

Eaglerising
Posts: 231
Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by Eaglerising » May 10th, 2017, 8:06 am

Mgrinder's examination of "free will" is very revealing in that it indicates that it cannot be understood by either thought or knowledge.

Surely, understanding free will is different from having an opinion about it. If one understood free will, would there be many definitions or it or only one. The multiple definitions of free will are either all right or all wrong, neither of which are desirable. Fortunately, they do point out or indicate that free will cannot be understood either thought or knowledge.

Is understanding free will an unsolvable problem or is there a viable solution?

Wayne92587
Posts: 1777
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by Wayne92587 » May 10th, 2017, 3:24 pm

Eaglerising;
Is understanding free will an unsolvable problem or is there a viable solution?

There is a viable solution.
The multiple definitions of free will are either all right or all wrong, neither of which are desirable. Fortunately, they do point out or indicate that free will cannot be understood either thought or knowledge.
The multiple definitions of Freewill are an abomination, all wrong.

Mgrinder's examination of "free will" is all wrong.

There is total confusion as to meaning of Free Will.

Freewill, " do as thy will" is not the Whole of the Law Law.

Look at what happened to Allister Crowley being that he believed, Imagined himself to be a prophet of a new age, the Æon of Horus.

By giving himself a name, an Identity to his sacred, secret, hidden nature, to his Rational mind, consciousness, Free will, Allister Crowley became an abomination, is now considered to go be the most Evil Man in the World.

Mankind having had the Spirit of God breath into his and her nostrils, no doubt were born in Image of God, however he and she as Mortal Beings are only a facsimile, an Illusion of God, God like, in the sense that Man has Freewill, Freedom of mind, is boundless when it comes to his and her will, thoughts; the Flesh Body however is not Boundless, is bound to the Physics of cause and effect, the consequence of his and her actions.

Man has a helpmate that is boundless; the Freedom, the Boundlessness, of the Rational Mind, his and her consciousness.

Consciousness, Free Will, is the gate way to the many secrets of the Universe.

There is total confusion as to meaning of Free Will.

Freewill; do as thy will is not the Whole of the Law Law.

Mankind having had the Spirit of God breath into his and her nostrils, no doubt were born in Image of God, however he and she as Mortal Beings are only a facsimile, an Illusion of God, God like, in the sense that Man has Freewill, Freedom of mind, is boundless when it comes to his and her will, thoughts; the Flesh Body however is not Boundless, is bound to the Physics of cause and effect, the consequence of his and her actions.

Man has a helpmate that is boundless; the Freedom, the Boundlessness, of the Rational Mind, his and her consciousness.

Consciousness, Free Will, is the gate way to the many secrets of the Universe.


The many definitions of Free Will are born of Rationalization, the garden of the mind, the source of Knowledge having a dual quality, the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

As in Speaking of God, it is Blasphemous to speak of any Entity that is not readily apparent, is not measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time, that is hidden, Sacred, Secret.

The Knowledge, the of Free Will is sacred, meaning that Free Will as spoken of, defined is an abomination.
Freedom itself is sacred, can not be spoken other than to say, that Freedom is Boundless.

The only good law is no Law!

The whole of the Law is not to do as thy Will; doing as thy Will gives direction to the secret, hidden, Sacred meaning of Freedom of Will, Mind.
Freedom, Boundlessness is without direction, is not limited as to what One is and is not to do.

Freedom of motion exist as motionless motion, motion having no displacement, no angular momentum, no velocity of speed and direction.

The motion of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness exists as the minute, innate, inner motion.

Exists as the Passion of the One's Spirit, inner being, exists as a vibration, an oscillation, is without direction, is meaningless.

Freedom itself is sacred, can not be spoken other than to say, that Freedom is Boundless.

The only good law is no Law!

The whole of the Law is not to do as thy Will; doing as thy Will gives direction to the secret, hidden, Sacred meaning of Freedom of Will, Mind.
Freedom, Boundlessness is without direction, is not limited as to what one wills to do or not do.

Freedom of motion exist as motionless motion, motion having no displacement, no angular momentum, no velocity of speed and direction.



Moral Law is an abomination, Moral has failed to do as promised, did not bring the Chaos to Order, would that I could I would destroy the "Moral Law", of the Church and replace it with the Rule of Law born of Reason.

Eaglerising
Posts: 231
Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by Eaglerising » May 10th, 2017, 6:54 pm

I pointed out:
Mgrinder's examination of "free will" is very revealing in that it indicates that it cannot be understood by either thought or knowledge.
It is important to see and realize that. t doesn't mean that it cannot be understood. Unfortunately, the limitations of thought and knowledge prevent us from seeing and accepting that reality. It also prevents us from seeing that we need something completely different from thought and knowledge to understand free will.

The alternative to thought and knowledge allows us to understand everything needs something other than itself to see and understand itself. This is why we need some type of mirror to see ourselves.


Science will disagree with you that "The only good law is no Law!"

Wayne92587
Posts: 1777
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by Wayne92587 » May 11th, 2017, 10:30 am

I was speaking of Man's Law.

The Rule of Law is not an Absolute, it is about what a reasonable would do under the circumstances.

Speed Laws for example.

There are only a few speeding laws that are set at a maximum, most are set at what a reasonable man would do under the circumstance.

Driving faster than the maximum speed limit is wrong under most but not all circumstances.

You can get a moving violation for doing 35mph that has a post speed Limit of 55mph.

Killing is not punishable by the Rule of Law if it is what a reasonable man would do.

The Rule of Law allows man to act responsibly.

Under some circumstances even Scientific Law is changed.

Scientific Law is not Fixed.

User avatar
Mgrinder
Contributor
Posts: 890
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by Mgrinder » May 11th, 2017, 12:31 pm

Eaglerising wrote:Mgrinder's examination of "free will" is very revealing in that it indicates that it cannot be understood by either thought or knowledge.

Surely, understanding free will is different from having an opinion about it. If one understood free will, would there be many definitions or it or only one. The multiple definitions of free will are either all right or all wrong, neither of which are desirable. Fortunately, they do point out or indicate that free will cannot be understood either thought or knowledge.

Is understanding free will an unsolvable problem or is there a viable solution?
Thanks for your kind words.

I think the main question of "free will" is: Is there something in nature that translates thoughts into action?Is there a causal connection between your sensations/feelings/thoughts and your next thought or bodily movement? If there is, is this aspect of nature a part of "us"?

Eaglerising
Posts: 231
Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by Eaglerising » May 11th, 2017, 12:47 pm

Mgrinder – Free will implies choice, does it not. If so, is that choice between two different things, or between two different wills? Answer that question is the door to understanding free will and realize there is only one definition of it

You asked:
I think the main question of "free will" is: Is there something in nature that translates thoughts into action?Is there a causal connection between your sensations/feelings/thoughts and your next thought or bodily movement? If there is, is this aspect of nature a part of "us"?
You can answer that question by observing yourself. Something gets your attention. IN turn you respond. If you attentively observe this cause and effect relationship, you will be able to answer your own question.

User avatar
Mgrinder
Contributor
Posts: 890
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by Mgrinder » May 11th, 2017, 4:51 pm

Eaglerising wrote: Mgrinder – Free will implies choice, does it not.
Sure, choices are a big topic in free will discussions, but is your choice "free"? means: Did your choice actually influence events, or does it just seem like it? This is equivalent to asking whether or not there is a causal relation between thoughts and actions.
Eaglerising wrote: If so, is that choice between two different things, or between two different wills? Answer that question is the door to understanding free will and realize there is only one definition of it
The point of the OP is that people can mean slightly different things when discussing it. You think the one formulation that bothers you the most is the "correct" question. So does everyone else. (they think their formulation is best, not necessarily yours)
Eaglerising wrote:
You asked:
I think the main question of "free will" is: Is there something in nature that translates thoughts into action?Is there a causal connection between your sensations/feelings/thoughts and your next thought or bodily movement? If there is, is this aspect of nature a part of "us"?
You can answer that question by observing yourself. Something gets your attention. IN turn you respond. If you attentively observe this cause and effect relationship, you will be able to answer your own question.
Yep, I think I know the answer.

User avatar
dzung
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: March 14th, 2018, 5:06 am

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by dzung » March 14th, 2018, 7:16 am

Yep, I think I know the answer.
What is it please and on which ground?

PS: how do I make the quote with author's name? thanks

Wayne92587
Posts: 1777
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by Wayne92587 » March 15th, 2018, 12:22 am

Metaphors, metaphors, metaphors, Free Will is simply One person's metaphor for Consciousness.

Conscious and Freewill together as one, gives a better understanding than each word as a Single name.

Consciousness and Freewill as One, a Singularity having a dual Quality is "I Am", is Self.

User avatar
dzung
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: March 14th, 2018, 5:06 am

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by dzung » March 15th, 2018, 4:26 am

Mgrinder wrote:
May 11th, 2017, 4:51 pm
Yep, I think I know the answer.
just reedit my questions with a better quote format: What is it please and on which ground?

User avatar
Mgrinder
Contributor
Posts: 890
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: The many faces of the free will problem

Post by Mgrinder » March 15th, 2018, 2:15 pm

dzung wrote:
March 15th, 2018, 4:26 am
Mgrinder wrote:
May 11th, 2017, 4:51 pm
Yep, I think I know the answer.
just reedit my questions with a better quote format: What is it please and on which ground?
The answer is that: to all appearances, our thoughts and feelings, the internal life of our mind, seems to have a causal relation to what our body does. If I want to pick up my coffee cup, I pick it up (at least I try to). However, we have no idea what our thoughts and feelings are . We don't know how they relate to our body, our brain and so on. What they are is a mystery, but it seems very ludicrous to say that they have nothing to do at all with me picking up my coffee cup. Therefore, we have free will in the sense that our thoughts and feelings cause certain sorts of things to happen, like picking up coffee cups, speaking, running and so on...

Post Reply