Horrors!
Fate of Free Will?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Fate of Free Will?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Fate of Free Will?
After all, how are we to learn forgiveness if we never ascribe blame?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Fate of Free Will?
That is a common over simplification of Free Will. No thinking person would deny that many, many known factors INFLUENCE human decision making, heck you just named three of them. However for Determinism to be proven, human decision making would have to be 100% caused by known factors. 75% won't do, neither will 90%.Belindi wrote: ↑August 9th, 2020, 4:30 amThere is a worthy reason not to choose Free Will as our working model.LuckyR wrote: ↑August 9th, 2020, 2:55 am
That's a nice writeup, but to my view you've got it exactly backwards. Specifically, your comment that if the universe is pre-determined that it would seem like free will to the individual. Yet you supply the reason why that's incorrect in your own piece. Namely that "the prescient neuroscientist" can prove to you that the universe is pre-determined (by displaying 100% accurate predictions of your behavioral "choices").
However, since such a neuroscientist doesn't currently exist, and likely never will: 1) predetermination will likely never be proven and 2) until he shows up, free will does a much better job of describing human decision making than predetermination, so free will might as well be our working model.
Free Will, if it existed puts blame squarely on to the wrongdoer, and not on to their poverty, state of health, lack of education and so forth.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Fate of Free Will?
I agree with you, Lucky. Strong determinism is a matter of faith, or perhaps also a matter of rationalising a political stance.LuckyR wrote: ↑August 10th, 2020, 2:36 amThat is a common over simplification of Free Will. No thinking person would deny that many, many known factors INFLUENCE human decision making, heck you just named three of them. However for Determinism to be proven, human decision making would have to be 100% caused by known factors. 75% won't do, neither will 90%.
In a court of law the interpreter of the law who includes a lot of extenuating circumstances is relatively deterministic, and politically is probably a Democrat.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Fate of Free Will?
Of course it is equally correct to say we cannot choose to do anything unless our neurons are, shall we say, "in" on the choice. We cannot want what we don't want, nor can we choose to do what we choose not to do. Nobody doubts that our neurons control us.
But this has little to do with the words "free" or "will". If we are not constrained from doing what our neurons tell us to do, we are not contrained from doing what our "will" tells us to do. Of course neurons are involved in all the processes of our brain, but even if the brilliant neuroscientist could divine our every desire, he would not limit either our "freedom" or our "will". We need not assume that the human soul is impervious to scientific study to recognise that although our wills are controlled by neurons (I have no idea what neurons are, but it sounds good), that has no impact on whether they are "free" or not. We might as well say, "Our neurons are controlled by our wills." There is no recognizable distinction.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Fate of Free Will?
There is no such entity as will. Freedom is relative to breadth and number of choices. Absolute freedom does not exist.Ecurb wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 9:38 pm One more comment (in keeping, I hope, with my position above): "Free" doesn't mean, "We can do whatever we choose to do." Obviously, we can't fly by flapping our arms. Would that we could. Nor can we become invisible (except metaphorically). Yet nobody thinks these inabilities signify that we don't have free will.
Of course it is equally correct to say we cannot choose to do anything unless our neurons are, shall we say, "in" on the choice. We cannot want what we don't want, nor can we choose to do what we choose not to do. Nobody doubts that our neurons control us.
But this has little to do with the words "free" or "will". If we are not constrained from doing what our neurons tell us to do, we are not contrained from doing what our "will" tells us to do. Of course neurons are involved in all the processes of our brain, but even if the brilliant neuroscientist could divine our every desire, he would not limit either our "freedom" or our "will". We need not assume that the human soul is impervious to scientific study to recognise that although our wills are controlled by neurons (I have no idea what neurons are, but it sounds good), that has no impact on whether they are "free" or not. We might as well say, "Our neurons are controlled by our wills." There is no recognizable distinction.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Fate of Free Will?
"Will" is not an "entity". But it remains a word (concept) which has meaning. It means "mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring or intending." Naturally we cannot want to do what we don't want to do. Freedom (as generally used) refers to not being under the control of another, or to not being constrained or imprisoned by another. The point in my last post is that in standard English usage, we would not say that being unable to fly by flapping our arms means we are not "free". Nor does being unable to think what we don't think. The two physical inabilities are comparable -- but some people seem to believe that while we remain free despite our physical inablity to fly, we are NOT free if the physical and chemical actions of our brains make us unable to think anything except what we do think.
Is that rambling and abstruse enough for you?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Fate of Free Will?
I don'y agree with those "some people" whoEcurb wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 1:23 pm"Will" is not an "entity". But it remains a word (concept) which has meaning. It means "mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring or intending." Naturally we cannot want to do what we don't want to do. Freedom (as generally used) refers to not being under the control of another, or to not being constrained or imprisoned by another. The point in my last post is that in standard English usage, we would not say that being unable to fly by flapping our arms means we are not "free". Nor does being unable to think what we don't think. The two physical inabilities are comparable -- but some people seem to believe that while we remain free despite our physical inablity to fly, we are NOT free if the physical and chemical actions of our brains make us unable to think anything except what we do think.
Is that rambling and abstruse enough for you?
Because the physical and chemical activities of our brain-minds can be enlarged.By "enlarged" I mean learning several frames of thought e.g. history, philosophy, technology, science, empathy (humanities), mathematics. Once general ideas , i.e. frames or heuristics are learned information can be retrieved. It's possible to learn how to evaluate sources of information. So learning correlates with increase in choices.seem to believe that while we remain free despite our physical inablity to fly, we are NOT free if the physical and chemical actions of our brains make us unable to think anything except what we do think.
There is no possibility of absolute knowledge and wisdom. Those people who have more choices are what we mean by free people.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Fate of Free Will?
However, when Martin Luther said, "Here I stand and I can do no other..." he was not limiting his free choice, because the reason he could do no other was that it went against his own principles and he refused, by choice, to violate them. Nonetheless, in one sense his choice was limited because he "could do no other".
By the way, in his book "The Reformation", Oxford historian Diarmond MacCulloch claims that Luther never DID make that famous statement. But I like the (possibly imaginary) quote, and it doesn't really matter if Luther said it or not.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Fate of Free Will?
Is it possible Martin Luther believed how he lived mattered more than how authority defined him?Ecurb wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 6:47 pm Fair enough. Alhough I think standard usage defines "free" as "unconstrained", I'll grant that it sometimes implies "more choices" as in "the rich have more freedom than the poor because they don't have to work, and they can buy whatever they want." So the poor are constrained by circumstance, rather than by another individual.
However, when Martin Luther said, "Here I stand and I can do no other..." he was not limiting his free choice, because the reason he could do no other was that it went against his own principles and he refused, by choice, to violate them. Nonetheless, in one sense his choice was limited because he "could do no other".
By the way, in his book "The Reformation", Oxford historian Diarmond MacCulloch claims that Luther never DID make that famous statement. But I like the (possibly imaginary) quote, and it doesn't really matter if Luther said it or not.
I do so agree with your approach to fiction.
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm
Re: Fate of Free Will?
Different understandings of words like "free", "will", "fate" and "know" can lead to different notions, especially if meanings are vague. There can be many external and/or internal pressures at play. Where can a line be reasonably drawn between "constrained" and "unconstrained"; between "free" and "not free"?Ecurb wrote: ↑July 24th, 2020, 6:25 pm I've never understood the conflict between "fate" and "free will". Calvinists insist that an omniscient God must (of course) know what choices we will make before we make them. Common cant suggests that if this is the case, there cannot be free will.
I don't buy it. I think this commonly held notion misunderstands the meaning of the words "free" and "will". In this sense, "free" means "unconstrained". If we were not forced to make a decision based on coercion or threat, our decision is "freely made".
One can feel free without being free, and vice versa.
Knowing what will happen may not have any constraining effect itself, but knowing may indicate the presence of something that does constrain.
Knowing what will be chosen in future is different to knowing what has already been chosen. The question is: what is known at the time the decision is being made?Ecurb wrote: ↑July 24th, 2020, 6:25 pm Here's what I mean: if I say, "Yesterday, I freely chose to go to the store and buy a loaf of bread", that statement is coherent and rational. Yet I can no longer make any other decision. It's a done deal. How does this differ from an omniscient observer knowing what decision we will make in the future?
Let's say a choice can be free if it has more than one possible outcome at the time the choice is being made. Two different outcomes A and B may be considered possible if both outcomes have a probability greater than zero and less than one.
Probability is relative to what is known. Multiple poker players can reasonably calculate different probabilities depending on cards they have seen.
Possibility requires some uncertainty. If freedom requires possibility then freedom also requires uncertainty.
If a being knows everything with 100% certainty then all probability for this being is binary: 0 or 1.
If it knows John will choose A then it knows that probability of A is 1 and probability of B is 0. It knows that B is not possible; it knows John is not really free to choose B. This doesn't imply the being forces John to choose A, only that it knows what compels him to do this.
If John doesn't know what he will choose then it may be reasonable for him to say it is possible for him to choose B. This possibility is relative to his (lack of) knowledge. However, it is not possible for him to choose B relative to the absolute knowledge of this omniscient being.
If it really is possible for him to choose B then this being doesn't really know John will choose A. It could be falsely certain without truly knowing.
If John is 100% certain he will choose A (if he has already committed himself to do this), then the probability of him choosing A is 1 and the probability of him choosing B must therefore be zero - relative to his certainty. The sum of probabilities of different outcomes can not be greater than 1.
If John ends up choosing B (if he somehow breaks free from his self-imposed slavery) then this shows he was falsely certain he would choose A. This may suggest he became free to choose, but if omniscient being knew that John was going to end up choosing B, then it knows it was not possible for John to choose A. Any sense of freedom that John had was false.
Knowing everything means knowing that there is no other possibility, not even for the all-knower. It knows that it has no freedom nor power to do anything other than what it knows it is going to do. It knows that there cannot be any other possibility unless it loses some knowledge / certainty.
If it is not known that there is an omniscient being, then it may be reasonable to say that more than one outcome is possible - relative to what is (not) known. However, apparent possibility doesn't imply freedom of choice.
A robot can behave unpredictably and appear to have free choice and yet all its "decisions" are programmatic.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Fate of Free Will?
All of my machines behave unpredictably. Especially my lawn mower, which sometimes starts, and sometimes doesn't. (I don't think that they have freedom of choice, by the way.)
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Fate of Free Will?
Good point. To my mind Free Will is not a thing. It is a label to describe the true difference in predictability between the behavior of billiard balls when struck on a slate table and that of human decision making. What lies behind this difference could be this or that and bears discussion but there is a difference. Those in the Free Will camp believe that this difference will never be fully understood and thus will always be a black box that can be called Free Will. Determinists believe this difference is nothing special, it is just numerous small details of an ordinary sort. They may become known or perhaps not, but they are just examples of currently understood factors that happen to be currently unknown. No need for a separate label, just ordinary factors.Belindi wrote: ↑August 18th, 2020, 5:09 amThere is no such entity as will. Freedom is relative to breadth and number of choices. Absolute freedom does not exist.Ecurb wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 9:38 pm One more comment (in keeping, I hope, with my position above): "Free" doesn't mean, "We can do whatever we choose to do." Obviously, we can't fly by flapping our arms. Would that we could. Nor can we become invisible (except metaphorically). Yet nobody thinks these inabilities signify that we don't have free will.
Of course it is equally correct to say we cannot choose to do anything unless our neurons are, shall we say, "in" on the choice. We cannot want what we don't want, nor can we choose to do what we choose not to do. Nobody doubts that our neurons control us.
But this has little to do with the words "free" or "will". If we are not constrained from doing what our neurons tell us to do, we are not contrained from doing what our "will" tells us to do. Of course neurons are involved in all the processes of our brain, but even if the brilliant neuroscientist could divine our every desire, he would not limit either our "freedom" or our "will". We need not assume that the human soul is impervious to scientific study to recognise that although our wills are controlled by neurons (I have no idea what neurons are, but it sounds good), that has no impact on whether they are "free" or not. We might as well say, "Our neurons are controlled by our wills." There is no recognizable distinction.
Sounds like two ways of describing the same thing.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023