Free will, determinism and absolute knowledge.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In the context of this thread and the discussion, I mean free will is arising from the self-aware self with no external influence.

The idea of free will being an illusion is becoming more of a problem for me. The metaphor of illusion may be part of that problem and perhaps a better metaphor is needed to better describe the condition. I like to feel I have free will too, but over time, I have begun to wonder. If there exists a condition that is free will, but limited in scope, is illusion the proper way to view that? Can it even be called free if it is constrained? Those may be questions that are further down the road than where we are at now in contemplating the existence of free will.

All that I mean by illusion here is the sense that the self experiences itself as the source of its desires when in fact It may be a passive observer of neural processes outside of consciousness that then deliver a message of what the self should want.

This seems to me to be the case.

Are we absolved from the responsibility of our actions if we could not choose to take any other actions?

We're liable for them, just like we're liable for the check after dinner. Fault need not enter into the formula. If somebody behaves violently, for example, they have to be dealt with like a tiger loose in the streets. We don't even think in terms of fault with the tiger. Still, we must address the problem even if we hold its source harmless.

So even though free will is an illusion and our actions are out of our control, we are accountable for our actions?

Yes. Why not? If your car swerves into a person or building due to a blown tire that could not have been anticipated, it's not your fault, but it is your responsibility. Or your kid needs braces. Not your fault, but it is your responsibility.

If everything is determined, what difference does it make for me to exercise an illusion?

You have no choice. You're compelled to live in the theater of your consciousness, which we have learned will vary according to our actions among other things. We have learned that action A1 results in an desired outcome more than action A2. Now we learn that we may be passive observers to all of this choosing, mistaking our conscious self for the author of the choice. Nothing changes. The rules of experience remain the same.

So there is no predictability with determinism? That does not seem to fit what I know of the idea.

Determinism means that the result was fully caused and in principle predictable, although in practice, the process may be to difficult to model and calculate the outcome

You're free to assume.

Or is he?

As for dealing with criminals, one can always take the view that punishment, although undeserved, can act as a deterrent to others.

Punishment, it seems to me, is a religious concept - the idea that you have earned suffering and therefore should suffer even if it is to the benefit of nobody. What is the concept of hell if not gratuitous suffering of zero value except perhaps to sadists.

Perhaps we should remove the concept of punishment from the equation. We incarcerate violent criminals not to punish them after the fact, but to remove a danger from the streets to serve as a disincentive to others not to be violent, which is a little different from punishing as retribution, and if possible, to rehabilitate the offender..

Should i have eaten the steak or the chicken? I made the choice using fee will

Are you certain that neurons didn't generate your will deterministically and reveal it to you? Wouldn't that feel the same?​

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course. Don't we use probability theory when we measures our odds in a game of roulette?

We know that roulette is, deep inside, deterministic. However, we have no information about the microlevel in a game of roulette. so that probability is good enough. Even if the process is not probabilistic at all.

In the same way, the fact that access to the states our brains is not accessible. makes things like free will and accountability still worthy of consideration, even if they are just a first level of approximation..

Ciao

- viole

You have certainly made my personal challenge to find out, by attempts at debunking existing arguments, very difficult with this.

Of no small concern in such a lofty enterprise is arriving at a position where I am worse off than before and cannot find sufficient logical or evidentiary grounds to reject anything. If that happens, I will have to go with my fallback strategy of beer and pizza.

 

[We Never Know]

I think all that you are doing is reiterating the situation and claims from which the question arises and not really providing an answer to the question. The question appears valid from where I stand, but so does the argument from which it arises. Hence, the conundrum. Is this simple argument for free will sound or does it fall apart. I must try and make it fall apart or accept it borrowing those attempts.

I'm not sure how one can make the argument of free will fall apart unless one determines we are preprogrammed or the choice we made already existed to turn out that way.

If you are driving to Denver and at one point you were told and or expected to turn left but you turned right instead because you chose to site see a little along the route, is that choice free will?

It's my understanding that in the bible Adam and Eve were told and expected to follow gods rules. They chose not to when they ate from the fruit tree. Thus free will came into existence by them choosing/doing what they wanted instead of doing what they were told/expected to do.

 

[Koldo]

I think we might talk pass each other here So lets try something else.

What do you understand by free will?

I have two definitions for this term, but to avoid further confusion I will stick to one for now: The ability to consciously make choices in an unconstrained manner.
By unconstrained I mean not being forced to behave in any given manner by anyone or anything, not even your desires.
Just to put this in perspective: In Christianity, it is common to think that humans have a sinful nature and that it is possible, through free will, to act in a manner that is contradictory to it.

I think it depends on how you look at it, because you could also say that, yes I could "force" my self to eat something I don't like to proof or disproof a point. But I don't think that is really the point, because I can't choose whether I like the taste of chocolate with raisins or not. Nothing prevents me from just eating it, but it wouldn't change the fact that I don't like the taste and therefore have no free will in deciding that. If you look at Jackas-s (Can't write that )and the stuff they do, they decided to do it for whatever reason. But that doesn't mean that it is true in all cases, it depends on how you look at it, I think.

That you can't change the fact that you like chocolate is no problem at all. That merely means your free will is influenced by your tastes, which is not enough to say you don't have free will.
But can you choose to eat something that you don't like even if you don't want to ?
I would say that's not possible. To do something like that you would need to have a higher 'want' that supersedes your unwillingness to eat it. And even though one might say they can choose to have this higher 'want', we eventually get back to the problem of needing an even higher 'want' to do it. Do you see where I am getting at ? This leads to infinite regress, so the only solution to this is that we have to accept there is at least one 'want' that we haven't chosen and that every other 'want' derived from it.

I would say that a random choice is free will, as you have no experience when making such choice, that can influence your decision. So I don't think we disagree on this. That is what I find confusing, because you say that you don't think its possible to make a random choice and at the same time say that : If you can't show that a random choice entails free will then you are not showing there is such a thing as free will at those moments. So I get the impression that am arguing against two different views at the same time.

I don't think it is possible to make truly random choices, but I also don't think this is relevant... like at all.
Because even if I were to agree that truly random choices exist I don't see any connection between them and free will.
So, perhaps we came to a point where you also need to explain to me what you mean by 'free will', because if you see a clear connection between them we must be working with different concepts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is something that I should have put in the OP, but failed to do so. My apologies for that omission.

I am coming from a position of acceptance of free will, but over time, as I have gotten new information and been exposed to new ideas and perspectives, my acceptance of that position has begun to erode. Whether it will continue to erode or not is the main reason I started this thread.

While I place myself as a supporter of free will, I am not arguing for or against that position, but rather, looking at the arguments and any coaching, input, facts and opinions I see here, for use in making further determinations.

Unlike the approach I see continually abused with regards to positions of science, I think that my best approach is to challenge even the arguments that I have used to support my own position. For example, most arguments against the theory of evolution are based on belief in religious stories and not on the facts used by and the conclusions of science. Instead of looking at the theory and testing the logic and evidence, most believers dismiss it as bad science without attempting to debunk it on scientific grounds and honestly accepting it when they fail. It is dismissed on the basis of belief and emotion alone. Insufficient and groundless. I wanted to avoid that, but being human, I cannot look at the problem from every angle, so I am reliant on you to provide those perspectives and things that do not occur to me or information I do not have access to. This is grassroots crowd sourcing I suppose.

Anyway, it is interesting. Perhaps it will amount to nothing but an exercise, though I hope not, but even then, I am learning. I think my approach is the most rational I can come up with. Certainly, I have seen people that have been thinking about this a lot and have looked widely.

One final word, I included determinism for obvious reasons as well as a couple of my own, but I thought that claims about absolute answers, knowledge and information pertained to any discussion of free will and determinism, so included it here as well. On this, I have a position that I consider solid and do not perceive that there will be evidence to contradict my view. I do not think that we can know anything absolutely. Our conclusions are always contingent on new information.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

.

SORRY IF THIS COMES OUT OF ORDER, BUT I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH A PILE OF REPLIES.​

I think I've covered this in other replies, but predictability relies on the ability of the human mind to select and process the proper information, and lacking such an ability has no bearing on determinism's effect on thinking.

We can table this for now and reserve the right to return to it. My response may be lacking in some feature that expresses the concept well, but as I understand it, predictability should be a function of determinism.

But that's the trick. Religions, Christianity at least, requires that free will be true. As for dealing with criminals, one can always take the view that punishment, although undeserved, can act as a deterrent to others. It's certainly not fair, but until everyone comes to recognize how unfair punishment, AND praise, is, we're stuck with it.

I hope you understand that I have difficulty wrapping my head around that. If we have no free will, how should we react? Is there any point in defending the weak, the helpless, the persecuted? If they are as they are in a position determined by cause outside of human control, then no amount of effort is going to change that. Why take a stand for or against abortion, when neither matters? Of course, it may be that even if our will is only perceived as free, these things remain important as well as the perceived choices we make regarding them.

But usually only where the circumstances are narrowed to generating only a few possibilities. And often the predictions come with a margin of error, some of which are breached rendering the prediction worthless.

Agree, but I am not sure that falsifies the idea that in a rational and determined universe, events are not predictable.

I believe I've already covered this.

.

I think not, but let us step back from it a bit. Maybe we can find something to expand or clarify the dispute.

Speaking of dealing with a pile of replies, this has grown far faster than I anticipated. I will try to respond where necessary as quickly as I can. I did, after all, choose to do this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Unless quantum randomness is involved, I agree that follows. That makes the alternatives determined, or mostly determined, occasionally random.
I don't know of any, but I'm always willing to learn.
It's a false sense if you look at it with a hard eye. It doesn't matter if you authentically feel the decision is yours. The latter is the basis of responsibility in western society, not least in courts. (SCOTUS has recognized that ─ if I can phrase it this way ─ the adolescent brain is not equivalent in function, hence responsibility, to the adult brain, but as I recall so far that's in the context of the death penalty, not of responsibility/guilt as such.)
The trouble with completely free free will is that once cause+effect and randomness are ruled out, there's no description of the mechanism by which it could make decisions.

Between you and viole, I am faced with a crash course review of physics just to understand the points you are making, let alone, even begin to address them if that is possible.

I recall watching a program hosted by the physicist Brian Greene where he discussed our perception of physical reality and how our perception is a function of electromagnetism viewed on the human scale. I cannot go into detail for reasons I have already stated regarding my trivial understanding of the concepts, but I get the impression that the responses I am getting relate in some way to Greene's descriptions.

 

[viole]

You have certainly made my personal challenge to find out, by attempts at debunking existing arguments, very difficult with this.

Of no small concern in such a lofty enterprise is arriving at a position where I am worse off than before and cannot find sufficient logical or evidentiary grounds to reject anything. If that happens, I will have to go with my fallback strategy of beer and pizza.

Beer and pizza are fine.
I am sure you guys can make an argument for the existence of God, bases on the objective existence of the taste values for beer and pizzas. How is it possible we share those taste, if there were not a pizza taste giver?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

Punishment, it seems to me, is a religious concept - the idea that you have earned suffering and therefore should suffer even if it is to the benefit of nobody. What is the concept of hell if not gratuitous suffering of zero value except perhaps to sadists.

Interesting thought, and one I think I can agree with---not entirely certain it's a religious concept.

Perhaps we should remove the concept of punishment from the equation. We incarcerate violent criminals not to punish them after the fact, but to remove a danger from the streets to serve as a disincentive to others not to be violent, which is a little different from punishing as retribution, and if possible, to rehabilitate the offender..

Agreed. Incarceration for rehabilitation, the protection of others, and as a deterrence to others. The last reason here being somewhat questionable.

.​

 

[Koldo]

I hope you understand that I have difficulty wrapping my head around that. If we have no free will, how should we react? Is there any point in defending the weak, the helpless, the persecuted? If they are as they are in a position determined by cause outside of human control, then no amount of effort is going to change that. Why take a stand for or against abortion, when neither matters? Of course, it may be that even if our will is only perceived as free, these things remain important as well as the perceived choices we make regarding them.

I don't quite understand what difference you see in regards to how we should react.
If free will doesn't exist, how would it make any difference ?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't quite understand what difference you see in regards to how we should react.
If free will doesn't exist, how would it make any difference ?

I am not suggesting a prescribed response. I do not know what to make of that possible outcome myself as it stands. Under that outcome, I do not know if there is anything that can be done nor do I have recommendations. This is a personal interest that may provide information and ideas that are useful to others as well.

People will have to make up their own minds. Do you have any suggestions on reactions?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Interesting thought, and one I think I can agree with---not entirely certain it's a religious concept.

Agreed. Incarceration for rehabilitation, the protection of others, and as a deterrence to others. The last reason here being somewhat questionable.

.​

The direct deterrence is through the incarceration of the specific individual and then only to society at large and only for the length of incarceration. Deterrence that spreads to other potential criminals is inferred, but not really quantifiable.

It is an interesting and important topic, but one different from this one, though related. How we approach criminal justice is dependent on which view of will is the majority view in deciding the nature of that system.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Beer and pizza are fine.
I am sure you guys can make an argument for the existence of God, bases on the objective existence of the taste values for beer and pizzas. How is it possible we share those taste, if there were not a pizza taste giver?

Ciao

- viole

You may be right. I have not given it much thought. I accept my desire and taste as the final arbiter of the choice at this time.

 

[Nimos]

I don't think it is possible to make truly random choices, but I also don't think this is relevant... like at all.
Because even if I were to agree that truly random choices exist I don't see any connection between them and free will.
So, perhaps we came to a point where you also need to explain to me what you mean by 'free will', because if you see a clear connection between them we must be working with different concepts.

Making a definition is always tricky I think, but would probably start with something like this:

The ability to make choices under the influence of guided or unguided previous experiences.

By guided I simply mean applying experiences to choice making and unguided would be random choices. Whether that is completely accurate Ill admit im not sure of

So when we make a random choice, we can organize them in varies types. If we have no experience regarding something or are unable to make any connections that expand our knowledge about something, its a completely random choice we make. Which to me is an expression of free will. If we have a limited amount of experiences to draw on, I would categorize it as a guess, which allow for free will, as I could act against what I actually think is the most logic thing to do, simply because I have an idea that something could be better than something else, even though there is nothing to back it up. It could be lottery numbers for instance, that I think 5 would be better than 8, even though I have no experience that the number 5 is more likely to be chosen than 8. I would call an expression of free will as well.

Then as we have already talked about, like flavors of food. I have no choice of choosing whether I want it or not, so I have no free will in deciding whether I do or not. Doesn't mean that I can't eat something with a particular flavor. To me, its important to see a difference between that.

That you can't change the fact that you like chocolate is no problem at all. That merely means your free will is influenced by your tastes, which is not enough to say you don't have free will.

I agree with what you are saying and again its because to me, whether I choose to like a specific flavor or not is a limitation of my free will. Because it does make me desire something more than something else, whether I personally like it or not. And to me that does suggest a constrain.

And that is why I say that we can't ignore our senses or at least we need to decide whether we want to include them or not. because otherwise couldn't we then argue that we have no free will in deciding whether we want to be able to survive without water or not? Its not really a choice we can make, its how we were created. But if we can remove that from how we look at constraining our free will, why not exclude our sense as well, they were created as well, with certain attributes and desires that constrain us in varies ways that we didn't choose.

I think Bill Nye probably come closes to what I mean in explaining it. So you can try to watch that short video.

But again I have to admit as I have done a lot in former posts, I really ain't sure whether one thing is correct or not. Its simply me using my free will to guess

 

[Koldo]

I am not suggesting a prescribed response. I do not know what to make of that possible outcome myself as it stands. Under that outcome, I do not know if there is anything that can be done nor do I have recommendations. This is a personal interest that may provide information and ideas that are useful to others as well.

People will have to make up their own minds. Do you have any suggestions on reactions?

I think it makes pretty much no difference for almost all practical matters.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Beer and pizza are fine.
I am sure you guys can make an argument for the existence of God, bases on the objective existence of the taste values for beer and pizzas. How is it possible we share those taste, if there were not a pizza taste giver?

Ciao

- viole

My interest in finding my way through this is in doing so based purely on logic and evidence. I have no wish to obfuscate and confuse the discussion by bringing in religious issues that cannot be tested. It is enough that they will enter the discussion on their own and do not need me promoting my particular brand. I would like answers that are independent of belief. Is that a strange notion for a believer?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not sure how one can make the argument of free will fall apart unless one determines we are preprogrammed or the choice we made already existed to turn out that way.

If you are driving to Denver and at one point you were told and or expected to turn left but you turned right instead because you chose to site see a little along the route, is that choice free will?

It's my understanding that in the bible Adam and Eve were told and expected to follow gods rules. They chose not to when they ate from the fruit tree. Thus free will came into existence by them choosing/doing what they wanted instead of doing what they were told/expected to do.

Well, that is the point. If I cannot debunk all of them, then at least one may have some substance, or I am just not up to the task.

It is my understanding from that story that we were given free will and the exercise of it came into practice with the choice of eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. At least the most dramatic and publicized example of that exercise. I am not sure that Eve was defying the direct will of God or that of Adam, since it may be that she got the word second hand through him.

The choice of direction appears to be one of free will. I would once have stated that with great confidence, but now, I am not so sure. That is what I hope to find out. I may be sure once again or I may change my mind completely.

 

[viole]

My interest in finding my way through this is in doing so based purely on logic and evidence. I have no wish to obfuscate and confuse the discussion by bringing in religious issues that cannot be tested. It is enough that they will enter the discussion on their own and do not need me promoting my particular brand. I would like answers that are independent of belief. Is that a strange notion for a believer?

Nope. But a believer in God X, should first try to establish the evidence for God X.

For instance, why do Christians spend so much time trying to prove a general God, when all they have to do is to show the evidence they have to justify their very particular brand of faith?

I mean, a Christian that goes mad about the Kalam argument is a Christian that has no evidence about His own brand of God (example Jesus doing magic things), and fall back into more neutral arguments. But why do they do that? It reads as a self defeating statement about their particular faith. Obviously, the same applies to every other specific faith.

Ciao
- viole

 

[Koldo]

Making a definition is always tricky I think, but would probably start with something like this:

The ability to make choices under the influence of guided or unguided previous experiences.

By guided I simply mean applying experiences to choice making and unguided would be random choices. Whether that is completely accurate Ill admit im not sure of

So when we make a random choice, we can organize them in varies types. If we have no experience regarding something or are unable to make any connections that expand our knowledge about something, its a completely random choice we make. Which to me is an expression of free will. If we have a limited amount of experiences to draw on, I would categorize it as a guess, which allow for free will, as I could act against what I actually think is the most logic thing to do, simply because I have an idea that something could be better than something else, even though there is nothing to back it up. It could be lottery numbers for instance, that I think 5 would be better than 8, even though I have no experience that the number 5 is more likely to be chosen than 8. I would call an expression of free will as well.

Then as we have already talked about, like flavors of food. I have no choice of choosing whether I want it or not, so I have no free will in deciding whether I do or not. Doesn't mean that I can't eat something with a particular flavor. To me, its important to see a difference between that.


I agree with what you are saying and again its because to me, whether I choose to like a specific flavor or not is a limitation of my free will. Because it does make me desire something more than something else, whether I personally like it or not. And to me that does suggest a constrain.

And that is why I say that we can't ignore our senses or at least we need to decide whether we want to include them or not. because otherwise couldn't we then argue that we have no free will in deciding whether we want to be able to survive without water or not? Its not really a choice we can make, its how we were created. But if we can remove that from how we look at constraining our free will, why not exclude our sense as well, they were created as well, with certain attributes and desires that constrain us in varies ways that we didn't choose.

I think Bill Nye probably come closes to what I mean in explaining it. So you can try to watch that short video.

But again I have to admit as I have done a lot in former posts, I really ain't sure whether one thing is correct or not. Its simply me using my free will to guess

The problem when we discuss free will is that there are least two different ways to define free will and they are extremely similar with one glaring difference that is really important.

To avoid further confusion, I would like you ask you one question that might make it clearer to me: If my entire life was merely a string of irresistible urges/desires and nothing more, and all of my actions and choices were determined by this string ( which means that if you could know all there is to know about this string you could know exactly what I would choose at any given moment ), would you say that by acting in accordance with my irresistible urges ( which is a given since I can't help but do it because it is literally impossible for me to do anything else, in a sense I am saying I am similar to a machine programmed to behave in a given way ) I am acting in accordance with my free will ? Would a conscious machine have free will ?

 

[viole]

My interest in finding my way through this is in doing so based purely on logic and evidence. I have no wish to obfuscate and confuse the discussion by bringing in religious issues that cannot be tested. It is enough that they will enter the discussion on their own and do not need me promoting my particular brand. I would like answers that are independent of belief. Is that a strange notion for a believer?

Logic and evidence are very corrosive of religious belief. Are you ready too take the risk?

Ciao

- viole