Free Will

[The Hammer]

Yeah, I don't believe in any positive metaphysics or ontology. I am a limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism, who believes in the everyday world, human rights, democracy and I am a Scandinavian social democrat.
In the technical I believe in that human are in the everyday world and that is what matters and what matters, is subjective and without in the strong sense only evidence, rationality, logic, truth, proof, objectivity and all the rest of that jazz.

Yup still over my head this morning. I'll come back.

 

[Revoltingest]

Free Will is one of those concepts that seems stranger and stranger the more I think about it.

Would I not *expect* my decisions to be based on my desires, my experiences, my biases, my psychology, what is available, etc? And, if the causal nexus of all of those leading to my 'choice' happens within my body, even within my brain, is that not then *my* choice? And would that not be the case even in a deterministic setting?

So what does the adjective 'free' mean in this context?

Does it mean that even if *I* am exactly the same and *everything* else is exactly the same, I would potentially make a different decision?

And, in that case, is the definition of 'free will' such that it requires the decision be an 'uncaused cause'?

All talk of free will never made sense to me.
Never looked defined in a way testable.
The origins seem to be in religion, for the
purpose of blaming people.

 

[Estro Felino]

Following an earlier argument we had, you argued that shooting people who attacked an armed young man was not an act of free will on his part, but that he was forced to do it due to circumstances.

Yet, killing an attacker would fulfill all three of your criteria. How do you reconcile these two positions?

Yes, indeed.
He deserved to save himself by killing the man that wanted to harm him.

 

[Ostronomos]

Free Will is one of those concepts that seems stranger and stranger the more I think about it.

Would I not *expect* my decisions to be based on my desires, my experiences, my biases, my psychology, what is available, etc? And, if the causal nexus of all of those leading to my 'choice' happens within my body, even within my brain, is that not then *my* choice? And would that not be the case even in a deterministic setting?

So what does the adjective 'free' mean in this context?

Does it mean that even if *I* am exactly the same and *everything* else is exactly the same, I would potentially make a different decision?

And, in that case, is the definition of 'free will' such that it requires the decision be an 'uncaused cause'?

Free will exists in the human psyche as a romantic dream. Everything is predeterministic. That is why there is an after-life and you can never die. You are following a path created by an abstract Being or programmer, within this particular universe.

 

[Curious George]

Lack of predictability does not strictly infer lack of determinism, only our lack of knowledge concerning determining factors involved.

I think you are arranging my words to say something i did not. I said lack of predictability. Lack of predictability, without qualifiers would imply that it could not be predicted, regardless of our capabilities.

 

[Kooky]

I think you are arranging my words to say something i did not. I said lack of predictability. Lack of predictability, without qualifiers would imply that it could not be predicted, regardless of our capabilities.

How can something be possible but not predictable?

 

[Revoltingest]

Lack of predictability does not strictly infer lack of determinism...

Ugh.
Concepts don't infer...people do.
We Made You a Bunch of Usage Limericks : Imply & Infer
Excerpted...
When choosing implied or inferred
A mistake will often be heard
For making suggestions
Or indirect mentions
Imply is the one that’s preferred

Imply has several meanings, but since most of the current ones are concerned with similar themes (indirectness, suggestion, and potential), it tends to be used correctly. Infer, however, is often used in a manner that is thought of as incorrect. The most commonly accepted meaning of infer is “to form (an opinion) from evidence: to reach (a conclusion) based on known facts.” However, infer has also been used to mean “to suggest or hint.” The writer who is thought to have first used infer in its accepted sense is Thomas More, who employed it thusly in 1528. By a striking coincidence, the name of the writer who first used infer in the sense that is now considered incorrect is also Thomas More, as the same writer came up with the second sense of infer in 1533.

Based on the historical evidence, we cannot go so far as to say that this second use of infer is incorrect. We can, however, tell you that it is frowned upon by many.


There, with that off me chest,
I feel better now.

 

[Ponder This]

Free Will is one of those concepts that seems stranger and stranger the more I think about it.

Would I not *expect* my decisions to be based on my desires, my experiences, my biases, my psychology, what is available, etc? And, if the causal nexus of all of those leading to my 'choice' happens within my body, even within my brain, is that not then *my* choice? And would that not be the case even in a deterministic setting?

So what does the adjective 'free' mean in this context?

Does it mean that even if *I* am exactly the same and *everything* else is exactly the same, I would potentially make a different decision?

And, in that case, is the definition of 'free will' such that it requires the decision be an 'uncaused cause'?

The "free" part of free will means unimpeded by others.
For example, volunteering to pick up garbage in your neighborhood. No one compelled you to volunteer, but you desired to help out.
The opposite of free is coerced or compelled by others.
For example, people are forced to pay taxes as opposed to paying them freely.

The trouble is that any situation in which you might act freely can also be coerced. So while I gave the example of volunteering to pick up garbage, it is not that picking up garbage entails that it was done of free will. You might start to think that free will does not exist when you imagine that your actions have been compelled by circumstance. However, there are also plenty of situations where people have refused to comply in the face of coercion. If it were true that will was not free, then no one would be able to resist circumstance.

 

[Truthseeker]

Does it mean that even if *I* am exactly the same and *everything* else is exactly the same, I would potentially make a different decision?

And, in that case, is the definition of 'free will' such that it requires the decision be an 'uncaused cause'?

It is very hard to make a different decision than what we actually make, but it is possible. Free will to me is the choice between the spiritual part of our nature and the material part of our nature. Of course, for those who don't believe that we have a spiritual part, for them their is no decision between the spiritual and material.

 

[Truthseeker]

I'm interested in and pay attention to studies of how decisions are made in the brain the the implications for a free will debate: Neuroscience of free will - Wikipedia notes how controversial this whole area is currently

On several different levels, from neurotransmitters through neuron firing rates to overall activity, the brain seems to “ramp up” before movements. This image depicts the readiness potential (RP), a ramping-up activity measured using EEG. The onset of the RP begins before the onset of a conscious intention or urge to act. Some have argued that this indicates the brain unconsciously commits to a decision before consciousness awareness. Others have argued that this activity is due to random fluctuations in brain activity, which drive arbitrary, purposeless movements.[1]

I've heard of this before. My question is, does this brain activity unconsciously precede moral choices, not just physical movements.

 

[Truthseeker]

Free will fits within a deterministic world to me, and the adjective means something like "unimpeded" to me. What is possibly willed is limited by our nature and the world. The two definitions of free will that I know of are this: the ability to choose according to your strongest desire. Each act would be one of free will then, either eating pancakes over waffles (a truly right and moral choice considering their superiority), sitting in a particular chair, etc. But it fits within a deterministic world to me because out desires are obviously caused by a long chain of events, but this definition accounts for the sensation of choosing them.

The other is "freedom is the power of a being to flourish as what it naturally is, becoming more fully what it is." So for example the freedom a salmon would be to complete it's reproductive and life cycle, the freedom of an oak tree would be unimpeded growth into that, and for me the freedom of a human being would be eternal union with God. Under this definition though not everyone is free and not all have the same degree of free will. Like an oak tree getting cut down when it's young, it can be impeded. So only some would have it. This definition also to me obviously can fit into a deterministic world.

That's just my opinion of course. I need to read more on the subject, which is why I give two definitions and am not just settled on one.

It is wise to consider all possibilities before deciding on one.

 

[Truthseeker]

Well, I can't remember the actual philosopher, who did this, but the result of his analysis was the Free Will is ex nihilo. It comes from nothing and is uncaused. So yes, that is one view of Free Will and to me it makes sense. So I don't believe in Free Will.

That may some philosopher's definition, but for me free free does not come from nothing, we all have lifelong habits and character that is very hard to break, but it can be done.

 

[Curious George]

How can something be possible but not predictable?

Because possiblity does not necessitate predictability.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

is the definition of 'free will' such that it requires the decision be an 'uncaused cause'?

That's what I mean when I use the phrase. When I say free will, I mean that the observer of the theater of consciousness is the only source of the will, Freud's ego. If the self is merely the passive recipient of desires generated in the neural pathways which it delivers to the self, then you have what I would call the illusion of free will, which is merely the sensation of having a desire and executing an act in service of it. If the hypothalamus sense relative dehydration, it sends a message of thirst to consciousness, that, when possible, is generally followed by taking a drink. That's not what I mean by free will. I mean that the self decided to be thirsty, not the hypothalamus telling the self it's thirsty.

That is the illusion of free will. If that's what people mean by free will, then yes, we have that - desires and the ability to act on them.

A more complex scenario is having conflicting wills, dueling impulses. Can one be free and not the other? Suppose I receive that impulse to get a drink, but decide this time to prove that I don't have to act on it, I deliberately delay getting a readily available drink. Is that free will?

I say not. It also doesn't come from the observer as a matter of choice. He didn't choose to have that thought just then. Like the urge to drink, it's a message coming from neural circuitry also being delivered to the self. We can envision a tug of war of sorts, with one of these two prevailing, and the self being a passive observer, taking direction from the stronger urge.

Consider somebody trying to quit cigarettes. He gets an urge to smoke and a message to resist that urge. He'll identify with the second message as self. If so, he is redefining the self from the ego to some of the grey matter that informs it.

This is a concept like the supernatural or existence out of time that breaks down on close inspection and reveals that these phrases are incoherent.

Personally, I don't care if I am a passive automaton merely observing a screen called consciousness. If that's how it is, it's how it's always been. I didn't mind before knowing that, so what's the difference now? I'm OK with it whatever the case. Unlike some of the religious, I don't need there to be free will, because I have no belief in a God that damns, and therefore don't need to justify damnation.

This is brought into sharp relief when we see the theist arguing that predestination and free choice at the time of action are compatible despite that pair of ideas being incompatible and mutually exclusive. So, they just say that whatever action was taken could have been otherwise despite being known in advance by a deity. They do care which of these two is correct. I don't.

Having said all of that, and based on the Libet experiment, it looks like free will as I have defined it above is an illusion.

 

[Eyes to See]

Free Will is one of those concepts that seems stranger and stranger the more I think about it.

Would I not *expect* my decisions to be based on my desires, my experiences, my biases, my psychology, what is available, etc? And, if the causal nexus of all of those leading to my 'choice' happens within my body, even within my brain, is that not then *my* choice? And would that not be the case even in a deterministic setting?

So what does the adjective 'free' mean in this context?

Does it mean that even if *I* am exactly the same and *everything* else is exactly the same, I would potentially make a different decision?

And, in that case, is the definition of 'free will' such that it requires the decision be an 'uncaused cause'?

Don’t know if this is what you were looking for, but this is what I’ve come to discern about free will.

Firstly we are created in the image of our God who has his own mind and makes his own decisions. And he bases all of his actions on his sense of what is right and wrong, what is just and unjust. And all of his motives and decisions are done out of love. He has a deep and unending joy and happiness and love, and this moved him to create all things.

And in his precious creation of humankind he endowed us with these wonderful divine qualities. And in order to display love we need freewill. For it is impossible to love under compulsion. God gives us love and that love compels us to love in turn to be like him. Unfortunately not all of God’s creation, in the angelic realm, and in the earthly realm have used freewill correctly. Just because we have freewill that is not an excuse for loose conduct and sin. Those who are wicked are abusing their free will.

We, those of us here today, were born into a world that has long ago been uprooted by evil and the abuse of free will. God sees these things. Long before we were the war between God and the evil one Satan has been waging, a universal war. And we just happen to be born smack dab in the middle of the issue of God’s universal sovereignty, and whether humankind, you and me, are able to use our free will and serve God out of love, no matter the trails and tribulations of life.

We are sinners. We are born into sin and our sinful bodies are bad by nature and inclination. But we can chose to do what is right and to follow the divine pattern of love set forth by our God of love who sent his only-begotten son for all the world who exercise faith in his ransom.

This is the accurate use of freewill. To love Jehovah the true God with all our heart and soul and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. For love is the fulfillment of the law, and their is no law apart from love.

God sees our weakness and understands the conditions under which we were born. And he is thusly extremely kind and merciful with us. He sees beyond our defects and sees our potential and what we can be when we are perfect and it is his desire to make us perfect as he is, this is shown in the fact that he paid the ransom price for sin by offering his son for our sins.

God is not impressed with a person’s wealth, his knowledge, his education, his wisdom in a worldly way. What God searches for is a person who is humble, peaceful, meek, honest, and who looks to him with faith. All these things a person can work at consciously. Using our freewill. You see, all those other things can be added. It is pointless to have anything without the qualities God desires for its end results in death and futility. So really the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God.

Exercise your freewill to do what is right. It is the beginning of wisdom. Just because we have free will does not excuse the abuse of it! And the conduct and example of so many cruel and oppressive humans and governments shows that humans alienated from God do not understand these simple truisms of life.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Would I not *expect* my decisions to be based on my desires, my experiences, my biases, my psychology, what is available, etc? And, if the causal nexus of all of those leading to my 'choice' happens within my body, even within my brain, is that not then *my* choice? And would that not be the case even in a deterministic setting?

So what does the adjective 'free' mean in this context?

I see it means that when offered a choice, free will allows us to consider options outside of ones own desires, their past experiences, and their built biases, allowing an expanding their psychology.

Example only Baha'u'llah offered that we need to expand out mind to embrace our oneness, this is a free will choice. This is contrary to a lot of people's nature, nurture and biases, yet it is offered that it is the only way to obtain the peace and security of the entire human race.

We have the free will choice to embrace that change. It is a decision greater than our own self.

Regards Tony

 

[Hold]

I'm interested in and pay attention to studies of how decisions are made in the brain the the implications for a free will debate: Neuroscience of free will - Wikipedia notes how controversial this whole area is currently

 

[We Never Know]

How can something be possible but not predictable?

Here's an interesting article..

Does True Randomness Exist?

Does True Randomness Exist?

 

[Polymath257]

Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

You're over thinkng it.

What does it mean to 'choose' and what does it mean to be 'unimpeded'?

For example, if all of my actions are predetermined, including my wants, desires, attitudes, etc, does that mean I do not have free will?

 

[Polymath257]

Go out of your home with no idea where you want to end up. Turn left or right at your choice.

Which can happen whether or not there is determinism, right?