A challenge to show me wrong

[Thief]

We are of course constantly compelled to do lots of things, yes.

Nay.

Not that I agree with this dichotomy that you present, mind you.

As for my actions not being my own, that is correct. I don't much believe in individual wills. Or in individual beings, even.

As if you are a 'borg' of Star Trek fame?

To the best of my knowledge, "what we are" is essentially the same as "what our environment (both internal and external) makes of us". I understand that the belief that we are our own persons is often appealing. I just don't see much realism in the idea.

No two people see any one thing the same way.
No two people will respond to my posts in the same way.

Denial of individuality is futile.....you will not be assimilated!

 

[Kathryn]

I will lend some credibility to one aspect though of "character." Being the most familiar with myself, I'll use myself as an example.

I am naturally an upbeat, positive person. I do nothing to foster this natural inclination. I just AM that way. Often people will tell me, "I really admire your attitude." I honestly don't deserve any admiration for that particular trait - it comes completely naturally to me.

However, even that trait isn't one hundred percent automatic. I have been through some incredibly difficult times in my life - true tragedies. Even the most optimistic, positive person simply can't maintain that attitude in the face of some tragedies. During those times, it took self discipline -and lots of it - not to crater. I had to push through every single day - making choices every step of the way. "No - I will NOT drink three glasses of wine every night." "No, I will NOT lay in the bed till noon because I feel so overwhelmed by my life." "No, I will NOT run this tape in my head over and over again and cater to this vault of sorrow."

Sometimes I succeeded and sometimes I failed. But my small successes were built on prayer, faith, and self control - aided by my natural personality. I believe we have the ability to make choices, good or bad, and that of course our personality plays SOME part in this process - but that we have the ability to overcome our own "shortcomings" by using free will and self control.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is amazing. But so convenient! "We can't help anything that we do." "We are a product of our environment."

How does this work in "real life?" Haven't you ever been angry at anyone? If so, why? Isn't that hypocritical?

Yes, it would be hypocritical if the anger was judgemental. And if one could choose some other reaction.

I wonder if that happens, and how often. Far as I can tell it doesn't, although it is indeed easy to believe otherwise.

If people can't help being rude to you, why be angry at them? Oh wait - is it because you simply can't help being angry?

Not quite so, but close enough for nearly all purposes. It sure seems to be possible to nurture different feelings and behavior tendencies, but as you say, it is something of a continuous fight and quite possibly just an illusion.

A few years ago I lost fifty pounds. I did this by going against every sort of automatic desire I had. It took great self control and small but difficult choices every single day for a year. Was this inevitable? Are you saying I really had no choice in this?

Skwim might perhaps say so. I prefer to say that you had good fortune in that particular matter. And that you might have created some of that good fortune, but certainly not all of it - and that I just don't see why you would say free will had anything to do with that.

People aren't evil? Charles Manson isn't evil? The man who abducted Elizabeth Smart isn't evil? Are you saying they didn't make choices? Are you saying they couldn't help themselves?

For all I know, yes, that may be true.

Some people present a very convincing case that they can't, at least at some specific moments in time. It is more evident in situations of addiction and mental illness, but it is simply unclear that such isn't constantly the case.

Of course, that doesn't mean that such people shouldn't be stopped.

I have an employee who is undergoing chemo treatments for a very aggressive form of cancer. She pushes herself every single day. As a bank teller, part of her job is to be on the lookout for customers who may need additional services, and to formally send a referral to one of the bankers in the branch when she sees a need so the banker can follow up with them. Though she is only working four days a week, and though her chemo treatments have slowed her pace down and made concentration more difficult, she is leading our branch in referrals - triple the rate of the other tellers in fact. This attention to detail takes sometimes great effort on her part - and if anyone had an excuse to do the barest minimum, it would be her.

Meanwhile, I have two other tellers who have no physical challenges at all, and who are young and healthy and intelligent. They however, in spite of coaching and training and every sort of motivational tool possible, simply choose - YES, CHOOSE - not to make the effort. I know this has to be a choice because there's no way they could possibly forget to do this. It's out of their comfort zone, and they choose not to go out of their comfort zone. But it's a choice.

Is it, however? How could we even know?

Human motivation is very difficult to read, and it we all too often delude ourselves in order to protect it.

I choose every night whether or not to take my three mile walk. I promise you, usually I don't want to do it. Sometimes I DON'T do it. But when I do, it's a choice which goes against my natural inclinations and desires.

I'm sorry - I just don't buy that self control and self discipline are not choices and are automatic. Nor do I believe that people who do awful, hurtful, abusive things to others simply can't help what they're doing. And if they CAN help it - then they have free will.

For what it is worth, I don't quite believe that we don't have _any_ choices. I just don't think it happens all that often, or that it comes anywhere near to justifying such a concept as free will. We are much too tangled in feedback loops, both internal and external.

Actually, I don't think free will would be healthy if it did exist, either. People are rarely wise enough to know how to handle it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sometimes I succeeded and sometimes I failed. But my small successes were built on prayer, faith, and self control - aided by my natural personality. I believe we have the ability to make choices, good or bad, and that of course our personality plays SOME part in this process - but that we have the ability to overcome our own "shortcomings" by using free will and self control.

Come to think of it, self control is a fairly esotheric concept as well.

I can see where you are coming from, but how do we know that we really had a choice? Maybe we just have struggles and a tendency to value the results.

 

[PolyHedral]

This really does mean that on the deepest level
there are no Heroes.
Of any kind.

As the David Bowie put it,
I never done good things
I never done bad things
I never did anything out of the blue

IMO, you can always fill in the blank in "You did it because ______."

 

[McBell]

In the last month or so there's been an increased interest in free will.

"Defining Free Will" by Penumbra

"God and his free will" by Skwim

"Do Atheists believe in free-will?" by SPLogan

"Freewill or Fate" by The Sum of Awe

"Free Will? Where?" by ejay286
​

This interest has usually centered around the affirmation of free will and/or a denunciation of it. Some very interesting thoughts on both sides have come out of these discussions, many well thought out and others not so much. Whatever the case, there's been a frequent problem with some of the terms involved, most often those concerning "free will" and "will." People have either failed to let others know what they had in mind when they use them, or have provided definitions that got mired in misunderstandings and confusion. Even when directly asked to define these terms people have skirted the request, and have proceeded to side topics, leaving the issue of free will no more resolved than before. So what's going on here?

As I see it, free will is important to many because without it would mean each of is nothing more than Robbie the Robot, which is anathema to the notion personal freedom. If I have no freedom of choice how can I be blamed for what I do? For Christians this has the added consequence of robbing the concept of sin/salvation of any meaning. So most people are loath to even entertain the idea of no free will. Free will is almost always regarded as a given.

Any exception to free will is seen as temporary constraint. "I am free to to do this or that unless someone/thing comes and prevents it. Of course this isn't at all what the issue of free will is about. Free will is about the idea that, aside from any external constraints, "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." So I think a decent working definition of "free will" is just that: the ability to do differently if one wished.

Those who most disagree with this are the hard determinists, people claiming that everything we do has a cause. And because everything we do is caused then we could not have done differently, therefore it's absurd to place blame or praise. A pretty drastic notion, and one rejected by almost everyone. So whatever else is said about the issue of free will ultimately it must come down to this very basic level: Are we free to do other than what we chose or not? I say, No you are not. Free will is an illusion. But before going into why, we first need to get rid of the term "choice" because it assumes to be true the condition under consideration, freedom to do what we want. So no use of "choice," "choosing,"chosen," or any other form of the word.

Here's how I see it.
There are only two ways actions take place; completely randomly, or caused. By "completely randomly" I mean absolutely random, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused. This is the most common notion of "random" events: those we are unable to predict and appear to come about by pure chance. The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, appears to occur is at the subatomic level, which has no effect on superatomic events, those at which we operate. And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate, completely randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So that leaves non-randomness as the operative agent of our actions. We do this or that because. . . . And the "cause" in "because" is telling. It signals a deterministic operation at work. What we do is determined by something. Were it not, what we do would be absolutely random in nature: for absolutely no reason at all. But as all of us claim from time to time, we do have reasons for what we do. And these reasons are the causes that negate any randomness.

So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless the causes had been different. If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home. The previous chain of cause/effects inexorably determined where I ended up. So to is it with our decisions. We do what we do because all the relevant preceding cause/effect events inexorably led up to that very act and no other. We HAD to do what we did. There was no freedom to do any differently.

What does this all mean then? It means that we cannot do any any differently than what we do. Our actions are caused (determined) by previous events and nothing else. Even our wishing to think we could have done otherwise is a mental event that was determined by all the cause/effect events that led to it. We think as we do because. . . . And that "because" can never be any different than what it was. We have no will to do anything other than what we're caused to do. In effect then, the will does not exist, nor does choice, etc..

Of course this means that blame and praise come out as pretty hollow concepts. If you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them? To do so is like blaming or praising a rock for where it lies. It had no "choice" in the matter. Of course we can still claim to have free will if we define the term as being free of external constraints, but that's not really addressing free will, and why free will exists as an issue. The free will issue exists because people claim "I could have done differently if I had wished." Problem is, of course, they didn't wish differently because . . . .



This, then, is my argument---a bit shortened to keep it brief---against free will as it stands in opposition to determinism.

Comments?

Seems to me you present a false dichotomy.

However, one needs for you to further clarify by what you mean by "choice".
Seems to me that one almost always has a choice and that you are merely excusing the choice by declaring that certain past experiences dictate certain choices.
Perhaps I am missing something?

 

[LuisDantas]

Seems to me that one almost always has a choice and that you are merely excusing the choice by declaring that certain past experiences dictate certain choices.
Perhaps I am missing something?

It all comes down to whether we really have a choice, or just feel like we do.

Myself, I sincerely don't think choice is all that frequent a reality, and I wonder why the saying that "we always have a choice" is so popular. It clashes quite decisively with my understanding of the world.

 

[blackout]

Well then, things are exactly as they must be.


Funny people with all of their "causes"
and attempts to influence others
as if any of it really matters- for any "higher reason",
(ie. has any "real" effect-or importance--
or import above and beyond things "as they must be")

This whole forum
and all of our posts in it,
are nothing more than human folly.

And actually, I'm ok with that.

I do what I do for me,
and I enjoy the experience of "me".
And the things that I do as "me".
I enjoy the apparent illusion of my Self Becoming,
and the sense of Self evolution/Chosen improvement,
I have fancied to witness, in my personal unfolding,
over time.

i guess many of you,
cannot help but over aggrandize
the non-importance of all your debating.
and, in fact, the intrinsic non-importance of
ALL of your life's non-chosen endeavors.
(beyond the fact that YOU, YourSelf
like engaging in it/them- and MUST also do so,
for reasons "beyond You".)

Very amusing, the idea of willfully influencing others,
when you cannot willfully influence even your own Self.
(which neither is truly your own)

But people cannot help their sense of Self Importance,
their need to set everyone straight,
their need to "be right",
"save the world",
"save souls",
"show the way",
"shed the light",
"save people from their own stupidity"
"save people from god's wrath"
or some "wrongness"
in the world,
in their neighbor,
or even in internet forums, I suppose.

 

[blackout]

People get all grand over their moral/scientific/societal/rational/political/religious causes,
but really we live in/live out nothing more than a web of fatalities.


*spiders and flies..... and gnats and dust and lint....*

 

[bobhikes]

Well written and well thought out. I do though disagree.

My disagreement is based on conscience. Humans and some animals can make decisions. I will stick with humans.

Love, hate, good, bad, fear are all concepts that we all share yet are completly different for each of us. They have no physical attribute and can not be affected directly by the physical world. We have control based on interpetation of physical acts on how to preceive each.

Almost all of our decisions are based on our views of these concepts and a few more. These views can be changed just by thinking or meditation ie without the influence of the material world. If 100 people fall down 100 people will have 100 different outcomes. Some will laugh, cry, yell, be embarassed etc. Even identical twins will not react the same.

What does this mean to me our thoughts can only be shaped by ourselves. So how does this prove free will. It does so with dealing with people. There is no formula to show how the other will react. We deal with them in the real world but there conscience world is ever changing. We have to deal with the results of there conscience while our own conscience is ever changing. If we can't know there reactions we can't know our own and both our actions change the real world.

Now if animals have some type of conscience whereas they do not just react to emotions then they have the same ability as us to influence the world in a way that chance can not.

Of course if you could prove conscience is deterministic then I would have to believe that free will does not exist. I did not see anything about our conscience though in your writting and think you would have a hard time proving it is deterministic.

 

[LuisDantas]

(...) If 100 people fall down 100 people will have 100 different outcomes. Some will laugh, cry, yell, be embarassed etc. Even identical twins will not react the same.

What does this mean to me our thoughts can only be shaped by ourselves.

Wouldn't it be more natural to conclude instead that we are not the only ones who shape our thoughts? That the circunstances we go through are a main or even the only influence?

I'm a bit puzzled because you even bring the matter of identical twins. If they are biologically the same and often created in much the same way, then we would expect them to have similar personalities and values, yet that is often not the case. Strong evidence of how our thoughts are in fact not shaped only by ourselves IMO. We "alone" suffer the effects, of course.

 

[bobhikes]

Wouldn't it be more natural to conclude instead that we are not the only ones who shape our thoughts? That the circunstances we go through are a main or even the only influence?

I'm a bit puzzled because you even bring the matter of identical twins. If they are biologically the same and often created in much the same way, then we would expect them to have similar personalities and values, yet that is often not the case. Strong evidence of how our thoughts are in fact not shaped only by ourselves IMO. We "alone" suffer the effects, of course.

Who know's your thoughts, your love's, your pain. Can you convey the exact feeling to anybody. Do they change based on enviroment alone or can you change them yourself. Can you reflect in a dark room and come out different then when you went in.

As to the biology and similarity of twins, there is nothing to indicate similarity of conscience at all wheter life is deteministic or free will.

If life is based on deterministic actions twins would have different conscience's as they can never be in the same spot in the same moment so experience life from different perceptions. They also have to deal with the other and that will shape there conscience as well.

My point for free will is that all humans have a different conscience (even twins) whether you have a deterministic view or not. All conscience's are activly changing even without enviromental influence. In dealing with another person that has a conscience you are creating an action that effects the real world without being directly tied to the real world. Effectivly creating change.

If all animals and humans had the exact same emotions and could not override these emotions by thought alone or all thoughts had a direct line from the real world and you can not create them without influence of the real world then and only then could you consider a deterministic view.

As I said before you just need to prove that conscience is deterministic as it influences the real world greatly.

 

[Koldo]

Well written and well thought out. I do though disagree.

My disagreement is based on conscience. Humans and some animals can make decisions. I will stick with humans.

Love, hate, good, bad, fear are all concepts that we all share yet are completly different for each of us. They have no physical attribute and can not be affected directly by the physical world. We have control based on interpetation of physical acts on how to preceive each.

Almost all of our decisions are based on our views of these concepts and a few more. These views can be changed just by thinking or meditation ie without the influence of the material world. If 100 people fall down 100 people will have 100 different outcomes. Some will laugh, cry, yell, be embarassed etc. Even identical twins will not react the same.

What does this mean to me our thoughts can only be shaped by ourselves. So how does this prove free will. It does so with dealing with people. There is no formula to show how the other will react. We deal with them in the real world but there conscience world is ever changing. We have to deal with the results of there conscience while our own conscience is ever changing. If we can't know there reactions we can't know our own and both our actions change the real world.

Now if animals have some type of conscience whereas they do not just react to emotions then they have the same ability as us to influence the world in a way that chance can not.

Of course if you could prove conscience is deterministic then I would have to believe that free will does not exist. I did not see anything about our conscience though in your writting and think you would have a hard time proving it is deterministic.

How do we decide?
By what means do we come to a decision?

 

[bobhikes]

How do we decide?
By what means do we come to a decision?

Decisions are all made by current conscience thought.

Can you prove conscience is deterministic.

Deterministic means there is specific reasons for the actions of your current conscience thought. Free will indicates there is not. You determine at the moment the outcome. I can not prove free will as to once the descision is made there is a specific path to the outcome. This does not mean that that outcome was a determined specific path only that after it happened we can show the specific means to reach it.

If conscience in all is different, constantly changes and can be changed without enviromental influence then, when two or more individuals interact the outcome can not be determined and if this interaction has a real consequence then free will must exist.

 

[Koldo]

The only actual problem i see with the concept of free will, which is actually a great problem, is the way choices are made.

Can we all agree most choices are made based on the individual's will?
There is an excelent quote from Schopenhaeur :"Man is free to do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills".

If the will itself can not be chosen ( and this is a given ), then we are forced to act upon its parameters. And therefore there is no free will, unless you define free will as something entirely different, which is what compatibilism usually does.

 

[Willamena]

I can see where you are coming from, but how do we know that we really had a choice?

Same way we know that we didn't.

 

[Koldo]

Decisions are all made by current conscience thought.

Let me put it this way: How do we select between possible choices?
What makes you choose, in a given moment, to eat chocolate cake instead of icecream when both options are presented to you?

 

[bobhikes]

The only actual problem i see with the concept of free will, which is actually a great problem, is the way choices are made.

Can we all agree most choices are made based on the individual's will?
There is an excelent quote from Schopenhaeur :"Man is free to do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills".

If the will itself can not be chosen ( and this is a given ), then we are forced to act upon its parameters. And therefore there is no free will, unless you define free will as something entirely different, which is what compatibilism usually does.

You need to define will. I see will as conscience thought nothing more or less and I can and have changed how I think over time.

 

[Koldo]

You need to define will. I see will as conscience thought nothing more or less and I can and have changed how I think over time.

Will is what makes the "i want to..." to be meaningful.
It is what makes conscious actions possible.

 

[bobhikes]

Let me put it this way: How do we select between possible choices?
What makes you choose, in a given moment, to eat chocolate cake instead of icecream when both options are presented to you?

My thoughts make me decide and there always another option like neither or asking for both.

With free will I make a decision but there maybe no specific reason. Its a reason of the moment.

For example I decided to take a break from Religious forums until the fall. I have been checking in periodically to see what goes on. May 21 I checked in but have decided not to comment on anything as I wanted a break.

Today I decided to check in and clicked on this thread because of who wrote it. The title was not very inspiring. Once I read it I decided I must respond even though I still had resevations about not commenting until the fall.

If you talked to me yesterday or even this morning there would be no way of knowing that I would comment on this thread. In fact you would have no reason to believe I would even go to Religious Forums today but I did and there is a path to how I got here but it was not determined and nothing could have determined it.