free will vs natural determinism

[Slorri]

Really! Confusion = choice situation?...

There's no such thing as choice or choosing...

I do believe you are overlooking one thing, that actually belongs in the causal chain: the confusion.
If subjective choice did not exist we would act instantly, and if our mind is involved, it would be brilliantly clear and decisive throughout; The opposite of being confused.

What might have been the model for this statue?
File:The Thinker, Auguste Rodin.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
It depicts mental confusion, cut in stone.

 

[Skwim]

I do believe you are overlooking one thing, that actually belongs in the causal chain: the confusion.
If subjective choice did not exist we would act instantly,

Well, we do act instantly. We act whenever the chain of causal events brings us to the point of acting. No sooner, no later.

and if our mind is involved, it would be brilliantly clear and decisive throughout;

Why? Our brain only acts as it's been caused to act. If it's fuzzy or confused it's because that's what the causal chain of events causes it to be, just as it causes clearness of thought.

What might have been the model for this statue?
File:The Thinker, Auguste Rodin.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
It depicts mental confusion, cut in stone.

To the contrary, it depicts thinking, which is why it's called The Thinker and not The Confused One. Or are you under the impression that all thinking is a state of confusion?

 

[Slorri]

Well, we do act instantly. We act whenever the chain of causal events brings us to the point of acting. No sooner, no later.

Why? Our brain only acts as it's been caused to act. If it's fuzzy or confused it's because that's what the causal chain of events causes it to be, just as it causes clearness of thought.



To the contrary, it depicts thinking, which is why it's called The Thinker and not The Confused One. Or are you under the impression that all thinking is a state of confusion?

I pass the ball over to you, and ask:

Do you argue that confusion does not exist?

If you agree that it does exist, can you define it?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well, we do act instantly. We act whenever the chain of causal events brings us to the point of acting.

Relativity (special and general) rule out such a chain, it has little to no meaning in quantum physics, and in classical we are confronted by circular causality or causal closure (closure to efficient causation).

I do believe you are overlooking one thing, that actually belongs in the causal chain: the confusion.
If subjective choice did not exist we would act instantly

If subjective choice did not exist, we would act only as instantly as it took to process the information we required to act. Consider any syntactic (no conceptual/semantic content) processor of information, such as a plant or a computer. Actually, consider just a computer (for the same reason I've changed my profile picture almost every day for some time now). There are various mathematical functions (iterated function systems, fractals, space-filling curves, etc.) that can be plotted by a calculator or computer and which result in images like my current profile picture and all the others I've ever had, e.g.,:

Each one of these required an explicit set of instructions (a mathematical function, or more than one, turned into computer code). Each one required that my compiler or CAS (computer algebra system) plot these images by taking the mathematical value(s) in the first step and plotting a point (technically region as computers approximate continuity but let's simplify). Every image required that the computer do this a certain number of times. The computer could not compute the nth step until it reached step n-1.

To make the metaphor useful, consider the fact that, once I had whatever mathematical function(s) in my code as desired, I wanted the computer to show me what image my code would reveal. So, for example, in the last one I hold shift and press enter (simplistically, hitting "run" in Mathematica) and I wait for a minute or several while my computer tries to "figure out" what the final result is.

Even more simply, I tell Mathematica or Matlab or whatever software and/or programming language I'm using "show me the image created by this algorithm". The computer is not in a state in which it can do this. It can only do so after it has completed all the necessary state changes to complete all the steps specified by the algorithm.

If, as I think is wrong (and somewhat obviously wrong), the brain were like a computer, than you can think of confusion as the period during which your perceptual and cognitive faculties were acting, but were acting to resolve the confusion in a deterministic, algorithmic way. Thus confusion is merely the waiting period required for your sensory and cognitive faculties to deterministically change their states until the system (you) is in a state where the confusion is no longer present.
More concretely, imagine that I asked you to tell me the plot of a particular function (or solve some math problem). As I await your answer, your entire body is active, and some portion of it is continuously changing as a result of my question and trying to reach a state at which you are capable of providing an answer.

Confusion, then, is just a period of time during which your deterministic changes in state haven't reached a particular point.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

I wrote the following text a while back now and it gives an argument for the existence of free-will amongst humans. It follows on from the proof shown here.

Any comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 3 - G-d Almighty

G-d has free will because if G-d were deterministic, then He would be following some rule but in the beginning only G-d existed as an uncaused entity so how could He be following a rule (a dependency) and could this rule have existed in the beginning? Only G-d existed in the beginning - a rule would be a created thing.

We know G-d creates (causes to exist), and we now know G-d has free will. Was this free-will creativity limited or defined within a range in the beginning? I believe not, since I think this would imply a rule and as already explained, in the beginning there was no rule but there was G-d.

Therefore, G-d was not limited in power, or in other words, G-d was omnipotent in the beginning.

Did G-d create, directly or indirectly, some constraint for His free will? I believe any such created constraint would interfere with G-d's uncaused nature - G-d's nature would become dependent on the constraint. Therefore, we can conclude G-d is, and always will be, omnipotent.

G-d being omnipotent, means there is no failure in G-d's powers., He never falls short, and so cannot make mistakes.


Part 4 - For G-d So Loved The World

G-d, out of this free will, created the world (from nothing) for no need (G-d has no dependencies & so no needs), without making any mistakes. To me, this seems like G-d loved the world into existence - gave freely for no reason other than the giving of the gift. And G-d's perfect love would be directed towards beings like Himself, beings sufficiently capable to return love. Just as we seek to love other human beings (like ourselves). Such beings would have to have free-will, since deterministic 'robots' are not really capable of love. They would have to be able to have some awareness of G-d, and of loving G-d, since 'accidental love' is not properly love. Such beings would also, in some way, reflect G-d, to ensure sufficient compatibility for the love to exist.

I believe human beings match the requirements for such beings. Human beings appear to have some degree of free-will so essential to G-d's nature. Human beings, when in normal health, and having matured sufficiently, are able to believe in G-d using reason and also seem able to love G-d in their limited capacities. Their rational nature permits them to do this, which also reflects the rational nature of G-d. G-d loved Creation into existence and this requires rationality, in order to properly love - irrationality would not be directed enough.

Part 5 - Human Beings, the Special Intended Creation of G-d

Could human beings be purely accidental to some other process, or a means to another end in G-d's plan? The special nature of human beings, enabling them to believe in G-d using reason, and then using reason to be able to try to live good lives, as well as their likeness to the rational nature of G-d, seems to point to human beings having special significance to G-d. Their nature seems to endow them with a dignity beyond being a means to an end, or purely an accidental by-product.

Additionally, they seem to complete G-d's love of Creation by being able to love G-d back. By being able to enter into this sacred love, it would not appear to be the case that G-d would use human beings as a means to an end, or that they could purely be accidental to some other process. In human love, genuine love would not use a human being as a means to an end, or just be accidental.

Therefore, human beings are in some way, the special intended creation of G-d.

 

[Skwim]

G-d has free will because if G-d were deterministic, then He would be following some rule

That's right; the law of cause/effect.

but in the beginning only G-d existed as an uncaused entity so how could He be following a rule (a dependency) and could this rule have existed in the beginning?

That god was uncaused requires evidence. Mere assertion isn't going to do it. So, whatcha got?

We know G-d creates (causes to exist), and we now know G-d has free will.

You may "know" this, but it's yet to be demonstrated. Show your evidence that god has free will, otherwise your claim rings hollow.

Everything that follows in your posts is moot and not worth considering until you do the above.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

That's right; the law of cause/effect.

That god was uncaused requires evidence. Mere assertion isn't going to do it. So, whatcha got?
...
You may "know" this, but it's yet to be demonstrated. Show your evidence that god has free will, otherwise your claim rings hollow.
...
Everything that follows in your posts is moot and not worth considering until you do the above.

Essentially, it seems that you need proof of the existence of God. I have tried to do this here. The follow-up posts might answer any questions you have concerning it.

If you accept this proof, then God having free-will follows from my argumentation shown above in this thread. I wish you the best of intentions.

 

[DayRaven]

Does process offer a possible solution? I haven't yet studied it in depth but from what, I probably don't, understand about process if you have let's say only seven possible options for any given scenario then possible outcomes are limited from your given choice. In theory, then, I suppose it would be possible to know all probable outcomes (determinism) without negating choice (free will)......

 

[Skwim]

Essentially, it seems that you need proof of the existence of God.

Not in this case. For the sake of the discussion I'll take his existence as a given, but not your claims of his nature.

If you accept this proof, then God having free-will follows from my argumentation shown above in this thread. I wish you the best of intentions.

Sorry, but I don't accept your bare-faced claim "We. . . now know G-d has free will." as any kind of argumentation, because it simply isn't.

 

[Willamena]

That's right; the law of cause/effect.

Then what caused god?

And keep in mind this is your assertion, not to be sloughed off on others.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

Sorry, but I don't accept your bare-faced claim "We. . . now know G-d has free will." as any kind of argumentation, because it simply isn't.

It is not a bare-faced claim. The argumentation is in the post:

G-d has free will because if G-d were deterministic, then He would be following some rule but in the beginning only G-d existed as an uncaused entity so how could He be following a rule (a dependency) and could this rule have existed in the beginning? Only G-d existed in the beginning - a rule would be a created thing.

 

[Skwim]

Then what caused god?

And keep in mind this is your assertion, not to be sloughed off on others.

Here I was only replying to the way god operates, not his beginning, who in my mind is a dubious creature, and therefore can be whatever one wants to claim, but whatever it is I expect some kind of supporting evidence.

_____________________________________________________________

It is not a bare-faced claim. The argumentation is in the post:

G-d has free will because if G-d were deterministic, then He would be following some rule but in the beginning only G-d existed as an uncaused entity so how could He be following a rule (a dependency) and could this rule have existed in the beginning? Only G-d existed in the beginning - a rule would be a created thing.

Thing is, M. J. F., You're making several unsupported claims here,

God has to have free will because he is an uncaused being. But, you haven't shown why he must be uncaused.

Secondly, you claim that any uncaused being cannot be operate under the law of cause/effect. But you haven't shown why this must be true.

Then you ask, "could this rule have existed in the beginning?" which I take as rhetorical. But it's unclear what beginning you're referring to; his beginning or the beginning of everything he does.

Then you presume that in the very beginning "rules" could not exist in conjunction with god. Here I'll digress a bit and replace your "rules," which implies consciously concocted operating instruction, with "laws," which in nature imply unconscious operating instructions (think of the law of gravity or the commutative law of multiplication) So, my question is, why couldn't the operating law of determinism co-exist with god? Be part of his very nature? If your rule of freewill is a possible part of his nature then why not determinism?











​

 

[Cephus]

Here I was only replying to the way god operates, not his beginning, who in my mind is a dubious creature, and therefore can be whatever one wants to claim, but whatever it is I expect some kind of supporting evidence.

The way theists *BELIEVE* God operates. They have no way of actually knowing how God operates, or if God even exists. It's amazing how many people make entirely unsupported statements of fact when they have no evidence of any of it.

 

[Willamena]

Here I was only replying to the way god operates, not his beginning, who in my mind is a dubious creature, and therefore can be whatever one wants to claim, but whatever it is I expect some kind of supporting evidence.

What distinction is to be made between the way God operates and God?

Just curious.

 

[Skwim]

The way theists *BELIEVE* God operates. They have no way of actually knowing how God operates, or if God even exists. It's amazing how many people make entirely unsupported statements of fact when they have no evidence of any of it.

I think it's one of those things endemic to almost all religions; establish a supreme being and then invest it with whatever characteristics are necessary. Thing is, often these characteristics end up being at odds with one another, which is usually dealt with by ignoring the issues and continuing on as if they didn't exist. This is seen here every week.

________________________________

What distinction is to be made between the way God operates and God?

Just curious.

God essentially refers to the being itself, usually defined by his innate characteristics, whereas " the way God operates" refers to the what and how he does things.

 

[Willamena]

God essentially refers to the being itself, usually defined by his innate characteristics, whereas " the way God operates" refers to the what and how he does things.

What distinguishes between you, for instance, and what you do? Tell me about yourself.

 

[Cephus]

I think it's one of those things endemic to almost all religions; establish a supreme being and then invest it with whatever characteristics are necessary. Thing is, often these characteristics end up being at odds with one another, which is usually dealt with by ignoring the issues and continuing on as if they didn't exist. This is seen here every week.

Indeed, no matter how many times the absurdity of it is pointed out. None of these people have the slightest amount of evidence that their gods actually have these characteristics that they blindly attribute, that doesn't stop them from insisting that these must be the characteristics that their unproven gods actually have. Try explaining that to a theist and they'll just ignore you. Somehow, they just "know" that's what their god is like, even though there is no possible rational way they could.

 

[Skwim]

What distinguishes between you, for instance, and what you do? Tell me about yourself.

Oh no you don't. You just want to get into my head and mess around with my psyche.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

_____________________________________________________________

Thing is, M. J. F., You're making several unsupported claims here,

God has to have free will because he is an uncaused being. But, you haven't shown why he must be uncaused.
​

By definition, God is uncaused. He is the uncaused cause.

Secondly, you claim that any uncaused being cannot be operate under the law of cause/effect. But you haven't shown why this must be true.

Do you mean that I claim G-d is not deterministic (in His actions)? I think I have shown this to be true. But if I have not, please expand on any problem here.

G-d has free will because if G-d were deterministic, then He would be following some rule but in the beginning only G-d existed as an uncaused entity so how could He be following a rule (a dependency) and could this rule have existed in the beginning?

Then you ask, "could this rule have existed in the beginning?" which I take as rhetorical. But it's unclear what beginning you're referring to; his beginning or the beginning of everything he does.

By definition, He has no beginning. I guess I am referring to the beginning of everything He does.

Then you presume that in the very beginning "rules" could not exist in conjunction with god. Here I'll digress a bit and replace your "rules," which implies consciously concocted operating instruction, with "laws," which in nature imply unconscious operating instructions (think of the law of gravity or the commutative law of multiplication) So, my question is, why couldn't the operating law of determinism co-exist with god? Be part of his very nature? If your rule of freewill is a possible part of his nature then why not determinism?

I think I probably have already justified this enough in the post but I will try to address your specific question.

By definition, G-d is the uncaused cause. This is our starting point. Now, I posit that there is no rule to establish free-will, but instead free-will is what is, when there is no rule. Does this make sense? I think I have already argued enough about there not being any rule.

In reference to your use of the term 'unconscious operating instructions':

- The law of gravity would be something created by the Creator.

- The commutative law of multiplication would seem not to be so much a law as a property of number systems. In some sense, those number systems would have to be created akin to how if you do not have enough computer RAM, you cannot run certain programs.

The truths of mathematics are true, but if you can't count in the first place, what use are they?

 

[Skwim]

By definition, God is uncaused. He is the uncaused cause.

Well, I guess one can claim anything for a deity they want, and go on from there. That she's purples, has 16 toes, and eats spinach every day. And, I can equally declare that I don't buy your definition. All of which leaves us at a parting of the ways. Which means that it will be useless to try to convince me of anything that depends on god being uncaused---just so you know.

Do you mean that I claim G-d is not deterministic (in His actions)? I think I have shown this to be true. But if I have not, please expand on any problem here.

I mean that god, like you and I, are ruled by cause and effect and have no freewill in the philosophical sense: he could not do any differently than he did.

Now, I posit that there is no rule to establish free-will, but instead free-will is what is, when there is no rule. Does this make sense? I think I have already argued enough about there not being any rule.

No, it doesn't make sense. In as much as cause/effect is the operating principle for everything else in the universe, it would appear to be the default mechanism by which god also operates. The trouble with denying this is that one is left with only one other operating option: utter randomness. God's thoughts and actions are absolutely random in nature. OR perhaps a combination of such randomness and cause/effect. Either way, this precludes any condition of freewill, the ability to do differently.

This is the very same circumstance under which we operate, so in this sense your god is just like us.