Free Will

[nPeace]

Yes in the sense that I would argue that all decisions or beliefs are consciously related. But to me, there is a difference, between saying that you freely chose your position using your free will and whether you were influenced by whatever to reach that position.

Are you saying that if someone influences you to smoke, steal, murder... you have no choice but to do so?

Because I think "inner feelings" make it sound like something mysterious and unexplained. Which I don't think is true, even if you make a guess. Let's say you had to choose numbers for a lottery ticket, then many people will choose numbers that relate to birthdays or special days, I would also argue that most people will not choose for instance 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 because something tells us that it is more unlikely that 1 to 8 shows up when drawing the numbers than a random combination, even though that is not the case.

So even in cases like this where it is completely random, I still think we rely on some former information/experiences/superstition to reach a conclusion that something is more likely to occur than something else.

So? Don't persons choose not to smoke because they know it's harmful to our health, while others choose to smoke although knowing the dangers?

Yes, and as I say, unless you present me with an argument or evidence that can change my view and that things we do are completely based on free will rather than former experiences or information etc. then I won't be convinced that I'm wrong, even though I might be. And that is where I think the free will argument falls apart because even if you should try to convince me, the information about free will you have, is from somewhere else, which convinced you that we have free will.

I did not say that the choices we make are not affected by knowledge, influence, etc.
An ignorant person can be influenced by peers, to make stupid choices.
A person that has knowledge, perhaps from parents, may choose to follow that... or not.

They are still free will choices.
The surrounding factors or conditions do not change that.
Of course, your free will allows you to choose to reject, and ignore that fact, and believe whatever make you happy.

Yes but in that case, I wouldn't call it free will, because it is outside my control. I didn't choose to let these subtle things slip in. It's sort of the same with the lottery example had little Hugo been born on another day, then that would have been the "magic" number I would have chosen.

Please explain how it is outside your control, when you are the one driving it, by your inmost desires.

True, but I think that goes beyond free will, regardless of whether we have free will or not, we can not change our eye colour or hair colour, because we feel like it. So it has to be related to something in the mind and how we experience or view the world around us. But when it comes to taste we can change our minds, we can hate something as children, but as we grow up we might end up liking it. Some of this could be explained by children having a more sensitive taste (if that is true?), or that the child simply had a bad experience when tasting something that they turned out not to like. But even as adults, there are lots of things we do not like to eat, which might be purely based on looks, in China they eat a lot of things that simply couldn't be sold here in Europe because we find it disgusting despite never having tasted it. Let's say dogs for instance or when they use all those medicaments from animals to solve various diseases/issues because they are convinced that it helps. That would simply not go in western cultures, because we are not convinced that these things are true.

So, you agree we have free will then.
What is inherited can be changed. so the "born this way" chime doesn't cut it then.
Agreed?

 

[nPeace]

Nobody is saying that all of our decisions aren't influenced by many things, but that does not negate our free-will.

If we are not the ones making decisions, then who/what is?
Who/what is driving the cars down the highway, if not us?

From the "likes" I can tell they did not get that. Spanish, or Dutch?

 

[nPeace]

This is obviously where things start to get complicated

Because looking at an action isolated and out of context we quickly reach the conclusion that we made that decision using our free will. But I don't think that is truly possible, to begin with.

If we take the example of choosing to drive a car, who makes the decision to do that? It is a good question and maybe the answer is that no one does, even though the obvious answer is that we do since we are driving the car after all. What I mean by it, getting complicated is when we don't look at an action as being isolated, but rather that it is motivated by something and that we look at it as a string of events leading to set action. Then choosing to drive the car, might be done because you have to go visit a friend, which has invited you to their birthday and to get there, the car has somehow convinced you that it is the best option available of all the ways to get there.

But you wouldn't have driven to your friend if you hadn't met them at school in the first place and therefore you wouldn't have any reason to even drive there in the first place. And it obviously becomes extremely complicated when adding all the things that eventually led you to choose to drive the car there.

So the idea that you freely chose to take the car, is where I would refer to it as being an illusion of free will because you obviously wouldn't backtrack several years in your life trying to figure out whether taking the car or the train is the best option or even why you would have to go visit your friend. But ultimately I think this process, whether we give it any deep thought or not does occur whenever we do something, it is motivated by something and choosing one thing over another is based on whatever convinces us is the best option to reach our goal. Could there be some sense of free will, might be. But in that case, I think it is extremely limited.

I think you have gone metaphysical.

 

[nPeace]

Pretty meaningless without analysing how 'you' make choices.

I did, in a previous post.

I keep hearing arguments like this and it just doesn't follow. No two children (abused or otherwise) go through identical experiences. It is also possible, I would say almost certain, that even though minds may be deterministic, they would be chaotic (mathematical sense) and hence subject to the butterfly effect.

Logic. Either our choices are determined by our past, or they are not. They cannot both be true.
Let me make an adjustment... ever so slightly, and get the same result.
If your choices were determined by your past, all children who went through the same exact abuse would be the same. Period.

 

[ratiocinator]

I did, in a previous post.

Which one?

If your choices were determined by your past, all children who went through the same exact abuse would be the same. Period.

That's simply impossible. And it wouldn't necessarily just depend on the abuse, they'd have had different experiences before and different subsequent experiences. Do you you understand what the butterfly effect is and how it applies to fully deterministic systems?

ETA: Also you're neglecting nature, which will have an influence as well as nurture and experience.

 

[nPeace]

I don't know. I literally have not been able to make sense of the phrase 'free will'.

I'm not making sense of why you are having that difficulty.

Part of the problem is that the 'self' is part of the system, not something separated from it. And that seems to necessarily be the case because otherwise how does information get from the 'world' to the 'self'?

Part of the system. Not separate from it.
Okay, let's go with that.
Your hands are part of your body. Can your hands do anything different to your body?
For example, can your hand take a knife, and cut your body? What drives your hands to do this?
I hope you don't tell me your brain... but just in case... what drives your brain to drive your hand?

 

[ratiocinator]

I hope you don't tell me your brain... but just in case... what drives your brain to drive your hand?

Why do you think there is anything that drives the brain to take actions, other than its own abilities and inclinations that are the result of nature, nurture, and experience...?

 

[Nimos]

Are you saying that if someone influences you to smoke, steal, murder... you have no choice but to do so?

That is the question

If we were completely free to do what we felt like, why don't people go around and kill each other more or less randomly? Why would anyone care whether they killed another person or not or whether there was any "good" reason for it?

And to me, it seems as if this comes down to how we as humans are "constructed" some people will murder their spouse out of jealousy, greed etc. Some might kill others out of hate, while others will equally hate someone but not murder them. Yet there does seem to be a tendency that humans don't prefer going around killing each other randomly, and also the reason why people might end up killing each other is vastly different.

So the question is why do some people, which for all we know are considered normal end up killing/murdering someone? If it is merely a matter of free will which is not influenced by anything then I think we would expect people to behave in more rational ways than they are. My wondering is that people are emotionally wired in such ways that we react to things very differently, but we didn't choose this, I doubt anyone would choose to be emotionally wired for murder if they had the option. I think we can influence how we emotionally respond to things in some cases, but it is not simply a matter of free will to decide to change something like this. Let's say a paedophile, might be able to live with their urges and learn how to not act on them, but I don't think you can remove them from that person, because it is "hardwired" into them.

So? Don't persons choose not to smoke because they know it's harmful to our health, while others choose to smoke although knowing the dangers?

As I said before, it's a matter of motivation and conviction, if a person is convinced that not smoking is the better option then they won't do it. But whether this as above is "hardwired" into us, that doing certain things that might be harmful to us, is less of a concern than not, I don't know. But I don't think it is any different than someone deciding to parachute, I wouldn't do that. While others have no issues putting their life in a piece of cloth and jumping out of a plane. If I should do it, the plane would need to be on fire and so far away from the landing stripe that I had no other option And it's not because I'm afraid of heights at all, but I wouldn't like just jumping out of a plane like that.

Please explain how it is outside your control, when you are the one driving it, by your inmost desires.

Because I don't think it is simply a matter of making an isolated choice, the choice is made based on a whole lot of things and ultimately I think these are somewhat emotionally connected to us. Whether that is because you prefer being able to drive there alone, or it is more comfortable etc. Ultimately I think this is what it ends up in and all these things play a part in whether you end up driving or taking the train, we rarely do anything that we consider extremely nonbeneficial to us.

So, you agree we have free will then.
What is inherited can be changed. so the "born this way" chime doesn't cut it then.
Agreed?

I think we have a limited amount of free will or at least an illusion of it. But I think a lot of it is biologically decided. As I started by saying, there seem to be tendencies that people prefer certain things over others, like not going around killing randomly as a result of free will etc. But how much there is, I think is very difficult to figure out and how much is emotionally hardwired into us that we can't simply change.

 

[nPeace]

Which one?

Posts 122, and 123.

That's simply impossible. And it wouldn't necessarily just depend on the abuse, they'd have had different experiences before and different subsequent experiences. Do you you understand what the butterfly effect is and how it applies to fully deterministic systems?

The butterfly effect is the same as the home environment + the psychological effects + the company one keeps + the world environment, etc.
These effects can be overruled by a wholesome spiritual environment + good spiritual associates + good spiritual teachings.
That's called the love effect. It causes one to go contrary to what might be expected. It puzzles people.

ETA: Also you're neglecting nature, which will have an influence as well as nurture and experience.

The effect does not cancel out your ability to make free willed decision, so I don't see the point of your argument.

 

[nPeace]

Why do you think there is anything that drives the brain to take actions, other than its own abilities and inclinations that are the result of nature, nurture, and experience...?

You'll have to explain what you just said, for it to make sense, and fit reality.
At the moment, it sounds to me like Mumbo jumbo. No offense intended.

 

[Alien826]

This gets back to the definition of "I" or self. Should we include the infrastructure outside of consciousness that makes self-awareness possible? Sometimes, we hear two parts of our mind giving contradictory information. We're a little dry, the hypothalamus detects that, and sends a message to consciousness to drink. Is that me, or is that a message to me? How about when the neocortex tells us not to drink, because perhaps we're going to surgery in the morning. Now, I have conflicting messages. It feels like the higher one is more me than the lower, but really, what's the difference? We have two physical structures generating and delivering messages to the self. @Evangelicalhumanist made a comment earlier that he considered his subconscious self, which is a reasonable position, but one can also argue that the self is the passive witness of theater of consciousness, witnessing two neural structures in action. If you saw the movie Being John Malkovich, it explored the idea of entering a consciousness to witness its unfolding as kind of a hitchhiker. We can conceive of ourselves - our own self - as fulfilling that same role in this body, watching its reality unfold.

I've been thinking along these lines as I read through this thread. What is "me"? It's easy to decide that what seems to be me is me, that is, the part that is trying to think of the right words now. But the brain is actually a series of layers, laid down through millennia of evolution. Where do I stop and say "this is no longer me"? Is the "lizard brain" me? I was fishing on a river bank when I was around nine years old. A small snake appeared, swimming across the water towards me. I dropped my fishing rod and ran as fast as I could across the field. There was no conscious decision or ability to stop running (for a while). Lizard brain. Did "I" run across the field? If not, what did? I touch a hot surface and my hand jerks away from it, with no conscious decision involved. I believe that happens in the spinal column. Me? Some body process releases hormones into my blood stream and everything seems to be negative. I might even kill myself as a result. Fix the hormone imbalance and the world seems bright again. Both things are outside my conscious control, but are they part of "me"? They very much seem so at the time. Sometimes I can't remember a word, though I know exactly what I want to say. I give up. Later the words just pops into my mind. What continued to try to remember the word and alerted me when it found it? I was not conscious of it. Was it me?

Something that bothers me about the "brain in a vat" analogy. Without all the inputs from the rest on my (now non existent) body is it me? Someone that knew me well before might might say "no". It would certainly be someone, but with a very different personality.

If anyone is waiting for a conclusion, I don't have one. I just suggest that much of this discussion assumes too limiting definitions.

 

[Alien826]

I keep hearing arguments like this and it just doesn't follow. No two children (abused or otherwise) go through identical experiences. It is also possible, I would say almost certain, that even though minds may be deterministic, they would be chaotic (mathematical sense) and hence subject to the butterfly effect.

And no two children are the same. You can subject two or more children to the same abuse and get different results with each.

 

[nPeace]

That is the question

If we were completely free to do what we felt like, why don't people go around and kill each other more or less randomly? Why would anyone care whether they killed another person or not or whether there was any "good" reason for it?

First of all, "completely" free was never mentioned in this thread... except by you.
What do you mean by "completely" free?
Secondly, people chose not to commit crimes because of the consequences. Otherwise, people do go around killing other people.

And to me, it seems as if this comes down to how we as humans are "constructed" some people will murder their spouse out of jealousy, greed etc. Some might kill others out of hate, while others will equally hate someone but not murder them. Yet there does seem to be a tendency that humans don't prefer going around killing each other randomly, and also the reason why people might end up killing each other is vastly different.

Let me repeat, for your benefit.
"...some people will murder their spouse out of jealousy, greed etc. Some might kill others out of hate, while others will equally hate someone but not murder them."
Motive right. Where there is motive, there is choice, right?

So the question is why do some people, which for all we know are considered normal end up killing/murdering someone? If it is merely a matter of free will which is not influenced by anything then I think we would expect people to behave in more rational ways than they are. My wondering is that people are emotionally wired in such ways that we react to things very differently, but we didn't choose this, I doubt anyone would choose to be emotionally wired for murder if they had the option. I think we can influence how we emotionally respond to things in some cases, but it is not simply a matter of free will to decide to change something like this. Let's say a paedophile, might be able to live with their urges and learn how to not act on them, but I don't think you can remove them from that person, because it is "hardwired" into them.

No one said people are not influenced when they do things.
I even said that.
I did not say that the choices we make are not affected by knowledge, influence, etc.
An ignorant person can be influenced by peers, to make stupid choices.
A person that has knowledge, perhaps from parents, may choose to follow that... or not.

They are still free will choices.
The surrounding factors or conditions do not change that.
Of course, your free will allows you to choose to reject, and ignore that fact, and believe whatever make you happy.

You are listening and considering what's said to you, are you?

As I said before, it's a matter of motivation and conviction, if a person is convinced that not smoking is the better option then they won't do it. But whether this as above is "hardwired" into us, that doing certain things that might be harmful to us, is less of a concern than not, I don't know.

You don't.
I am finding it hard to grasp, how you can recognize what you said previously, and then a sentence after, say you don't know.

No one is hardwired

1. to not have sex with someone they are not married to
2. to not do drugs, or use tobacco
3. to not use obscene language

It's education, Nimos.

Motives and convictions are what drive our choices, but they are not baseless abstract molecules. They convictions are based, on what we are taught, through the senses, and motives are what we moved to to based on those convictions... or lack of them.

But I don't think it is any different than someone deciding to parachute, I wouldn't do that. While others have no issues putting their life in a piece of cloth and jumping out of a plane. If I should do it, the plane would need to be on fire and so far away from the landing stripe that I had no other option And it's not because I'm afraid of heights at all, but I wouldn't like just jumping out of a plane like that.

You make an informed choice. You are describing free will, and yet, you say you don't understand it. I'm confused.

Because I don't think it is simply a matter of making an isolated choice, the choice is made based on a whole lot of things and ultimately I think these are somewhat emotionally connected to us. Whether that is because you prefer being able to drive there alone, or it is more comfortable etc. Ultimately I think this is what it ends up in and all these things play a part in whether you end up driving or taking the train, we rarely do anything that we consider extremely nonbeneficial to us.

Isolated??? Isolated choice?
Now where did that come form?

Notice your words... the choice is made based..."
The choice is made. The choice is made.
You are saying it, and yet, it's as though you don't want to say it.

When you make a choice, is it not a free willed choice? Then what is it?

I think we have a limited amount of free will or at least an illusion of it. But I think a lot of it is biologically decided. As I started by saying, there seem to be tendencies that people prefer certain things over others, like not going around killing randomly as a result of free will etc. But how much there is, I think is very difficult to figure out and how much is emotionally hardwired into us that we can't simply change.

Ah. I see. It's a clamor for a biological explanation.
Now, it makes sense why you would never admit to what is obvious - Materialistic worldview. can't give that up.

 

[Alien826]

The butterfly effect is the same as the home environment .....

The butterfly effect is something that applies to chaotic systems (not the common definition of "chaos"). It means very sensitive to initial parameters. Imagine a set of measured parameters that apply to a system, and then go on to project these into the future. Then make a very small change to one of the parameters, and repeat the process. Typically one would expect a small change in the result, but in a chaotic system the change is much greater. An example is the weather, which is why it is difficult to predict. The "butterfly" reference is to an analogy where a butterfly flaps its wings in Bolivia and causes a hurricane in Mexico.

It's nothing to do with home environment or anything like that.

 

[nPeace]

No, more like a person that doesn't have enough information to decide if a proposition is correct or false. It's agnosticism - "I don't know, and I choose not to guess."

Cool. So they have knowledge of a view, and they make an informed decision to not accept it, unless it be valid. Right?
The person has thus made a choice to not believe.
That's what I am saying.
That is the definition.
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

You just met a man. Do you consider him trustworthy or unreliable? Hopefully, neither until you have cause to conclude oneor the other. You're agnostic on the matter. There may be three possible answers - yes, no, and I don't know - but there are only two possible ways to live: as if you trust him, or as if you don't, and you should choose the latter. "I don't trust you" doesn't mean that I know that you're untrustworthy, and "I don't believe in gods" doesn't mean that I say they don't exist.

Agnostic - neutral position, is different to a choice one way or other.

I define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. People quibble over whether that should include such things infants, dogs, and rocks (I've seen them all named). An alternate definition might be anyone who answers 'no' to the question of whether they hold a god belief, which eliminates those that can't.

I didn't use a dictionary to arrive at my definition. As you saw, I modified the one you offered from the OED. Here's one from Wiki: "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities."

Thanks. How you interpret that seems to be different to how it is understood.
Does anything I said above contradict that?

 

[nPeace]

The butterfly effect is something that applies to chaotic systems (not the common definition of "chaos"). It means very sensitive to initial parameters. Imagine a set of measured parameters that apply to a system, and then go on to project these into the future. Then make a very small change to one of the parameters, and repeat the process. Typically one would expect a small change in the result, but in a chaotic system the change is much greater. An example is the weather, which is why it is difficult to predict. The "butterfly" reference is to an analogy where a butterfly flaps its wings in Bolivia and causes a hurricane in Mexico.

It's nothing to do with home environment or anything like that.

I don't see a difference in what I used, and since the poster who mentioned it, applied it to the situation at hand, what I said, fits precisely.
Perhaps you fail to see how, so perhaps you can explain the difference.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Cool. So they have knowledge of a view, and they make an informed decision to not accept it, unless it be valid. Right? The person has thus made a choice to not believe. That's what I am saying.

I agree. I have chosen not to believe insufficiently supported claims according to the rules of critical analysis.

Agnostic - neutral position, is different to a choice one way or other.

Yes. It is a third position different from gnostic theism and gnostic (strong) atheism

How you interpret that seems to be different to how it is understood.

I think that most atheists would be happy with either definition I provided:
Atheim: "the lack of belief in gods."
Atheist: "anyone who answers 'no' to the question of whether they hold a god belief"

Does anything I said above contradict that?

No, unless you mean that atheism is the denial that gods exist. That's gnostic atheism and comprises a minority of unbelievers.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am so often suprised at the difficulty people have with the term. I guess it depends on how we see ourselves.

For me, this thing called "I" is a complete system. It operates within the context of many, many other systems, but I do not see myself as a "sub-system" contained within any other system. This is key -- connected to, interacting with, but not part of, other systems.

Now it becomes easier. I get that there are parts of this system that is "me" operate independently, without my conscious awareness. Some of those parts (which really are now "sub-systems") operate without information -- things like smooth muscles, elecrical impulses that regulate heart-beat, and so forth. Other parts, sub-conscious or unconscious, operate with access to and informed by all that I have experienced during my life, and also by the networks created by genetic and epi-genetic processes. But it is, to me, in a very real sense, "all me."

Now, whether this "all me" chooses to go ahead and eat 3 scoops of pralines-n-cream ice cream, or forego that in favour of half a celery stick through conscious or unconscious choice, or a combination of both -- it is still "me" making the decision. And only I am responsible for it.

Let me expand on that last post of mine a little.

Part of the problem I see is the use of the word "free" in conjunction with will. It is certain (to me) that I have a "will." I decide whether to go to the movies or stay home. I decide whether to cook dinner or just have some cold cereal and avoid the effort.

The problem is that this is not "free" in the sense that I am making a conscious-only choice. The "I" that I am talking about is the complete me -- conscious and subconcious; somatic, autonomic sympathetic and parasympathetic parts of my nervous system, and the totality of my memory. All of this is me, and much of it is has been informed by what I have lived, what I have seen, how I responded and reacted to all of that. This is what I mean when I say "I am informed by..."

Now, when I choose to do something, and I do choose it, I am quite aware that there is an awful lot going on, and that my subconscious has just as much (possibly more) to do with my choice as my conscious self, and that these two sometimes "duke it out" between them. And I am quite aware that it is not always (possibly not even ever) my conscious self that wins. So in that sense, I do not have "consciously free will," but the will that makes the decision is still all, and entirely, my own.

 

[Alien826]

The butterfly effect is the same as the home environment + the psychological effects + the company one keeps + the world environment, etc.
These effects can be overruled by a wholesome spiritual environment + good spiritual associates + good spiritual teachings.
That's called the love effect. It causes one to go contrary to what might be expected. It puzzles people.

I don't see a difference in what I used, and since the poster who mentioned it, applied it to the situation at hand, what I said, fits precisely.
Perhaps you fail to see how, so perhaps you can explain the difference.

The first quote is what you said. The second is what I'm replying to now. I wanted them in the reverse sequence but I'm still getting used to the new software. It'll do.

I gave the mathematical definition of "chaotic" to which the "butterfly affect" refers. Put more simply it's small changes having big effects. I don't see how what you said relates to that. The butterfly effect is not the same as any of the things you mention. You may mean "go[ing] contrary to what is expected". I suppose we could say that the butterfly effect can produce unexpected results but that's not how the phrase is typically used.

If it's any help, I don't see how it's related to what @ratiocinator was saying either.

 

[Ella S.]

I am a determinist/fatalist. I reject most forms of compatibilism, which is the belief that free will is compatible with determinism, because I think compatibilism is often misleading. I don't think I have any more choice in whether I'm writing this reply than a boulder has in falling down the hill. I have become increasingly aware of how every action I take is merely a consequence of my genetic predisposition and the inputs from my environment. In that way, I can treat people in general as "black boxes," just like I can with machines or closed-source software.

Free will tends to imply something ontologically special about these processes when it refers to human behavior. I don't really see too much of a difference between the "black box" of our brain and the "black box" of an artificial computer. The hardware is different, sure, and it came about through different mechanisms, but the same general computing principles still apply. We're just made of meat instead of metal, which I don't think changes the nature of our "choices" at all.

At the same time, talking about choice makes sense to me in a way that free will does not. For instance, an AI programmed to play chess might have a "choice" between all of the candidate moves. However, its will is not "free," because the choice it makes is pre-determined (or constrained) by its programming which it cannot deviate from. I believe that the same is the case for us.

I do sometimes slip into talking about "free will" in the sense of personal responsibility, however. It is ultimately "my" decision whether I type this post or not, in the sense that "I" am the whole of my organic machine. That choice involves only a subset of me, certain parts of my nervous system process the information I'm receiving and send the signals to the tendons which move my arms, wrists, hands, and fingers to type.

This is in the same way that a chess robot decides which candidate move to make using its RAM before sending that signal to a monitor, though. The machine is ultimately responsible for calculating and making that decision, which is wholly internal to it. It is not being manually forced to enter a specific piece of data by another person or some other external thing. In that sense, it is making that decision freely; i.e., on its own or automatically.

This is a big part of why I think the concept of "consciousness" or "mind" is usually incoherent, too. Does a chess bot have a mind? Do the pieces exist for it in a phenomenological sense? If so, then there's no hard problem of consciousness. If not, then we don't have minds or experience phenomenological objects, either.