A challenge to show me wrong

[idav]

Our minds are the primary caused objects that cause other objects to take birth. So, assuming that the mind has freedom is an illusion. If you trace the chain of 'because', only the uncaused has the freedom.

Not just uncaused has the freedom. If the causation is 50/50 between 'A' and 'B' would we just be stuck unable to make a decision? Playing eenee meenee minee mo will not suffice.

 

[atanu]

Not just uncaused has the freedom. If the causation is 50/50 between 'A' and 'B' would we just be stuck unable to make a decision? Playing eenee meenee minee mo will not suffice.

Yes. That is true and that is the fight between ego mind and conscience mind. But finally the conscience wins out.

 

[idav]

Yes. That is true and that is the fight between ego mind and conscience mind. But finally the conscience wins out.

What if we told our conscience to take a hike? Our will would be gone.

 

[Willamena]

It's conscious, not conscience. They are different things.
/interjection

 

[atanu]

It's conscious, not conscience. They are different things.
/interjection

I of course mean conscience, which rarely is available to an average mind which is conscious only of the sensual.

 

[atanu]

What if we told our conscience to take a hike? Our will would be gone.

That is what we do as long as the conflict between ego mind-desires and the conscience does not become too paniful. But conscience catches up.

 

[RubyEyes]

Even if I am 1% correct there remains the effect of the subconscious to be known to be able to say 'there is free choice'.

As I said, I consider freedom within what we can do. There's also an effect to my decisions in the beach from the fact that I can't breathe underwater. If I could, I might dive deeper. But I can't, so I don't, and I don't consider that a limitation of my freedom.

That is not how most people understand free will.
I am not here to defend such or such definitions of free will so this particular subject has little importance to me.

After reading a bit on compatibilism, I consider you may be right. I certainly agree that we need a consistent definition of free will for it to have any signification. Doing what we want according to our preferences looks like 'free enough' to me.

How can i choose something if not using my preferences to decide?
There has to be 1 single choice that is prefered in every single moment.

Well, if it were not, then choosing wouldn't make sense or be useful.

Imagine you have three possible options: A, B and C.
You prefer B and C over A.
How do you decide which one to pick now?
I would say you will have a preference for B over C, or C over B at this moment which will then allow you to choose.
How do you solve this problem if not this way?

I agree with your solution.

I don't understand. What do you mean by this?

I think that if you can affirm that the soul is deterministic no matter what happens, then determinism won't be falsifiable and so it will still be the dead-end.

I will choose according to my will. That is correct.
You still have to explain how something non-physical instantly grants itself the possibility of being not determined by past events nor indetermined.
It seems logically incoherent to me.

It's coherent as long as determination remains physical. Since I have brought the soul as a non-physical entity, then you can't attribute the soul physical causation. I have no deep knowledge in the workings of the soul, but I see no immediate reason to grant it's deterministic, which would be the option you seem to imply. It has agency because it's an agent, it acts, with its own will, ultimately granted by God.

Causation is something we have described in terms of physical entities, part of the physical universe, so I can't see why it would apply to the soul. When you are sitting down, relaxing, and a thought suddenly pops into your mind, is that caused by anything physical? I don't know.

 

[atanu]

As I said, I consider freedom within what we can do. There's also an effect to my decisions in the beach from the fact that I can't breathe underwater. If I could, I might dive deeper. But I can't, so I don't, and I don't consider that a limitation of my freedom.

First, I am not talking of observable limitations alone. Second, even in this case you will never choose to dive deeper and die.

You are yet moving at surface I think you should read the OP again.

 

[RubyEyes]

First, I am not talking of observable limitations alone.

And you are right in talking about every limitation. That they are not observable doesn't change that they are limitations. If my unconscious, for any reason, forcefully impedes me from doing X, then that's not within my capabilities, so it has no place when discussing free will I think. Many of the time this is what happens, in a more subtle way, with primal instincts: fear of the darkness, to name one. But I think it's never a full limitation, so they are more like influences. And if they are there, I guess there's some meaning to them.

It's important not to confuse freedom with omnipotence.

Second, even in this case you will never choose to dive deeper and die.

Are you sure you understood the example? In this case there's no way I could die by diving deeper, because I can breathe underwater. That I can't breathe underwater, however, is not something I consider preventing my free will in normal human conditions. This was the point.

You are yet moving at surface I think you should read the OP again.

I may later, but I would appreciate if you simply pointed out what you think I'm missing. It would also be more handy.

 

[Koldo]

Of course everything is caused but I have just wanted to add something so I snipped this part. The question for me is whether or not we can choose against the greatest of causation. To clarify say if I'm 40% caused to choose 'A' and 60% caused to choose 'B' I think it is possible to choose A over B regardless of both being determined.

How would this choice be made without resorting chance?

 

[Koldo]

I think that if you can affirm that the soul is deterministic no matter what happens, then determinism won't be falsifiable and so it will still be the dead-end.

I haven't said that the soul is deterministic no matter what happens.
It could be indeterministic too, but that wouldn't generate free will either way.
That is what i am saying.

It's coherent as long as determination remains physical. Since I have brought the soul as a non-physical entity, thenyou can't attribute the soul physical causation. I have no deep knowledge in the workings of the soul, but I see no immediate reason to grant it's deterministic, which would be the option you seem to imply.

It may also be indeterministic, but considering our actions do not seem to be completely random then it is most likely deterministic.

It has agency because it's an agent, it acts, with its own will, ultimately granted by God.

You say this as if it meant something useful. Agents are still tied to the determinism. For starters, if God created our will then that is a cause-effect relation being observable in the non-physical realm.

Causation is something we have described in terms of physical entities, part of the physical universe, so I can't see why it would apply to the soul. When you are sitting down, relaxing, and a thought suddenly pops into your mind, is that caused by anything physical? I don't know.

It doesn't have to be caused by something physical.
It may be caused by something non-physical.
Determinism still stands. Determinism is nothing more than the strict cause-effect relation.

 

[idav]

It's conscious, not conscience. They are different things.
/interjection

That threw me off at first too but I figured he used the right word when he was comparing it to ego mind.

 

[idav]

How would this choice be made without resorting chance?

I suppose even if it were chance it is still caused.

Aside from that something to consider would be overcoming drug addiction. Someone could just tie you up or you can simply tie your mind up and over time you can loosen the straps.

 

[RubyEyes]

It may also be indeterministic, but considering our actions do not seem to be completely random then it is most likely deterministic.

You say this as if it meant something useful. Agents are still tied to the determinism. For starters, if God created our will then that is a cause-effect relation being observable in the non-physical realm.

But you're still using physical concepts and extending them to the non-physical. How can you be sure the same principles hold in another realm when, even in our own realm, we sometimes get causeless effects?

It doesn't have to be caused by something physical.
It may be caused by something non-physical.
Determinism still stands. Determinism is nothing more than the strict cause-effect relation.

It's very likely that an uncaused cause caused the universe, which is its effect (whether it is God or not), and you have granted causeless indetermination in the quantum level with chance. I'm proposing a third type, where there are uncaused causes which generate from a non-physical plane but take the physical form of decisions. They are influenced by physical factors, yes, but the final decision is something in which I think intervenes something else that is not fixed until the decision itself is made.

 

[atanu]

And you are right in talking about every limitation. That they are not observable doesn't change that they are limitations. If my unconscious, for any reason, forcefully impedes me from doing X, then that's not within my capabilities, so it has no place when discussing free will I think. .

Most, including me, will not be aware of unconscious pulls. Further, even within those limitations, the idea that you chose is only a mental notion that you chose. There is no way to prove that you could have chosen otherwise. The subject is whether the path you followed (and later rationalised as chosen) was laid out or not? I have no reason to believe that anything operating within nature is above the natural laws.

 

[Koldo]

But you're still using physical concepts and extending them to the non-physical. How can you be sure the same principles hold in another realm when, even in our own realm, we sometimes get causeless effects?

Because we are talking about the effects that the non-physical realm has on the physical one. In an analogy, if an invisible non-physical horn pierces my heart then the effect of this act will be observable, and if it is not observable then it is not a relevant event.

It's very likely that an uncaused cause caused the universe, which is its effect (whether it is God or not), and you have granted causeless indetermination in the quantum level with chance. I'm proposing a third type, where there are uncaused causes which generate from a non-physical plane but take the physical form of decisions. They are influenced by physical factors, yes, but the final decision is something in which I think intervenes something else that is not fixed until the decision itself is made.

An uncaused cause which generates from a non-physical plane and takes the physical form of decisions? That is fine, but you still have to fit the 'free will' in this scheme because it is certainly not an inherent attribute to what you propose.

It is important to keep the mind that the causeless indeterminated events are not under control. This is an important characteristic of them and which is why they are regarded as indeterministic events. If they were under some sort of strict control then they wouldn't be indeterministic. And this is the problem with trying to create a connection between them and 'free will'. The concept of free will requires control over events to exist.

 

[Willamena]

I of course mean conscience, which rarely is available to an average mind which is conscious only of the sensual.

I don't understand. Under what circumstances would conscience not be available?

 

[atanu]

I don't understand. Under what circumstances would conscience not be available?

When covered up by qualities of values-beliefs. It is very clear in terrorists. In most of us the veil is much more subtle, but has its effect nevertheless.

 

[Willamena]

When covered up by qualities of values-beliefs. It is very clear in terrorists. In most of us the veil is much more subtle, but has its effect nevertheless.

What does "the sensual" have to do with terrorists? I'm lost.

 

[atanu]

What does "the sensual" have to do with terrorists? I'm lost.

That would happen if I mixed contents of two posts, one of which was in response to a specific question. However, the use of the word 'sensual' by me was probably not appropriate.