Do You Believe in Free Will?

[Willamena]

Sure, I never denied it. My point is that I don't think Descartes' method of doubt results in "I think therefore I am". I think the method of doubt leads to "there are thoughts". I said I think to infer an 'I' from the method of doubt requires a leap.
I dipped my toe into my (probably poor) understanding of Kant to answer Matt's question as to how thought could exist without an agent. I tried to lay out how I think he was saying that doubt belongs to the unity of consciousness that defines my point of view. This requires no leap to infer an 'I'

It's not about denying it, but affirming it. What is "the method" of doubt?

 

[sandandfoam]

It's not about denying it, but affirming it. What is "the method" of doubt?

The method of doubt is to reject any and all aspects of experience where the reality of the experience can be doubted.
I can doubt that I exist but not that there are thoughts, in my view, working from Lichtenberg and Kant, the method of doubt does not affirm the existence of a subjective viewpoint.

 

[McBell]

Yes? No? Why or why not?

My inclination is to think that our choices are not entirely free. That is, we have a choice of A, B, and C in a given situation. Using reason, we can choose one course of action while rejecting the other two.

That is, I can choose one career path over another. etc

Thoughts?

James

yes, I have free will.
I am free to do whatever I want.
However, there are certian things that limit what I can do, regardless of how badly I want to do them.
For example, it matters not that I am free to fly around like Superman.
I lack the ability to do so.

There are also things that influence my decisions.
laws, morals, ethics, beliefs, fears, etc.

 

[Magic Man]

The method of doubt is to reject any and all aspects of experience where the reality of the experience can be doubted.
I can doubt that I exist but not that there are thoughts, in my view, working from Lichtenberg and Kant, the method of doubt does not affirm the existence of a subjective viewpoint.

That's the point. Who is rejecting any and all aspects of experience? Doubting something is more than just a thought. It is a thought about a thought, and can only be achieved by an agent.

Even if you think DesCartes can only prove that thoughts exist, the fact that some of those thoughts are of "I", and those "I" thoughts claim possession of other thoughts, would mean that the "I" exists, right?

For instance, I doubt that God exists. But for that to happen, mustn't God exist somehow? I can only doubt things which have been realized, right?

 

[sandandfoam]

That's the point. Who is rejecting any and all aspects of experience?

Descartes is.

 

[sandandfoam]

Even if you think DesCartes can only prove that thoughts exist, the fact that some of those thoughts are of "I", and those "I" thoughts claim possession of other thoughts, would mean that the "I" exists, right?

Wrong

Among recent writers, perhaps the most sceptical about unity of consciousness existing at all is Rosenthal. Rosenthal is convinced that all we have is a “sense of the unity of consciousness” (1986, p. 344, emphasis added). Why merely a sense? On his view, “Mental states are conscious, when they are, in virtue of their being accompanied by HOTs [higher-order thoughts] and each HOT represents its target as belonging to the individual who also thinks the HOT in question” (Rosenthal 2002, p. 15). Across a range of such self-ascriptions, one develops a sense of being their common subject. However, this sense could be wrong. The experiences thus ascribed, says Rosenthal, could be supported by or located in a diversity of subjects. It is because of this possibility that Rosenthal asserts that all we have is a sense of consciousness being unified.

 

[Magic Man]

Descartes is.

Exactly. Descartes is, not nobody. Somebody is. I was not actually looking for an answer, it was more rhetorical. The point of the question was to show that someone is rejecting those things.

I see what you're saying. What I'm saying is that since thoughts exist, a consciousness exists. Since that consciousness exists, we call it "I". Descartes goal was not to prove that you, or I or Cristiano Ronaldo exist, but that Descartes existed. I know for myself that I exist because I can doubt everything. Descartes knew the same about himself. There is no way for you to prove to me that you exist, but you can prove to yourself that you do.

Thoughts exist, and a consciousness exists, and since Descartes was the one doubting this, this proved to him that he existed. I can't know that for sure, but I can know that I doubt, and that these thoughts exist, and so I exist.

 

[idea]

if God is truly omniscient then He knows exactly what we will do, and if the future can be known then what choice do we have?

knowing the future and causing it are two different things.
Free will can still exist with a deterministic future. Self-determinism is free will.

It's not about denying it, but affirming it. What is "the method" of doubt?

Id, Ego, Superego. It seems to me that all of our thoughts are not our own. Many thoughts enter my mind that I know did not originate in my own head. If I was the one that thought of it, I would never have any little internal arguments.
Doubt is proof that our thoughts are not our own - that some thoughts come from external sources

Our ability to argue with our own thoughts is proof of our free will.

 

[sandandfoam]

What I'm saying is that since thoughts exist, a consciousness exists. Since that consciousness exists, we call it "I".

We could be mistaken

Descartes goal was not to prove that you, or I or Cristiano Ronaldo exist, but that Descartes existed. I know for myself that I exist because I can doubt everything. Descartes knew the same about himself. There is no way for you to prove to me that you exist, but you can prove to yourself that you do.

I cannot prove it, I can believe it, but I cannot prove it.

Thoughts exist, and a consciousness exists, and since Descartes was the one doubting this, this proved to him that he existed. I can't know that for sure, but I can know that I doubt, and that these thoughts exist, and so I exist.

Thoughts exist, and a consciousness - did you mean to say this or did you mean to say thoughts exist, and consciousnesses exist?

 

[Magic Man]

We could be mistaken

Are you saying we could be mistaken that thoughts exist?

I cannot prove it, I can believe it, but I cannot prove it.

Right, and that's the point behind Descartes's proof. He's only proving to himself that he exists, and giving others the means to prove to themselves that they exist.

Thoughts exist, and a consciousness - did you mean to say this or did you mean to say thoughts exist, and consciousnesses exist?

I just meant that if thoughts exist, then so does a consciousness, and we call that consciousness "I".

 

[Magic Man]

knowing the future and causing it are two different things.
Free will can still exist with a deterministic future. Self-determinism is free will.

But, if the future can be known, then it is set in stone. (hehe, I'm a poet and don't know it ) If the future is set in stone, then we only have the illusion of free will. I can go back and forth on a decision all I want, but I can only ever make the one decision, or else the future is not set, and cannot be known. Technically, I can still choose whatever I want and it's not influenced, but if someone else can see the future, then to them I don't have free will.

 

[sandandfoam]

Are you saying we could be mistaken that thoughts exist?



Right, and that's the point behind Descartes's proof. He's only proving to himself that he exists, and giving others the means to prove to themselves that they exist.



I just meant that if thoughts exist, then so does a consciousness, and we call that consciousness "I".

You're missing my point, and I'm wandering off too. The method of doubt does not affirm the existence of an" I" - you asked how doubt could exist without an agent, I've suggested how. Your and Descartes perception of an 'I' could be a confusion, you may believe otherwise, but to do so requires a leap, that is my point.

 

[Magic Man]

You're missing my point, and I'm wandering off too. The method of doubt does not affirm the existence of an" I" - you asked how doubt could exist without an agent, I've suggested how. Your and Descartes perception of an 'I' could be a confusion, you may believe otherwise, but to do so requires a leap, that is my point.

No, I understand your point. Doubt and thought require a consciousness. We each label that consciousness "I". Descartes did it for himself, and we each do it for ourselves. "I think" or "I doubt" just expresses that something produces these thoughts, and that something is labelled "I". It's the same way the world doesn't exist without us. I realize the universe, because this consciousness makes it real. Whatever this consciousness is, is labelled "I".

 

[idea]

But, if the future can be known, then it is set in stone. (hehe, I'm a poet and don't know it ) If the future is set in stone, then we only have the illusion of free will. I can go back and forth on a decision all I want, but I can only ever make the one decision, or else the future is not set, and cannot be known. Technically, I can still choose whatever I want and it's not influenced, but if someone else can see the future, then to them I don't have free will.

I think the future is set in stone - but we are the ones who set it in stone, no one else. That means it is our will.
Another can see your future but cannot control it. The issue of free will is that of control, not of what is seen, or what is determined.

Time is perhaps an illusion:
8 Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

Consider yourself to be an eternal being outside the confines of time - you just are who you are, past, present, future, all rolled together as one.

It brings up another point, free will only exists for objects that are not created - are eternal with no beginning and no end. If it is created, then the object will always be nothing more than a product of the creator. Here is another link if interested... link

Things that get away from causality:

top-down self-driving feedback loops:
autocatalytic reaction: the reaction product is itself the catalyst for that reaction

see also
emergence: it is difficult to account for an emergent property's cause. These new qualities are irreducible to the system's constituent parts (Laughlin 2005).

example: birds:
deterministic reductionist view:
2 birds + 2 birds = 4 birds

emergent view:
2 birds + 2 birds = 4 birds + an ordered formation

the ordered formation is a new entity that does not exist on the LHS of the equation - is irreducible to the consituent parts. One bird flying all on it's own would never form a flock, the order arises from interactions and is not created out of the parts - does not come from the original building blocks... if that makes any sense... Anywyas, emergence gives us free will becuase it states that the reaction of a system is not always deduced from the history of what it is made out of...

Relativity - theory of relativity is emergence.
velocity, gravity, kinetic energy, potential energy - all of these things do not exist in the fundamental building blocks. They spring into existence during interactions. Anything requiring a reference frame to exist has free will - in that you cannot predict the formation of the quantity from the building blocks it is created from...

 

[Magic Man]

I think the future is set in stone - but we are the ones who set it in stone, no one else. That means it is our will.

Another can see your future but cannot control it. The issue of free will is that of control, not of what is seen, or what is determined.

But they don't have to control it. If they can see it, for all intents and purposes, it's like it already happened, and so can't be changed even by us. I am saying that, if the future is set already, just as the past is, then we have no control over it. If you see the future, and see that I am alive and well 30 years from now, I can't kill myself any time soon, or else the future changes, and you didn't actually see it. Therefore I don't have complete control over it.

 

[Kungfuzed]

If the future and the past are set in stone then so is the present. If the present is set in stone then choice is just an illusion. The illusion is revealed when you look at the past, present and future as one big event rather than breaking it down into a myriad of arbitrary points.

 

[sandandfoam]

I believe I have some freedom in how I feel about things, but I am not sure that I'm any more than a perspective on reality. That of me which is physical is bound by physical laws, my physical matter is stardust, it will be here after my physical death, it has been here since time began and will remain here. The atoms that comprise me are not distinct from the physical world, they are as much a part of the world as the mountains or the seas. It would seem obvious that it is also so for that of me which is transcendental - my mind, it is not distinct from the global consciousness, rather a perspective on it. Hence meaning is created between people rather than resting in them, hence when I look inside I see the same as when I gaze outside. I may have free will but only in so far as I may have a hand in how I feel about things.
When I think of how I feel about things the laughing buddhas always come to mind - there is something wryly amusing about it. An element of control over the feelings of a perspective is hardly something to get carried away about!

 

[idea]

I believe I have some freedom in how I feel about things, but I am not sure that I'm any more than a perspective on reality. That of me which is physical is bound by physical laws, my physical matter is stardust, it will be here after my physical death, it has been here since time began and will remain here. The atoms that comprise me are not distinct from the physical world, they are as much a part of the world as the mountains or the seas. It would seem obvious that it is also so for that of me which is transcendental - my mind, it is not distinct from the global consciousness, rather a perspective on it. Hence meaning is created between people rather than resting in them, hence when I look inside I see the same as when I gaze outside. I may have free will but only in so far as I may have a hand in how I feel about things.
When I think of how I feel about things the laughing buddhas always come to mind - there is something wryly amusing about it. An element of control over the feelings of a perspective is hardly something to get carried away about!

I like your descript.

"my mind, it is not distinct from the global consciousness, rather a perspective on it." - I disagree, I think we are individual entities. Diversity is proof that we are not all derived from the same origin. A single object floating alone in a void - there is no reason for it to split in two, and then three - there has to be more than one object... big bang no one object, many objects all crammed together - again, free will does not exist without multiple origins (although I think that there are no origin - no beginning, and no end - just a bunch of self-existing entities that are able to change form through their interactions with one another - self existing means self causal...)

"Hence meaning is created between people rather than resting in them" - this is emergence (from previous post).

IAn element of control over the feelings of a perspective is hardly something to get carried away about!

I think attitude / character etc. are the only things that really matter in the world. That is the only thing that really makes us alive...

Frankl Free Will quote:
“We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. … They offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken away from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.
“And there were always choices to make. Every day, every hour offered the opportunity to make a decision.” (Man’s Search for Meaning, trans. Ilse Lasch, rev. ed. [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962], p. 65.)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If the future and the past are set in stone then so is the present. If the present is set in stone then choice is just an illusion. The illusion is revealed when you look at the past, present and future as one big event rather than breaking it down into a myriad of arbitrary points.

Yea...I agree. I said something similar to this back in post #37 http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1196112-post37.html

 

[Willamena]

We could be mistaken

According to whose version? Who has the correct take, and whose takes are the misses?

Your and Descartes perception of an 'I' could be a confusion...

So you do believe in objective reality.