Do you Think we have Free Will

[Samael_Khan]

* In this context Free Will is defined as the ability to make choices that are not fully determined by past events nor fully random

I know this is a hard question and that nobody claims to have 100% certanity..... but in your opinion what is more likely to be true?... do you think humans have the aility to make choices ?

We certainly act and perceive as if people make choices, which is why the word choice exists. So I would bet on that as more likely to be true.

 

[PureX]

You dont agree that consciousness enables independent thought?

Doesn't that disagreement prove free will in itself?

 

[Koldo]

You dont agree that consciousness enables independent thought?

No, I don't. But other than consciousness, would you say there is anything else in nature that doesn't follow hard determinism?

 

[Koldo]

Doesn't that disagreement prove free will in itself?

How so?
Must disagreement entail the existence of free will?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True .. many Muslims also, think that the future is "set in stone", and assume that G-d "sets it".
The correct belief in my understanding, is that the future is INDEED "set in stone", just as the past is..
..but it is not G-d, per se, that sets it (G-d is not a person) .. it is more complex than that.
The future is set by our own actions, as well as by "acts of God".

Many people can't understand how something can be known, if it hasn't happened yet.
That is because we perceive 'time' as being absolute, whereas it is only our perception.
G-d's perception is different .. i.e. time is relative to the observer .. yet G-d is not PART
of this physical universe.

Then your worldview suffers from the same conundrum.
You can't have free will in the same universe as a universe of which the future is "set in stone".


To illustrate using a simple example:

If your god knows my future and knows that I will order a steak tonight at the restaurant, do I then still have the free will to choose chicken instead?

Free will is, after all, the ability to freely choose between several options. If it is however known before hand what I will choose, then at best I only have the illusion of "freely" choosing that which I am already determined to choose.

 

[Bthoth]

No, I don't. But other than consciousness, would you say there is anything else in nature that doesn't follow hard determinism?

So you wish to remove consciousness as the premise?


On the topic of:

'Do you think we have free will?'

I think, 'hard determinism' is based on the 'cause-effect' premise. A man made criteria, which is not a law of physics or nature. It's about like the 'hot to cold' model that lacks causality in itself.

 

[Bthoth]

Doesn't that disagreement prove free will in itself?

The choice is individual.

 

[PureX]

How so?
Must disagreement entail the existence of free will?

Not disagreement, choice.

Once you perceive a choice, you have free will. Determinism is irrelevant so long as we perceive a choice. And we do. Doesn't matter if the choice we make is 'determined' by some invisible force or not. It's still a choice to us, and we still get to make it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

To you maybe. Not to me though.



Can you elaborate?

If the universe is fully deterministic, then the future is already decided. Which means there is no difference in principle between past and future, since both are determined from the very beginning - indeed, the beginning, if it can be identified at all, cannot be distinguished from the end.

In this case the apparent order in the universe is not a product of the flow of time, which, past and present being undifferentiated in principle, is shown to be an illusion. And without a flow of time, without that linear order, cause and effect cannot by definition be distinguished from each other. What we have is correlation, configuration, order, but not cause and effect, since cause and effect are temporal phenomena.

 

[PureX]

If the universe is fully deterministic, then the future is already decided. Which means there is no difference in principle between past and future, since both are determined from the very beginning - indeed, the beginning, if it can be identified at all, cannot be distinguished from the end.

In this case the apparent order in the universe is not a product of the flow of time, which, past and present being undifferentiated in principle, is shown to be an illusion. And without a flow of time, without that linear order, cause and effect cannot by definition be distinguished from each other. What we have is correlation, configuration, order, but not cause and effect, since cause and effect are temporal phenomena.

It's consciousness that throws a wrench into all that determinism. The fact that it exists defies the logic of determinism. There is no logical reason for a determined existence to experience self-awareness. And yet it does. Through us. And we are determining ourselves by the choices we see, and make, within it, regardless of any pre-determinism.

 

[Koldo]

So you wish to remove consciousness as the premise?


On the topic of:

'Do you think we have free will?'

I think, 'hard determinism' is based on the 'cause-effect' premise. A man made criteria, which is not a law of physics or nature. It's about like the 'hot to cold' model that lacks causality in itself.

Do you disagree that causality exists?

 

[Koldo]

Not disagreement, choice.

Once you perceive a choice, you have free will. Determinism is irrelevant so long as we perceive a choice. And we do. Doesn't matter if the choice we make is 'determined' by some invisible force or not. It's still a choice to us, and we still get to make it.

Suffices to say that's not what the term 'free will' means in the debate concerning it's existence.

 

[Koldo]

If the universe is fully deterministic, then the future is already decided.

I agree.

Which means there is no difference in principle between past and future, since both are determined from the very beginning - indeed, the beginning, if it can be identified at all, cannot be distinguished from the end.

I have no idea how you have reached this conclusion. Pick any film. The beginning, the end and everything in-between is set in stone. Why wouldn't I be able to distinguish the beginning of the movie from it's end?

 

[Bthoth]

Do you disagree that causality exists?

It does exist in a very crude form, just like the 'hot to cold' model of thermodynamics.

 

[Koldo]

It does exist in a very crude form, just like the 'hot to cold' model of thermodynamics.

Why do you think this way?

 

[RestlessSoul]

It's consciousness that throws a wrench into all that determinism. The fact that it exists defies the logic of determinism. There is no logical reason for a determined existence to experience self-awareness. And yet it does. Through us. And we are determining ourselves by the choices we see, and make, within it, regardless of any pre-determinism.

Agreed. Several philosophers and a handful of scientists have recognised that no account of the universe can be complete, unless it includes an account of consciousness.

Indeed, a full description of any phenomenon must include a description of all related phenomena, including and perhaps especially, the consciousness of the observer.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I agree.



I have no idea how you have reached this conclusion. Pick any film. The beginning, the end and everything in-between is set in stone. Why wouldn't I be able to distinguish the beginning of the movie from it's end?

If you played the film backwards, it would end at the beginning. The narrative might not make much sense to you, but sense and narrative are functions of perception and understanding.

 

[Koldo]

If you played the film backwards, it would end at the beginning. The narrative might not make much sense to you, but sense and narrative are functions of perception and understanding.

If you change the direction towards which the time is flowing, you indeed end in the "beginning". And therefore... ?

 

[PureX]

Suffices to say that's not what the term 'free will' means in the debate concerning it's existence.

Free will "exists" by recognition. It is a state of mind (will). A cognitive assessment. Not a physical property. That's why determinism is irrelevant once we recognize a choice.

 

[Koldo]

Free will "exists" by recognition. It is a state of mind (will). A cognitive assessment. Not a physical property. That's why determinism is irrelevant once we recognize a choice.

Once again, suffices to say that your definition has nothing to do with the debate concerning the existence of free will.