Do you Think we have Free Will

[leroy]

On regards to whether foreknowledge is compatible with the existence of free will? If so, yes.



This is a good question and the answer is going to depend on how we understand free will and what is the reason for this uncertainty. Uncertainty does not entail free will in itself, but some degree of it is a basic requeriment.

Perhaps there is something that I am missing, but I just don’t see why would the knowledge of an external observer affect my freedom?

My 90% and 50% question was related to the relation between foreknowledge and freedom………… does more knowledge lead to more freedom?......... does knowledge progresivley removes freedom,……… ?

Someone who knows me like a friend would know with 90% certainty that I would pick chocolate icecream rather than vanilla icecream.

A random guy would have no idea, so he would be 50% certain.

Am I less free while my friend is observing me? (NO)

So why do things change if I change 90% for 100%? why do I dsuddenly los emy freedom with the 100% and not with the 90%

 

[leroy]

A murderer wants to kill someone and acts in accordance to their own will. This is what distinguishes a murderer. It doesn't matter if that will is free.

what would be "non free will"?

as far as I know will and free will are synonymous

 

[Koldo]

Perhaps there is something that I am missing, but I just don’t see why would the knowledge of an external observer affect my freedom?

My 90% and 50% question was related to the relation between foreknowledge and freedom………… does more knowledge lead to more freedom?......... does knowledge progresivley removes freedom,……… ?

Someone who knows me like a friend would know with 90% certainty that I would pick chocolate icecream rather than vanilla icecream.

A random guy would have no idea, so he would be 50% certain.

Am I less free while my friend is observing me? (NO)

So why do things change if I change 90% for 100%? why do I dsuddenly los emy freedom with the 100% and not with the 90%

Because being 90% certain leaves room for uncertainty, whereas being 100% certainty no room for uncertainty. And uncertainty is a basic requeriment for free will. The 90% means you have inclinations towards certain things, but that sometimes you can act contrary to those inclinations. The 100% means your inclinations dictate your every move.

I am not saying that the existence of an observer that knows with 100% certainty what you are going to choose removes your free will. I am saying that if said observer could exist, even in principle, this means you don't have free will.

To put it another way: Imagine I tell you that I have a glass in front of me completely filled with soda. You don't know the brand or if I decided to mix different things. But since I told you there is only soda in my glass, this means there is no alcohol in it. It is the same with free will, the existence of 100% certainty excludes free will, because free will requires uncertainty in my drink, the glass can't be completely filled with certainty.

I don't like this terminology but it will help getting my point across: To someone that believes in libertarian free will, if person A could know 100% of the choices made by person B beforehand, this would entail that person B is a robot.

This also has religious implications because it would mean that God knows beforehand that people will get themselves in hell and doesn't prevent it from happening. If 100% certainty doesn't exist then there is no way God could always prevent people from getting themselves into hell.

 

[Koldo]

what would be "non free will"?

as far as I know will and free will are synonymous

They are not. Will is what compels you to consciously act in any given way. It is my will to type this message, for example, which is why I am doing it.

Free will though is the capacity to have chosen otherwise. It is the capacity to make choices that are neither bound by hard determinism nor raw indeterminism (pure randomness).

 

[Copernicus]

That is not the definition of free-will that's being discussed, as far as I can see.

People have been asked to offer their own definition of free will, if they disagreed with the ones offered in the OP and subsequently. My definition is contingent on being allowed to offer a definition I thought more appropriate.

"An agent is free to do otherwise, if they can do otherwise, if they want to do otherwise"

It has nothing to do with the psychology of WHY they make that particular choice..
..unless they are mentally incapacitated.

Not true. According to my definition, the psychology of WHY depends on which of the options available to the agent fulfills their greatest desire. Desire is what compels the agent's action.

I think most people would agree they SHARE the blame.

I don't claim to know what most people would agree to on the subject of external agencies gulling them into making bad choices.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Hello fellow internal medicine man.

Hello. Good to know. As you know, the internist is the specialist other types of doctors go to for answers about their patients.

I am saying there is no evidence that exists right know that shows free will is a pure illusion.

I disagree, but can stipulate to that. Elsewhere, you wrote, "The studies that show we have made decisions before we can consciously express them is consistent with this integration and the shows the time lag between making a decision and expressing it for others to know." This is evidence for me that will is not free from the perspective of the self-aware self, but rather is determined outside of consciousness and not by the self.

I am saying that despite deterministic conditions new event unpredicted can occur even if probability says they cannot.

I'm not sure what you mean. If something has zero probability of occurring, it won't occur. If it occurs, it had a non-zero chance of occurring. If we thought otherwise and the event occurs, we were wrong about the probability being zero.

How do you know if that empirical test (walking streets) has ever been done?........ how do you know that the alleged test was real and not a dream?

I have a memory of doing it and of having acted on that information and gotten the desired result. That is enough to act on that belief again in the future. I understand the philosophical objections. As I noted, that might all be the illusion of a brain in a vat. But recall the lines, "All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false." We don't need to know for certain that our memories and perceptions aren't illusions, just that those beliefs are expected to produce desired outcomes based in the memory that they have before.

It seems to me that ether

1 you become agnostic about the location of your house (and the existence of your house).............This is the type of absurdities that I am talking about.

Or

2 just make a leap of faith and trust that you where awake, because it really *felt* that you where awake during the experiment . (in other words accept something that can´t be proven empirically

The second is more accurate. But remember, what has been empirically demonstrated is that a given idea works, not that the metaphysical assumptions inherent in the mental model relied upon are correct. The perceived world out there can be very different from the mental model as was the case with the video car driving game, where the "driver" is not actually operating a vehicle and what appears to be a view of the ambient environment through a windshield is just looking at an opaque monitor.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now you are being pedantic..

No. I'm being accurate.

If there is "no future line", then there IS no future. It HAS to be something!

The future line doesn't exist yet because it hasn't yet occurred.

Today becomes yesterday!

Yes. Becomes. The point exactly.

..determined by WHAT/WHO???

Doesn't matter to the point.

..and what do you mean by "already"???

You're the one who claimed that it's possible to know with certainty what the future is.
If that is the case, then the future is fixed. Meaning that all future choices are fixed also. This means that they aren't really "choices", but rather compulsions which at best masquarade as choices.

If it can already be known, by whatever means, that I WILL eat steak tomorrow, then I am not free to choose chicken instead.
Then at best I only have the illusion of being able to choose chicken, but really I'm forced (by whatever means) to go for steak.

Again, can't have it both ways.

"potential" .. but there WILL only be one series of events ..

And that one series of events will only be known once it occurs, if free will exists.
If it can be known what it will be before it occurs, then free will can not exist.

The point. You keep missing it.

we call it our destiny.

Destiny and free will can not exist in the same universe.
A destiny is an inescapable future. Only series of events can lead up to a specific destiny.
So if there is such a thing as "destiny", a fixed specific future, then free will can not exist.

"already" ??
From the perspective of whom? Our perspective I assume you mean.
Well they are NOT already determined, from our perspective.

From the perspective of anybody.
It doesn't matter which one. It doesn't matter if we are able to know it or not.
If it is knowable for anybody through whatever means, then it's fixed and not free.

Again, can't have it both ways.
Either the future is certain and free will doesn't exist
or
The future is uncertain and free will exists (and destiny does not)

No, not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily.
If it is my destiny (=inescapable future) to be a doctor, then I am not free to choose to become a plumber.
At best, I will become a doctor while being under the illusion that I freely choose to become a doctor. But really, I had no other choice as it was my pre-determined destiny. Pre-determined by whatever means.

You get to choose what you WANT to choose. We perceive the time-line as flowing at a certain rate,
but that is exactly the point of the creation i.e. the universe
It's as if some intelligent agent (G-d), has constructed an environment that He has control over.
Time, as we perceive it, is part of the creation. G-d does not exist in His creation, but sees what He has created. i.e. He is omniscient .. not subject to the space-time that He created

None of this changes the point.
We're back to the movie analogy.
If the ending / plot of the universe is fixed, if "destiny" exists, then none of us have free will.

"pre-determined" makes no sense in that context.
It is the word "pre" .. there IS no "pre" from G-d's perspective. What we perceive as "not happened yet",
G-d sees as completed .. but it is more complex than that.
The maths gets tricky .. because of the constant "c" i.e. speed of light

Trying to confuse matters with relativity is not going to help your argument.
Also, what do you expect me to answer here?
"ow, it's tricky and complex.... right, therefor you are correct"?

Well we do NOT know .. it is our decisions that form our destiny.

It doesn't matter if "we" know or not. The point is about if it is knowable at all, by anyone.
If it is, then free will can't exist.

Free will can only exist in a universe that has an uncertain future from any perspective.

Decisions that are made with our own free-will.
It is just that G-d is "outside of the bubble" we call the universe i.e. space-time

I already addressed this. Putting the observer outside of the universe (whatever that means) does not change anything.
In fact it only makes it even worse.

Of course it isn't.
The issue we are discussing involves time i.e. predetermined and what not

I'm outside the movie and know the plot.
The actors in the movie don't have any free choices. They can only follow the pre-determined script.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The future line doesn't exist yet because it hasn't yet occurred.

Yes .. we perceive that it hasn't yet occurred .. which is why the series of events we call the future
is unknown i.e. the line cannot be "filled in"

Yes. Becomes. The point exactly.

I haven't argued otherwise..

Doesn't matter to the point.

Oh, but it does!
That is the crux of the matter .. WHAT/WHO determines the future series of events.

You're the one who claimed that it's possible to know with certainty what the future is.

Really?
I can't think of one single person, who knows of their destiny.
I don't believe in soothsayers..

If that is the case, then the future is fixed. Meaning that all future choices are fixed also. This means that they aren't really "choices", but rather compulsions which at best masquarade as choices.

You are the one missing the point here.
You say that they aren't "really choices", but fail to tell us who/what is making the choices.
I say that it is US making the choices .. we have no idea what our destiny actually is.
i.e. we do not perceive what the series of events called 'the future' actually are

If it can already be known, by whatever means, that I WILL eat steak tomorrow, then I am not free to choose chicken instead.

It's a fallacious argument .. you can't tell me what/who is "doing the choosing".
I say it is YOU .. you want to choose steak .. and if you had wanted to choose otherwise,
then your destiny would have been so.

And that one series of events will only be known once it occurs, if free will exists.

Yes, from our perspective .. no from the perspective of an agent 'looking into the space-time bubble'
from outside it.

So if there is such a thing as "destiny", a fixed specific future, then free will can not exist..

Yes it can .. the past is a fixed series of events, and the future is a fixed series of events.
IT IS JUST THAT WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS!!

..but an agent outside the space-time bubble would know.

From the perspective of anybody.
It doesn't matter which one. It doesn't matter if we are able to know it or not.
If it is knowable for anybody through whatever means, then it's fixed and not free.

You view time as immutable .. it's not .. it is a perception that the future has not happened yet.
Imagine that time is really flowing backwards, and what you think is tomorrow, you experienced yesterday.
Of course we dismiss it, because we perceive that time flows the other way .
..but it still remains a perception.

With all your protests, you take your perception of time to be "real", i.e. time as an absolute phenomena
It's not.

Either the future is certain and free will doesn't exist
or
The future is uncertain and free will exists (and destiny does not)

You can't think "outside the box" .. "outside of your perception" .. "outside of the universe".
All your conclusions are based on "what hasn't happened yet" is meaningful on a cosmic scale.

Imagine you are an agent outside the space-time bubble .. what do you see???

It doesn't matter if "we" know or not. The point is about if it is knowable at all, by anyone.
If it is, then free will can't exist.

Free will can only exist in a universe that has an uncertain future from any perspective.

that is your perception, that comes from the arrow of time.
You are happy about the past being fixed, but not the future.

The past is fixed by our choices .. and so is the future.
An agent outside the universe sees all .. but the future is hidden from, our perspective.
If it was NOT hidden, then I would agree .. NO FREE WILL.

I'm outside the movie and know the plot.
The actors in the movie don't have any free choices. They can only follow the pre-determined script.

Oh boy! The flow of time is a perception .. Einstein knew this.

 

[Bear Wild]

I disagree, but can stipulate to that. Elsewhere, you wrote, "The studies that show we have made decisions before we can consciously express them is consistent with this integration and the shows the time lag between making a decision and expressing it for others to know." This is evidence for me that will is not free from the perspective of the self-aware self, but rather is determined outside of consciousness and not by the self.

Why are you limiting free will with just consciousness. Will is to wish, desire; choose, or prefer. Free in this case means to be able to respond outside of the predicted from the current deterministic factors. Desire, wish, preferences and wishes are not limited to the conscious brain. These are generated before we have the conscious recognition. The conscious recognition can then feed back to the rest of the brain to make modifications but the decisions are generated from deep within and then expressed in the conscious. That does not mean the the desire and decisions cannot deviate from the deterministic setting. There are choices that are novel responses unexplained by the deterministic factors. The error often in these discussions is we see ourselves as a top down species and all others are bottom up. This is what is significant on these imaging studies that show we are bottom up then modified by the top feeding back to the unconscious brain.

 

[leroy]

Because being 90% certain leaves room for uncertainty, whereas being 100% certainty no room for uncertainty. And uncertainty is a basic requeriment for free will. The 90% means you have inclinations towards certain things, but that sometimes you can act contrary to those inclinations. The 100% means your inclinations dictate your every move.

I am not saying that the existence of an observer that knows with 100% certainty what you are going to choose removes your free will. I am saying that if said observer could exist, even in principle, this means you don't have free will.

To put it another way: Imagine I tell you that I have a glass in front of me completely filled with soda. You don't know the brand or if I decided to mix different things. But since I told you there is only soda in my glass, this means there is no alcohol in it. It is the same with free will, the existence of 100% certainty excludes free will, because free will requires uncertainty in my drink, the glass can't be completely filled with certainty.

I don't like this terminology but it will help getting my point across: To someone that believes in libertarian free will, if person A could know 100% of the choices made by person B beforehand, this would entail that person B is a robot.

This also has religious implications because it would mean that God knows beforehand that people will get themselves in hell and doesn't prevent it from happening. If 100% certainty doesn't exist then there is no way God could always prevent people from getting themselves into hell.

well for me that is far from clear, (let alone necesairly true)

 

[Koldo]

well for me that is far from clear, (let alone necesairly true)

Let's entertain the idea that it is possible to be 100% certain of what someone is going to choose and also for that same person to have free will. What is the distinction between an individual A that has free will and an individual B that doesn't?

 

[Whateverist]

I don’t even think it is a meaningful question.

 

[viole]

I know this is a hard question

That is not hard at all. Basic physics, really.
The answer is, according to the premises and definitions, NO. Of course.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leroy]

Hello. Good to know. As you know, the internist is the specialist other types of doctors go to for answers about their patients.

I disagree, but can stipulate to that. Elsewhere, you wrote, "The studies that show we have made decisions before we can consciously express them is consistent with this integration and the shows the time lag between making a decision and expressing it for others to know." This is evidence for me that will is not free from the perspective of the self-aware self, but rather is determined outside of consciousness and not by the self.

I'm not sure what you mean. If something has zero probability of occurring, it won't occur. If it occurs, it had a non-zero chance of occurring. If we thought otherwise and the event occurs, we were wrong about the probability being zero.

I have a memory of doing it and of having acted on that information and gotten the desired result. That is enough to act on that belief again in the future. I understand the philosophical objections. As I noted, that might all be the illusion of a brain in a vat. But recall the lines, "All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if B is true, then doing A will achieve D. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false." We don't need to know for certain that our memories and perceptions aren't illusions, just that those beliefs are expected to produce desired outcomes based in the memory that they have before.

The second is more accurate. But remember, what has been empirically demonstrated is that a given idea works, not that the metaphysical assumptions inherent in the mental model relied upon are correct. The perceived world out there can be very different from the mental model as was the case with the video car driving game, where the "driver" is not actually operating a vehicle and what appears to be a view of the ambient environment through a windshield is just looking at an opaque monitor.

I have a memory of doing it and of having acted on that information and gotten the desired result.

granted, but you can´t prove empirically that you have that memory. my poitn being that there are things that you "know" (with high degree of confidence) despite the fact you can´t prove them empirically.

 

[leroy]

Let's entertain the idea that it is possible to be 100% certain of what someone is going to choose and also for that same person to have free will. What is the distinction between an individual A that has free will and an individual B that doesn't?

That person A had the ability to do X rather than Y,. and person B was fully constrained to do X.

They both choose X but person A could have chosen Y.

Why would free choices have to be unpredictable?....... if free choices where necesairly unpredictable , what would be the difference between a random choice and a free choice…. ?

I simply dont grant that
Free = impossible to predict ......... I dont see why it follows

 

[Koldo]

That person A had the ability to do X rather than Y,. and person B was fully constrained to do X.

They both choose X but person A could have chosen Y.

Why would free choices have to be unpredictable?....... if free choices where necesairly unpredictable , what would be the difference between a random choice and a free choice…. ?

I simply dont grant that
Free = impossible to predict ......... I dont see why it follows

If it is necessarily the case that individual A will choose to do X, how exactly is individual A not fully constrained? How can you say he could have chosen to do Y if he would necessarily do X?

I take it we both agree that individual A and individual B can share the same mental states towards their choices, the same perception that they could have chosen otherwise. Both will also necessarily choose X. If their mental state is the same and the inevitability of their choice is the same, I see absolutely no distinction between those individuals. To say individual A could have chosen otherwise, on this context, is therefore devoid of any meaning.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If it is necessarily the case that individual A will choose to do X, how exactly is individual A not fully constrained? How can you say he could have chosen to do Y if he would necessarily do X?

The argument is fallacious.
You say "if" he will choose X, he is forced to choose it. He's not.
The destiny is formed by the choice, and not the other way around, as you suggest.

 

[Copernicus]

Let's entertain the idea that it is possible to be 100% certain of what someone is going to choose and also for that same person to have free will. What is the distinction between an individual A that has free will and an individual B that doesn't?

That person A had the ability to do X rather than Y,. and person B was fully constrained to do X.

First of all, person B also had the ability to do X, so what you are doing here is ignoring Koldo's stipulation that one knows that A will choose X rather than Y.

They both choose X but person A could have chosen Y.

But person B could also have chosen Y, too, since you already knew that neither individual would choose Y. So you really haven't explained the incompatibility that you think exists between fully determined choice and free will. The reality is that persons A and B both chose to do X rather than Y, and you knew that both would make that choice (given Koldo's stipulation of omniscience). What constrained A and B to actually do X? At the choice point, both wanted to do X. That compelled their choice. Free will is fully compatible with determinism. It is only an imagined reality in which Y could have been chosen by either individual. But for person A, you imagine him being able to choose Y. For person B, you refuse to take that imaginary leap.

Why would free choices have to be unpredictable?....... if free choices where necesairly unpredictable , what would be the difference between a random choice and a free choice…. ?

My answer to that is that free choices do not have to be unpredictable. What makes them free is not that the chain of causation could have been broken in reality but that the individual making the choice had options that he or she could conceivably make under different circumstances. So it is possible for people to regret not choosing to make a different choice in hindsight. The chooser takes an imaginary leap into the future when making a choice, and makes the choice as if he or she were omniscient, i.e. knew what the future outcome would be.

I simply dont grant that
Free = impossible to predict ......... I dont see why it follows

Well, that really depends on how you frame the ability to predict. Perfect knowledge of the future--Koldo's stipulation--is one perspective. From that perspective, the choice is fully predictable, but based on the agent's greatest desire at the time of choice. Perfect knowledge entails knowing what that desire will be for that point in time and the outcomes of all possible actions. An alternative frame of reference would be that of the person who actually makes the choice. That person does not know the future, so making a choice is always going to entail a certain level of uncertainty. Choices must always be made at a point in time when it is impossible for the chooser to predict the outcome, but an action has to be taken anyway.

Let me repeat the point differently. Omniscience--total predictability of future outcomes--reveals the deterministic causal chain of events. It is lack of the omniscient perspective that renders outcomes unpredictable. Hence, what gives us the illusion of indeterminism is the perspective that you choose as a referential frame--omniscience or lack of omniscience. Choosing lack of omniscience makes it look like choices are "free". Choosing omniscience makes it look like they are not.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Let me repeat the point differently. Omniscience--total predictability of future outcomes--reveals the deterministic causal chain of events. It is lack of the omniscient perspective that renders outcomes unpredictable. Hence, what gives us the illusion of indeterminism is the perspective that you choose as a referential frame--omniscience or lack of omniscience. Choosing lack of omniscience makes it look like choices are "free". Choosing omniscience makes it look like they are not.

Yes .. something like that..
..but of course, if we assume that there IS a future (and the universe hasn't ceased to exist, for example),
one can argue that the series of events HAS to be something.

The determinist will say ah! , if it is "fixed", we are not making choices, we are merely
"following the script".

..but that is faulty reasoning .. it is our choices that "fix" it!

 

[Bear Wild]

I never proposed Free Will in and of itself is an illusion. I advocate of limited Free Will. What is an illusion is Libertarian Free Will, mainly because many exterior factors, and inherited evolved factors that limit our Free Will choices.

I do agree you. Free will is embedded in the deterministic would around it. There is no free will without influence but within that setting it still is present. If you get time I would like to know the studies you inferred as evidence.