Do you Think we have Free Will

[YoursTrue]

Thank you for listening to me. I will consider what you have said but I still believe the real illusion is the separation of the conscious and subconscious and not giving the credit to how the self extends well into the unconscious and can make decisions that although well embedded in the deterministic environment can still deviate from the expected from the deterministic factors. Will need to update myself in new information.

There is no doubt (in my mind) now that there is a connection of the conscious and subconscious. And obviously we may not be aware of it.

 

[Bear Wild]

There is no doubt (in my mind) now that there is a connection of the conscious and subconscious. And obviously we may not be aware of it.

Excellent. You see we can agree on some things even if we do not follow the same gods. Thank you.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It depends on how free the options are. Even in determinism there are possible choices within a very limited options.

No, it does not, but our choices are indeed predictable within a limited number of possible choices and sometimes specifically predictable.

True.

No, but the chains of past cause and effect events, culture, environment, and circumstances have a degree of force on future choices.


It depends on how we consider predetermined.

Just like quantum effects, chance always plays a major role on both events and choices.
The furth away in time an event is to a prediction the less the certainty.
The more complex the situation the greater the randomness of the conclusion.
There are no absolute certainties.
The uncertainty of chance and change is always present.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just like quantum effects, chance always plays a major role on both events and choices.

I have responded with references and numerous posts that document the present view of science that chance nor randomness do not play a role in the outcome of cause and effect events even in Quantum Mechanics. All outcomes of cause and effect occur within a limited range of possible outcomes.

ALL the event outcomes of Quantum Mechanics are predictable within a limited possible range of outcomes.

Fractal math described in Chaos Theory is the basis for the the variation of possible individual and chains of possible outcomes of cause and effect events with many variables.

The further away in time an event is to a prediction the less the certainty.

This to a degree true. when there are many variables as in predicting the weather the longer that range in the future predictions are made the wider the range of possible outcomes, but still within limits determined by Natural Laws, processes and the environment. Weather predictions in the temperate regions have a wider range of possible outcomes for long range predictions. than Arctic and Tropical have more accuracy of longe range prediction outcomes.

It still remains that the possible range of outcomes of individual events and chains of events is predictable within a limited range of possible outcomes.

The more complex the situation the greater the randomness of the conclusion.

There is no randomness regardless of the complexity except the timing of the individual event. References already provided. ALL cause and effect event outcomes occur within a range limited by Natural Laws and processes.

There are no absolute certainties.

True

The uncertainty of chance and change is always present.

No, references provided and details documented in at least on previous thread. This reference goes into detail concerning the bogus claims of complexity by Intelligent Design advocates.

See thread: The problems of the belief in 'Randomness' and use of probability in 'Intelligent Design.'

There was another thread I may refer to later.

 

[leroy]

?

If it is 100% certain that a given individual is going to choose X in the future, how is it not the case that this individual will necessarily choose X?

In my opinion it is very simple, the person´s knowledge would be determined by you.

The correct way to view this is:

1 given that you freely picked (or will pick) “A¨”………. I know that you would pick “A”

It is not like this

2 Given that I know that you will pick A, you will pick A….. (unlike case 1, in this case I see how your decision was fully determined, )

 

[Koldo]

In my opinion it is very simple, the person´s knowledge would be determined by you.

The correct way to view this is:

1 given that you freely picked (or will pick) “A¨”………. I know that you would pick “A”

It is not like this

2 Given that I know that you will pick A, you will pick A….. (unlike case 1, in this case I see how your decision was fully determined, )

But I am not saying 2 is true. I have never suggested that someone's knowledge over the future holds causal power to determine the future. What I am saying is that it is impossible to possess absolute knowledge about the future concerning someone's future choice if that future is not determined beforehand.

I am going to approach this from another angle: Imagine that Josh killed Joe. What the proponents of libertarian free will want to argue is that Josh not only used his free will to make that choice but also that Josh could have chosen otherwise (because the latter is a part of the former). To say that Josh could have chosen to refrain from killing Joe means that it was possible for Josh to choose differently. When we hold absolute knowledge over someone's future choice though this entails that such person will necessarily choose in a given way, and that it is impossible for any other alternative to be chosen in practice. If we agree that it was necessarily the case that Josh would choose to kill Joe, then it was impossible for any other alternative to be chosen. And if it was impossible for any other alternative to be chosen then Josh could not have chosen differently.

 

[leroy]

But I am not saying 2 is true. I have never suggested that someone's knowledge over the future holds causal power to determine the future. What I am saying is that it is impossible to possess absolute knowledge about the future concerning someone's future choice if that future is not determined beforehand.

I am going to approach this from another angle: Imagine that Josh killed Joe. What the proponents of libertarian free will want to argue is that Josh not only used his free will to make that choice but also that Josh could have chosen otherwise (because the latter is a part of the former). To say that Josh could have chosen to refrain from killing Joe means that it was possible for Josh to choose differently. When we hold absolute knowledge over someone's future choice though this entails that such person will necessarily choose in a given way, and that it is impossible for any other alternative to be chosen in practice. If we agree that it was necessarily the case that Josh would choose to kill Joe, then it was impossible for any other alternative to be chosen. And if it was impossible for any other alternative to be chosen then Josh could not have chosen differently.

I see your point

I grant that:

1 if you choose “A” I would necessarily Know “A” (Assuming that I have absolute knowledge)

and I gran that

2 If you choose B it would be impossible for me to know A

But you can still choose ether A or B, granting 1 and 2 doest exclude the possibility of freely choosing A or B

 

[Koldo]

I see your point

I grant that:

1 if you choose “A” I would necessarily Know “A” (Assuming that I have absolute knowledge)

and I gran that

2 If you choose B it would be impossible for me to know A

But you can still choose ether A or B, granting 1 and 2 doest exclude the possibility of freely choosing A or B

How can you claim there is the possibility of freely choosing B if you know for a fact that me choosing A is unavoidable?
No matter what happens, the future me will necessarily choose A. This is exactly contrary to free choices. You will need to elaborate on what you mean by 'free choice', because as it is you are either contradicting yourself or rendering the term devoid of meaning. How do you even distinguish a free choice from a choice that isn't free?

 

[Koldo]

I see your point

I grant that:

1 if you choose “A” I would necessarily Know “A” (Assuming that I have absolute knowledge)

and I gran that

2 If you choose B it would be impossible for me to know A

But you can still choose ether A or B, granting 1 and 2 doest exclude the possibility of freely choosing A or B

Upon further pondering over this subject, I think I may have realized what is the problem. You are taking into consideration my perspective as to when I make the choice to determine whether it is free and ignoring everything else. Surely, from my perspective, since I will able to entertain both alternatives, it is going to feel as if my choice could have gone both ways, regardless of whether you knew for a fact that I would choose in a given way. I could, from my perspective, have chosen either A or B. But this would hold true even in a fully deterministic universe. In other words, my perspective when making the choice ought not to be used to determine whether my choice is free.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you are accepting as truth stuff that you can´t show to be true empirically.

Disagree. My beliefs are commensurate with the quality and quantity of available relevant evidence. And it's not as simple as accepting a belief or rejecting it. For the critical thinker, belief is never 100% certain. There is always at least philosophical doubt even if there is no feeling of uncertainty, and belief in ideas about how the world works are semiquantitative ranging in degrees of possibility from possible but unlikely possible but likely to very likely to so likely that it would be unreasonable to seriously doubt the idea beyond philosophical doubt. Furthermore, such empirically justified beliefs are amenable to increases and decreases in the degree of belief pending the discovery of new evidence that makes them more or less likely to be correct.

I still think that on each of your commets you are grantining as truth things that you can´t show to be true *empirically”

I still disagree. I don't think you or anybody else can name an example of a belief that I hold that is not empirically (experientially) justified. I can't. I'm pretty experienced in critical thinking, and do it as automatically as saying please and thank you or looking both ways before crossing whenever confronted by a claim, and all for the same reason: they are cultivated habits of thought that eventually define behavior wherever applicable.

“You suggest”? how do you know that you made that suggestion? how can you prove it “empirically”?

Prove it to whom? Myself? You? And you know the problem with the word proof, which I am modifying to convincing demonstration.

I don't think I'm going to be able to explain this to you. It seems like you don't know what empiricism is. In a nutshell, it is the application of reason and one's fund of accumulated knowledge to the present evidence of the sense, which then increases one's fund of accumulated knowledge. How do I know that I made a suggestion? Use your eyes. Here's the suggestion. I made it. Therefore, I have demonstrated that I made that suggestion. Here's a screenshot of it:

What do you think the likelihood is that I DIDN'T make that suggestion given the evidence before your senses now and your understanding of what it likely signifies? In your position, I would go with "very likely." It's more than just possible or even likely, but it is not beyond reasonable doubt that somebody else wrote it using my RF account or that you modified it besides just changing the font size of the first two words.

And I see that you ignored the suggestion. How do I know that? Empiricism. The evidence of my senses properly understood. I see my suggestion and your evasion of it with the above deflection.

 

[leroy]

How can you claim there is the possibility of freely choosing B if you know for a fact that me choosing A is unavoidable?
No matter what happens, the future me will necessarily choose A. This is exactly contrary to free choices. You will need to elaborate on what you mean by 'free choice', because as it is you are either contradicting yourself or rendering the term devoid of meaning. How do you even distinguish a free choice from a choice that isn't free?

choosing A is unavoidable?

Choosing “ A” wouldn’t be unavoidable…….. the only unavoidable part is choosing A and Knowing A

You could freely choose B and in that case I would know “B”

I dont see any contradictions

 

[Regiomontanus]

* 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 ?

Yeah, duh.

 

[Koldo]

Choosing “ A” wouldn’t be unavoidable…….. the only unavoidable part is choosing A and Knowing A

You could freely choose B and in that case I would know “B”

I dont see any contradictions

Since I know A right now, I can say for sure it is unavoidable that you will choose A. Else, I wouldn't know A.

To say I know A is to say that the future concerning choosing A is unavoidable.

To say you could choose B is to say it is possibly the case that you will choose B in the future. But I already know for a fact you won't.

 

[leroy]

Disagree. My beliefs are commensurate with the quality and quantity of available relevant evidence. And it's not as simple as accepting a belief or rejecting it. For the critical thinker, belief is never 100% certain. There is always at least philosophical doubt even if there is no feeling of uncertainty, and belief in ideas about how the world works are semiquantitative ranging in degrees of possibility from possible but unlikely possible but likely to very likely to so likely that it would be unreasonable to seriously doubt the idea beyond philosophical doubt. Furthermore, such empirically justified beliefs are amenable to increases and decreases in the degree of belief pending the discovery of new evidence that makes them more or less likely to be correct.

I still disagree. I don't think you or anybody else can name an example of a belief that I hold that is not empirically (experientially) justified. I can't. I'm pretty experienced in critical thinking, and do it as automatically as saying please and thank you or looking both ways before crossing whenever confronted by a claim, and all for the same reason: they are cultivated habits of thought that eventually define behavior wherever applicable.

Prove it to whom? Myself? You? And you know the problem with the word proof, which I am modifying to convincing demonstration.

I don't think I'm going to be able to explain this to you. It seems like you don't know what empiricism is. In a nutshell, it is the application of reason and one's fund of accumulated knowledge to the present evidence of the sense, which then increases one's fund of accumulated knowledge. How do I know that I made a suggestion? Use your eyes. Here's the suggestion. I made it. Therefore, I have demonstrated that I made that suggestion. Here's a screenshot of it:

View attachment 87183

What do you think the likelihood is that I DIDN'T make that suggestion given the evidence before your senses now and your understanding of what it likely signifies? In your position, I would go with "very likely." It's more than just possible or even likely, but it is not beyond reasonable doubt that somebody else wrote it using my RF account or that you modified it besides just changing the font size of the first two words.

And I see that you ignored the suggestion. How do I know that? Empiricism. The evidence of my senses properly understood. I see my suggestion and your evasion of it with the above deflection.

I still disagree. I don't think you or anybody else can name an example of a belief that I hold that is not empirically (experientially) justified.

Well, can you prove empirically that you disagree?..............NO

This was a very easy challenge.

 

[leroy]

Since I know A right now, I can say for sure it is unavoidable that you will choose A. Else, I wouldn't know A.

To say I know A is to say that the future concerning choosing A is unavoidable.

To say you could choose B is to say it is possibly the case that you will choose B in the future. But I already know for a fact you won't.

yes, but
Granting all that doesn’t change the fact that you still had the ability to do B,

The fact that you would certainly choose A doesn’t imply that you don’t have the ability to choose B,

 

[Koldo]

yes, but
Granting all that doesn’t change the fact that you still had the ability to do B,

The fact that you would certainly choose A doesn’t imply that you don’t have the ability to choose B,

What do you mean when you say I had the ability to choose B? And how did you reach this conclusion?

 

[leroy]

What do you mean when you say I had the ability to choose B? And how did you reach this conclusion?

Well, we are talking about a hypothetical scenario…

All I am saying is that a universe where you can choose A or B is logically coherent, even if there is someone who knows your future choices,.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

can you prove empirically that you disagree?

Let's see:

You should know by now that prove is the wrong word. I disagree with its usage here and have many times in the past. Here are the last two times I've disagreed with that usage, both less than a week old, and the second with you. Do you suspect I was lying then in anticipation of this moment with you, or would say that what you have before you is empirical evidence of disagreement beyond reasonable doubt?

Are your senses and wits unable to recognize that that was empirical evidence beyond reasonable doubt of an example of disagreement? What scenario do you propose for explaining why I challenge that usage every time yet don't disagree with it?

 

[Koldo]

Well, we are talking about a hypothetical scenario…

All I am saying is that a universe where you can choose A or B is logically coherent, even if there is someone who knows your future choices,.

But what did you mean when you said that given that hypothetical scenario I had the ability to choose B? Elaborate what exactly you mean by that. What does it mean to have the ability to choose B?

 

[leroy]

Let's see:

You should know by now that prove is the wrong word. I disagree with its usage here and have many times in the past. Here are the last two times I've disagreed with that usage, both less than a week old, and the second with you. Do you suspect I was lying then in anticipation of this moment with you, or would say that what you have before you is empirical evidence of disagreement beyond reasonable doubt?

View attachment 87275

Are your senses and wits unable to recognize that that was empirical evidence beyond reasonable doubt of an example of disagreement? What scenario do you propose for explaining why I challenge that usage every time yet don't disagree with it?

Yes in this context I mean “prove beyond reasonable doubt”

Can you prove (beyond reasonable doubt) empirically that you disagree……………. No…………..you can´t run any test nor any experiment that could show that you disagree or agree with anything-

Do you suspect I was lying then in anticipation of this moment with you

No, I don’t think you are lying, my claim is that you can´t show empirically that you disagree, your options are

1 show in an empirical way that you disagree

2 simply admit that there are other ways to get knowledge (other than “empirical tests”)

I grant that you disagree, it is just that unlikely you, I am not limited to empirical tests…………… I simply trust you and I have confidence that you wouldn’t lie nor have a delusion .

..}

But we can go on with this game all the time that you whant

Please show to me empirically that you disagree. …. Please show me the test, the experiment, or whatever you whant