Do you Think we have Free Will

[Koldo]

Is that only supposed to work with absolute knowledge?

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

If I know with 90% certainty your choices are you less free than if I know them with 50%?

Or to put it this way more uncertainty = more freedom? (to me it sounds like nonsense.)

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.

 

[Koldo]

If accidentally fall from the stairs and kill you, should I be hold responsibility? Should I be treated like a murderer? (NO)

But if there is not free will, there wouldn’t be a difference between me and a murderer, both simply happened to kill someone, none of us **decided** to kill………..

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.

 

[wellwisher]

I have never said otherwise.



Let's cut to the chase. What philosophy works/papers/texts/books have you read about this subject?

Having to read something to understand makes that understanding deterministic. It was determined by your reading and studying. If you arrive at a conclusion by yourself through thought and self observation this is closer to free choice. It may deviate from the collective determinism of the herd making it unique.

If we were under determinism and therefore things were preordained, we may as well get rid of law, since all that fuss would be window dressing if the outcome was deterministic. But if law works than the result is not preordained and will power exists.

Interestedly, some religion require following the laws of God to determine a happy, after life, outcome; go to heaven. There is a human tendency to not to trust free will; Adam and Eve, but want things to be more deterministic, by following the rules.

Science does not want nature to have free will and be able to make choices that can gum up theory; whims of the gods. Although, statistics tries to take into account non-deterministic events, such as the free will of nature to beat the odds. However, we would not need statistics if the universe, or our knowledge of it, was deterministic.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In recent history legal systems have taken into account issues where people obviously are not capable of determining right or wrong such as mental illnesses and mental immaturity.

That is a different topic..
We are not talking about those people who can not be held responsible .. such as young children.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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.

Oh yes, it does!
A young child is not treated in the same way as an adult, for example.

Furthermore, a person can plead insanity, which also is a claim that they did not exercise their free-will.

 

[Koldo]

Having to read something to understand makes that understanding deterministic. It was determined by your reading and studying. If you arrive at a conclusion by yourself through thought and self observation this is closer to free choice. It may deviate from the collective determinism of the herd making it unique.

If we were under determinism and therefore things were preordained, we may as well get rid of law, since all that fuss would be window dressing if the outcome was deterministic. But if law works than the result is not preordained and will power exists.

Interestedly, some religion require following the laws of God to determine a happy, after life, outcome; go to heaven. There is a human tendency to not to trust free will; Adam and Eve, but want things to be more deterministic, by following the rules.

Science does not want nature to have free will and be able to make choices that can gum up theory; whims of the gods. Although, statistics tries to take into account non-deterministic events, such as the free will of nature to beat the odds. However, we would not need statistics if the universe, or our knowledge of it, was deterministic.

Do you know what is worse than having a strong conviction concerning a subject you know nothing about? Making your opinion public.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is a different topic..

No it is not.

We are not talking about those people who can not be held responsible .. such as young children.

The problem is with young adults and older adults.

Civilization is not built on whether we have Free Will.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Civilization is not built on whether we have Free Will.

The major civilisations of Christianity and Islam, indeed were!

 

[shunyadragon]

The major civilisations of Christianity and Islam, indeed were!

No. The were based on Revelations from God.

The Chinese Civilization is not based on the Christian and Islamic Revelation.

 

[Copernicus]

If accidentally fall from the stairs and kill you, should I be hold responsibility? Should I be treated like a murderer? (NO)

It would depend on how the law defines homicide and murder. If you were behaving in a negligent manner and killed someone as a result of your negligence, then you should be held responsible. Generally speaking, people are held responsible if they pose a danger to the public. I'm not sure why you think your hypothetical has anything to do with free will.

But if there is not free will, there wouldn’t be a difference between me and a murderer, both simply happened to kill someone, none of us **decided** to kill………..

Nonsense. Murderers decide to kill. That is what makes them murderers. Accidents can cause death, but murders are not accidents. Do you understand the difference?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nonsense. Murderers decide to kill. That is what makes them murderers..

What do you mean by "decide" ?
If we don't have free-will, then who/what has done the "deciding" ?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Free will is not an illusion it is an inherent ability of the brain. There is no evidence in existence that disproves this although there are lots of opinions.

The claim need not be disproven to entertain the possibility that it is incorrect. You seem to be committing an ignorantium fallacy - some form of "I'm right because you can't prove that you are right or I am wrong".

I will just disagree.

OK. Here's what you disagreed with, which was in reference to the cortex generating the will outside of consciousness and delivering it to the subject which it experiences itself as the author of those wants, urges, and desires:

"I say that if this process could be manipulated externally and the desires generated changed artificially, the self wouldn't know and would continue to think it was the author of those desires, because he is uninvolved in their generation, which is all an unseen black box to him generating output according to unseen algorithms."

You added, "The complexity of the activity of the brain and responses indicates this is not true" and "You can believe it if you want but after a full career of dealing with mental aspects of patients and keeping updated with neuroscience research including its limitations indicates this is not the case."

Did you see that as a rebuttal? The first comment sounds like an incredulity fallacy similar to the ones the creationists use when they claim that life needed an intelligent creator because it seems too complex.

I have some background in these matters as well (I'm board certified in both internal medicine and hospice and palliative care), but that knowledge and experience doesn't answer the question of whether free will is an illusion or not. I've argued that if it is not, that there is the possibility of demonstrating that if technology for reading and programming the mind advances sufficiently, but that if will is free and the self actually could have chosen otherwise, that that fact can never be demonstrated to be correct even if one had access to a time machine notwithstanding any degrees or credentials one might have. Did you want to address that? I thought that it was an interesting point worthy of discussion.

Well I simply grant that my intuition is a good source of knowledge, I rule out other options based on my intuition and the lack of evidence against such intuition.

Yes, I know you do, and if you read my last comments to you on the matter, you probably know that I don't and why. You asked me if I had a better way of deciding truth, and I answered in the affirmative. Knowledge is only acquired experientially (empirically). Hunch, gut feeling, "common sense," and faith are not reliable paths to truth.

It is nonsense because it leads to absurdities

Not if one takes the notion to its logical conclusion.

by your logic you should reject (or be agnostic) about everything

I've already told you that I am agnostic about almost everything. I don't think you understand what that means. It doesn't mean that I have no foundation for thought or knowledge. I've tried to help you see that one need do nothing differently because of this perspective. Yes, the world of the senses and reason might be illusion, but that knowledge changes nothing regarding how we should navigate it. We learn the rules and don't fret about not knowing why they work.

if there is not free will; you didn’t freely decided that “old earth” model is better than YEC.

Agreed. Is this one of those absurdities to you?

Given this. I don’t see how can you “know something”

I don't know what you think free will is, but it seems to be more than the ability to have chosen more than one way in any given situation. When you imagine free will being removed, you imagine many other mental functions disappearing with it. I know, for example, that my house if five blocks north and three east of the pier. I learned it empirically (by walking the streets) and I've confirmed it empirically. When I walk five blocks south and three blocks west from my front door, I reliably end up at the pier. If you are correct, you can demonstrate how that ceases to be knowledge if I have only the illusion of free will. If you are incorrect, you can't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Most people will agree with the above. Notice it is ONE line, and not many!

It is one line. But the end of the line is "now". There is no future line.
The line stretches into the past, not into the future.
The line moves forward along with "now".
Dots are placed as events unfold in the "now".

You are trying to claim that the line is already stretched into the future.
I'm saying that if that is the case, then free will can not exist, because at that point all we can do, by definition, is fall in line with "the line" that is already set in stone.

There you go .. just repeating your assertion from intuition.

Not from intuition. Rather from definition.
If events of the future are already determined, the no choice you make is free. All you can do is fall in line with your "destiny" and whatever choice you think you have, is just illusion at best.

Can you not see, that the future is only ONE line, and not many.

Addressed this above. There is no line in the future. The line stretches into the past and grows as "now" turns into the past.
If free will exists, the future holds a near infinite amount of potential lines of which one becomes concrete as events unfold in the now.
If today it is already determined which of these lines will be the concrete one, then choices are predetermined and not free.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The only reason it is "uncertain", is because you do not know what it is.

I'm not even arguing if it is certain or not. I'm merely pointing out that it can't be certain if free will exists.
You want it to be certain while free will exists. This can't be. You can't have both.

i.e. it has not been decided, as far as we can perceive

The point, you keep missing it: if it already is decided while we can't perceive it, then our perception of free will is an illusion.

It is this perception that provides the intuition that if it is known, it must have been decided
by the agent that knows it.

I didn't say anything about the knowing agent deciding anything.
This is also why I said that it doesn't matter how it is known or why.

Whatever the reason... a knowable future is not compatible with free will.

That's right .. as far as we perceive .. but what about the perception of
an agent that is not part of the universe?

I already addressed this.
It would, from that god's... err "agent's" ( ) perspective, turn the universe into a movie that you can fast forward and rewind. It has a pre-determined plot (for whatever reason). The result of which is that free will can't exist in that universe.

I know .. you prefer to ignore the possibility .. "the universe rules, ok!"

I'm not ignoring anything.
I'm just pointing out the blatant self-contradiction in your insistence that the future can be known while free will exists.
The future can only be known if all choices are pre-determined (for whatever reason, through whatever mechanism). aka, not free.

Again, can't have it both ways.

Nonsense .. I have shown you above, that we have only one future!

You didn't show anything. You CLAIMED.
And your claim is not compatible with free will.

It is just that we don't know what it is.

Doesn't matter.

Perception!
The human perception.
Is that the total sum of "reality"?
Of course not.

Never said it was.
Again, just pointing out that you want your cake and eat it too.

..so somebody shows you theory of relativity, and you think "ah! I know it all now"

Relativity has nothing to do with this.

Nope .. not even close.
There is no "pre-determined script".
The "script" is determined by our choices, just as in the past.

If choices are known before they occur, they are not choices. Then they are compulsions masquerading as choices.
The point. You keep missing it.

You see, if it was impossible to know the future, you wouldn't be talking about
"pre-determined" scripts .. now THAT is the whole point.
THAT is what I believe your agenda to be.

I don't have any agenda.
I'm not arguing for any which way.
I'm ONLY pointing out how your view is self-contradicting.

Either free will exists or it doesn't.
If it does, the future is uncertain.
If it doesn't, the future is certain.

Can't have it both ways.

Time is part of the space-time continuum .. as in "measured time".
You cannot know for sure, what lies outside of our universe.

What lies outside the universe (if that phrase even makes sense) is irrelevant to the point being made.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The major civilisations of Christianity and Islam, indeed were!

Every single civilization, from the most primitive tribe to the most advanced secular democracy and everything in between, has social contracts with rewards for good / desired behaviour and punishment for bad / undesired behavior.

Let's not pretend as if christian and islamic cultures were unique in that in any way, shape or form

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is one line. But the end of the line is "now". There is no future line.

Now you are being pedantic..
If there is "no future line", then there IS no future. It HAS to be something!
..but we all know that that is not true!
Today becomes yesterday!

You are trying to claim that the line is already stretched into the future.

No I'm not .. I have just used a diagram to show the state of affairs..
What is known, and what is NOT known.

If events of the future are already determined, the no choice you make is free..

..determined by WHAT/WHO???
..and what do you mean by "already"???

If free will exists, the future holds a near infinite amount of potential lines of which one becomes concrete as events unfold in the now...

"potential" .. but there WILL only be one series of events .. we call it our destiny.

If today it is already determined which of these lines will be the concrete one, then choices are predetermined and not free.

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

The point, you keep missing it: if it already is decided while we can't perceive it, then our perception of free will is an illusion.

No, not necessarily.
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

I already addressed this.
It would, from that god's... err "agent's" ( ) perspective, turn the universe into a movie that you can fast forward and rewind. It has a pre-determined plot (for whatever reason). The result of which is that free will can't exist in that universe.

"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

If choices are known before they occur, they are not choices. Then they are compulsions masquerading as choices..

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

What lies outside the universe (if that phrase even makes sense) is irrelevant to the point being made.

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

 

[Bear Wild]

The claim need not be disproven to entertain the possibility that it is incorrect. You seem to be committing an ignorantium fallacy - some form of "I'm right because you can't prove that you are right or I am wrong".

I am saying there is no evidence that exists right know that shows free will is a pure illusion. Consider how we study emotions. How would you give evidence to show that the emotions exist? How could you make a determination that animals do or do not have emotions?
I am saying that despite deterministic conditions new event unpredicted can occur even if probability says they cannot. For me free will is intimately connected with the deterministic conditions and yet novel responses/events occur not explained by the deterministic environment. Despite all we can predict from the factors leading to a decision, some decisions are new and unpredicted and not explained by the deterministic environment.

 

[Bear Wild]

I have some background in these matters as well (I'm board certified in both internal medicine and hospice and palliative care), but that knowledge and experience doesn't answer the question of whether free will is an illusion or not. I've argued that if it is not, that there is the possibility of demonstrating that if technology for reading and programming the mind advances sufficiently, but that if will is free and the self actually could have chosen otherwise, that that fact can never be demonstrated to be correct even if one had access to a time machine notwithstanding any degrees or credentials one might have. Did you want to address that? I thought that it was an interesting point worthy of discussion.

Hello fellow internal medicine man. I am only board certified in internal medicine but for the last 7 years have had to treat more mental health issues and more complex issue than what I was trained for and had to relearn neuroscience of affect. This started with works of Panskepp in affective neuroscience and influenced by many others since. Seeing prominent influence of the affective brain in initiation of behavior then influenced and modified by the cognitive brain changed my view on not only on understanding but also treatment in what I do. It also blurred the boundaries of the cognitive and affective brain as well as blurring the conscious and unconscious brain. We often try to separate parts of the brain with function to understand them but his is an illusion for they are not separate at all. 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.

 

[Copernicus]

...Nonsense. Murderers decide to kill. That is what makes them murderers..

What do you mean by "decide" ?
If we don't have free-will, then who/what has done the "deciding" ?

What I mean by "decide" is that they have means, motive, and opportunity and actually give in to the impulse to commit the act rather than suppress it. That makes them a danger to the public, since they can't control their urge to murder.

I never said that we don't have free will. I simply defined free will as a fully determined act, not random or undetermined. As I said earlier, it is the "freedom to do what one most wants to do, given the available options." I know that you saw that post, because you commented on it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If we are allowed to define "free will", I would define it as freedom to do what one most wants to do, given the available options. What one most wants to do at the time of making a choice is not under the control of the agent, of course, so agents often choose to make excuses for past choices..

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

"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.

If the Devil made me do it, then it's really the Devil's fault, isn't it?

I think most people would agree they SHARE the blame.

 

[leroy]

The claim need not be disproven to entertain the possibility that it is incorrect. You seem to be committing an ignorantium fallacy - some form of "I'm right because you can't prove that you are right or I am wrong".

OK. Here's what you disagreed with, which was in reference to the cortex generating the will outside of consciousness and delivering it to the subject which it experiences itself as the author of those wants, urges, and desires:

"I say that if this process could be manipulated externally and the desires generated changed artificially, the self wouldn't know and would continue to think it was the author of those desires, because he is uninvolved in their generation, which is all an unseen black box to him generating output according to unseen algorithms."

You added, "The complexity of the activity of the brain and responses indicates this is not true" and "You can believe it if you want but after a full career of dealing with mental aspects of patients and keeping updated with neuroscience research including its limitations indicates this is not the case."

Did you see that as a rebuttal? The first comment sounds like an incredulity fallacy similar to the ones the creationists use when they claim that life needed an intelligent creator because it seems too complex.

I have some background in these matters as well (I'm board certified in both internal medicine and hospice and palliative care), but that knowledge and experience doesn't answer the question of whether free will is an illusion or not. I've argued that if it is not, that there is the possibility of demonstrating that if technology for reading and programming the mind advances sufficiently, but that if will is free and the self actually could have chosen otherwise, that that fact can never be demonstrated to be correct even if one had access to a time machine notwithstanding any degrees or credentials one might have. Did you want to address that? I thought that it was an interesting point worthy of discussion.

Yes, I know you do, and if you read my last comments to you on the matter, you probably know that I don't and why. You asked me if I had a better way of deciding truth, and I answered in the affirmative. Knowledge is only acquired experientially (empirically). Hunch, gut feeling, "common sense," and faith are not reliable paths to truth.

Not if one takes the notion to its logical conclusion.

I've already told you that I am agnostic about almost everything. I don't think you understand what that means. It doesn't mean that I have no foundation for thought or knowledge. I've tried to help you see that one need do nothing differently because of this perspective. Yes, the world of the senses and reason might be illusion, but that knowledge changes nothing regarding how we should navigate it. We learn the rules and don't fret about not knowing why they work.

Agreed. Is this one of those absurdities to you?

I don't know what you think free will is, but it seems to be more than the ability to have chosen more than one way in any given situation. When you imagine free will being removed, you imagine many other mental functions disappearing with it. I know, for example, that my house if five blocks north and three east of the pier. I learned it empirically (by walking the streets) and I've confirmed it empirically. When I walk five blocks south and three blocks west from my front door, I reliably end up at the pier. If you are correct, you can demonstrate how that ceases to be knowledge if I have only the illusion of free will. If you are incorrect, you can't.

Not if one takes the notion to its logical conclusion.

Well if I where to bet, I´ll bet that you do not take that view to their logical conclusion.

I know, for example, that my house if five blocks north and three east of the pier. I learned it empirically (by walking the streets) and I've confirmed it empirically. When I walk five blocks south and three blocks west from my front door,

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?

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