Free Will

[Polymath257]

The thing I found wrong with his argument is this.
He first creates a strawman, defining free will as simply, the ability to have acted differently, and then goes for the jugular - attacking that strawman.

No. Free will is not simply the ability to have acted differently to how one acted.
Free will involves making decisions freely, that is, based on your own choice... Regardless of the multiplicity of choices out there, which I may, or may not possess. You have options.

Exactly. You could have acted differently. There is more than one possible future and you choose one of them. In order to be free, the decision cannot be predetermined. I have to be the one that determines what will happen.

For example, I am an ignorant youth who is naive, and does not know that some men... the world, can be very deceitful, in plotting to get what they want. So, in my ignorance, my lack of knowledge, I make a foolish decision, which causes me heartache.

Did I exercise free will? Yes, but it was with limited knowledge. Free will is not negated, because I did not act differently. I acted based on the knowledge, I had, or did not have.
Either way, I acted freely, in making a choice.

And you acted freely because you could have done differently. The decision wasn't determined ahead of time.

So, the guy started wrong. Perhaps not deliberately, but he needs to get the definition right, in the first place.

It seems to me that he got it right, even by what you have said here.

 

[Willamena]

That sense of separation, of our selves as a distinct entity within a world of interacting others, is a defining characteristic of our human experience. I see the world through one pair of eyes, the same pair every morning; my paradigm, my view of the world, though I do try to broaden it as much as possible, is always from my unique perspective. I have no direct access, in this life anyway, to a view from everywhere, nor even from anywhere else.

So where is the confusion?

 

[Willamena]

Man, I gotta read this thread.

Exactly. You could have acted differently. There is more than one possible future and you choose one of them. In order to be free, the decision cannot be predetermined. I have to be the one that determines what will happen.

Not to muddy the waters but the allowance for options should not be within the realm of free will, since options objectively exist whether or not there is free will. The thing is that it was "me" that made a choice, not that there were other choices to be made. "Your own decision" is about you, not the decision.

That said, in standing in opposition to "god making the choice for you" or "determination making the choice for you," free will allows that there are alternative operators.

And you acted freely because you could have done differently. The decision wasn't determined ahead of time.


It seems to me that he got it right, even by what you have said here.

 

[vulcanlogician]

The video @vulcanlogician gave made the relevant points very well, I thought. Post #173

That is, by far one of the best, most comprehensive, (and yet easy to listen to) lectures I've found on the subject. Glad you liked it.

 

[nPeace]

So where did these urges arise? Why does Person A think and act on junk food being the best ever, while Person B doesn't? While person B think it is perfectly "fine" looking at child porn, while A find it disgusting?

It seems to me that your assumption is that, the reason person B likes it, is because they saw a child and therefore somehow reached the conclusion that child porn is fine. But that doesn't explain why person A dislike it then?

Ever heard of values? Were you taught them, or are those foreign to you?

The reason I wouldn't accept it is if we imagine someone having committed a murder and as an excuse, they say that Satan forced them, they had no control over it because he used some of his magical powers. If we accepted that explanation, then clearly the murderer is innocent and ought to be set free and we should arrest Satan. This would be a fair explanation if Satan was demonstrated to be true, until then it is not a valid explanation.

You really believe that nonsense, Nimos?
Please don't bring it to this discussion. I never said it. Nor do I believe it.

Sin in its meaning is something which is considered wrong in regard to divine law. For an atheist this has no meaning, even for people that do not accept person A's religion as being true, that is also meaningless. Therefore using the term "sin" is meaningless, whereas emotions are widely agreed on.

Do you fall short of values or qualities you admire?

Yes, there is in its normal understanding, the definition of the word:

an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Who is this divine agent?

Sin, is missing the mark. Sin against God, is to miss the mark of God's righteous standards.
One can sin against a brother.
If a person does not believe in God, they might use the term in that way. Some do. At least those who understand the meaning of the term.

It's like when scientists use the term, theory. Same word. Different context.
The word sin is not a supernatural word.

The Bible even uses the expression "sinning against one's own body".

What I mean is that a lot of the knowledge about human behaviour is a result of cognitive science, psychiatry etc. things they simply had no clue about back then how to explain or even examine.

That's funny Nimos. Real funny.
No. You've read the Bible, or maybe you haven't?

Take something like hysteria:
Hysteria was in fact a major form of neurotic illness in Western societies during the 19th Century and remained so up to World War II. Since then there appears to have been a rapid decline in its frequency and it has been replaced by the now common conditions of depressive and anxiety neuroses.

How many children today are not diagnosed with some mental issue, that was simply referred to as them being "complicated" or bad kids etc. back in the day, not even that many years ago, because it was not well understood.

Some persons think these are new things under the sun.
Man may come up with fancy terms for phenomenon, but these things are not new.
Just today, I was reading about Neanderthal performing surgery.

Humans have been performing cranial surgery and drilling holes in other people’s skulls for a long time. The oldest example of this procedure, called trepanation, dates to 7,300 B.C., according to findings from a site at the village of Vasilyevka in Azerbaijan. That means cranial surgery was happening as long ago as the Mesolithic period.

Now, for the first time, a definite example of cranial surgery has been found in an animal: specifically, a nearly complete cow’s skull discovered at a Neolithic site that dates to 3,400 to 3,000 BC. The investigation of this skull is detailed in a study published Thursday in the journal Scientific Reports.

Prehistoric Surgery
I think this should change most people's thinking.
However, in some, that's a hard nut to crack.

So how do you explain it? just throwing a emote doesn't exactly back up what you are saying, at least I'm honest about saying that I have no clue, but have no problem at least offering a suggestion. But I can't travel back in time and I doubt anyone in history have any clue about how the first person started smoking.

I found what you said, funny. That's all.
If you want to know how smoking started, just trace history, backward.

Could it be smoking had a purpose other than what people may consider meaningless rituals.
The ancient Assyrians employed cannabis fumes as a cure for "poison of the limbs", presumed to mean arthritis.

This is not something grabbed out of thin air.

Do you think the people conducting these experiments just assume that this is how it works, or do you think they measure the effect or amount of dopamine in these people when they do these things compared to some that don't enjoy it? That is a huge difference, you can measure the effect, rather than reading a verse and then drawing a conclusion based on absolutely nothing. What does the bible say about these things?

Not thin air. Thin evidence... which can be interpreted otherwise.
Obviously people who do insane thing, also do drugs. Does it mean they do insane things because of drugs. Or could they use drugs in combination with doing insane things.

If it is their urges for pleasure that drive them to do it, compared to one that doesn't have these urges. Then the urges govern what they might choose to do rather than them making a choice based on a clean slate. Are you in control or are whatever urges in your body that you are born with causing your actions?

!!!?
You have urges to eat, drink, sleep, sexual urges, etc.
Do you have urges to read, write, play, exercise, work, etc.?
Are you in control of any of these? Which?

 

[nPeace]

It is by those who study this stuff.

Nope.
Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
Explaining how something as complex as consciousness can emerge from a grey, jelly-like lump of tissue in the head is arguably the greatest scientific challenge of our time. The brain is an extraordinarily complex organ, consisting of almost 100 billion cells – known as neurons – each connected to 10,000 others, yielding some ten trillion nerve connections.

We have made a great deal of progress in understanding brain activity, and how it contributes to human behaviour. But what no one has so far managed to explain is how all of this results in feelings, emotions and experiences. How does the passing around of electrical and chemical signals between neurons result in a feeling of pain or an experience of red?

By "revolution" they mean philosophy.

 

[nPeace]

Yes. The two are identical. When I eat, my body eats. When I go to the bathroom, my body goes to the bathroom.

When you slap your body, your body slaps itself.

The thoughts are produced by brain activity.

That's not so. Read the quote I linked.

 

[nPeace]

Exactly. You could have acted differently. There is more than one possible future and you choose one of them. In order to be free, the decision cannot be predetermined. I have to be the one that determines what will happen.

And you acted freely because you could have done differently. The decision wasn't determined ahead of time.


It seems to me that he got it right, even by what you have said here.

In that case, he got it wrong. He is saying you could not have acted differently, since you had only the option you chose. Isn't that his argument?
To say what you said, is to defeat his own argument.

You aren't the one determining what will happen though.

 

[shunyadragon]

No. Your choices are determined by you.
If your choices were determined by your past, all abused children would be the same.

As far as religious belief as an example this is a very weak position. By far most believers follow their parents and peers in choosing their belief within the major religions. Some Christians may try on different shoes to find the one that fits when 'church shopping.' but the main motivation is seeking what 'fits for me' within in the safe sense of community and identity within Christianity. In Islam and Judaism there is far less shopping around even within the divisions of their own religion.'

 

[shunyadragon]

In that case, he got it wrong. He is saying you could not have acted differently, since you had only the option you chose. Isn't that his argument?
To say what you said, is to defeat his own argument.

You aren't the one determining what will happen though.

When people make chooses and decisions they rarely question those decisions, justify them.

I do believe in the potential of free will in the limited range of chooses, and on rare occasion the skeptic may seriously question the range of possible choices.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So where is the confusion?

Preoccupation with self is the source of most of our our confusion. We humans are born alienated, from God, each other, and our own true nature. We struggle in the world because the lower self, the ego, deceives us and isolates us from everything within and without us.

 

[Nimos]

Ever heard of values? Were you taught them, or are those foreign to you?

Some are taught I would think, given that we can see how different cultures have evolved over time. But how many of these take their starting point in biological constrains, meaning that they arose outside our control as individuals?

You really believe that nonsense, Nimos?
Please don't bring it to this discussion. I never said it. Nor do I believe it.

You asked if I would accept the supernatural, and this was an example of the supernatural and why I wouldn't accept it. If that is not what you meant with the question then I might have misunderstood what you meant.

Do you fall short of values or qualities you admire?

Don't understand the questions and what it has to do with sin?

Sin, is missing the mark. Sin against God, is to miss the mark of God's righteous standards.
One can sin against a brother.
If a person does not believe in God, they might use the term in that way. Some do. At least those who understand the meaning of the term.

It's like when scientists use the term, theory. Same word. Different context.
The word sin is not a supernatural word.

The Bible even uses the expression "sinning against one's own body".

I don't think it is the same.

When scientists use the word "theory" it is well-defined, so everyone using it agrees on its meaning. When using the word sin, the meaning of the word might be agreed on, but what exactly is considered sinful and what is not, is not agreed upon, even amongst friends or family.

That's funny Nimos. Real funny.
No. You've read the Bible, or maybe you haven't?

I have read it, what is your point, did they have great knowledge about these things in your opinion? and if so where is that expressed in it?

Some persons think these are new things under the sun.
Man may come up with fancy terms for phenomenon, but these things are not new.
Just today, I was reading about Neanderthal performing surgery.

There is a huge difference between performing these things and whether they truly understood what was going on. I would be the first to admit that ancient people weren't stupid, but doesn't change the fact that they were constrained due to a lack of technology and knowledge about things we know today.

I found what you said, funny. That's all.
If you want to know how smoking started, just trace history, backward.

Could it be smoking had a purpose other than what people may consider meaningless rituals.
The ancient Assyrians employed cannabis fumes as a cure for "poison of the limbs", presumed to mean arthritis.

That is an option as well, it doesn't, however, answer the question you asked me, because you asked me why the first human smoked and that person wouldn't have known that cannabis could have this effect.

Not thin air. Thin evidence... which can be interpreted otherwise.
Obviously people who do insane thing, also do drugs. Does it mean they do insane things because of drugs. Or could they use drugs in combination with doing insane things.

Should probably have linked the article, the purpose of it, was not that people that do extreme sports also do drugs, they are comparing the two groups. Anyway, the point was the dopamine and how the body reacts to it, outside our mind, meaning that these people that enjoy extreme sports are biologically wired differently than those that don't enjoy stuff like that.

!!!?
You have urges to eat, drink, sleep, sexual urges, etc.
Do you have urges to read, write, play, exercise, work, etc.?
Are you in control of any of these? Which?

That is what I'm questioning, do we do things because of the biological urges imprinted on us, for which we have little to no control or do we freely choose to do things because we chose to? I'm not convinced that we are as free as we would like to think, but rather that it is an illusion of free will.

I have a friend which doesn't have the least interest in being creative at all, to him, it's all hard facts. Other people are extremely creative and thrive and enjoy stuff like this, did that person using free will choose to be an artist or did the biological urges cause them to follow that path? I don't think that is that easy to answer.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope.
Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
Explaining how something as complex as consciousness can emerge from a grey, jelly-like lump of tissue in the head is arguably the greatest scientific challenge of our time. The brain is an extraordinarily complex organ, consisting of almost 100 billion cells – known as neurons – each connected to 10,000 others, yielding some ten trillion nerve connections.

We have made a great deal of progress in understanding brain activity, and how it contributes to human behaviour. But what no one has so far managed to explain is how all of this results in feelings, emotions and experiences. How does the passing around of electrical and chemical signals between neurons result in a feeling of pain or an experience of red?

By "revolution" they mean philosophy.

The quote itself shows that those who study this consider consciousness to be the result of how the brain functions. They are looking for details.

 

[Polymath257]

When you slap your body, your body slaps itself.

Yes.

That's not so. Read the quote I linked.

I did. Did you?

 

[Polymath257]

In that case, he got it wrong. He is saying you could not have acted differently, since you had only the option you chose. Isn't that his argument?
To say what you said, is to defeat his own argument.

You aren't the one determining what will happen though.

He is saying that for the choice to be free, there had to be more than one option available. Or, conversely, if there was only one option possible, the choice was not free, but rather it was forced.

So, it is *one* requirement for there to be free will at all.

Another requirement is that *you* actually can decide which of the possible futures comes to pass. In other words, it isn't something external that is determining what will happen.

Both of those seem to be necessary for there to be a free choice, don't you think?

 

[muhammad_isa]

He is saying that for the choice to be free, there had to be more than one option available. Or, conversely, if there was only one option possible, the choice was not free, but rather it was forced.

So, it is *one* requirement for there to be free will at all.

Another requirement is that *you* actually can decide which of the possible futures comes to pass. In other words, it isn't something external that is determining what will happen.

Both of those seem to be necessary for there to be a free choice, don't you think?

Yes, they do.
In other words, are we being coerced?

"predetermined" is a loaded word .. it implies that it has been decided already.
However, if we examine a scenario which the future is KNOWN, that does not in itself
mean that a person is coerced into choosing the known option.
There is still a choice. It is a famous paradox.

The gut-feeling says that if the future is known, then we have no choice but to choose the known option
..hence we have no choice in the matter.
That is incorrect. The reason why we think that it is correct, is due to our perception of time.
The gut-feeling says that we HAVE to choose something .. but we don't.
Simply. if we choose another option, it is known. The knowledge does not coerce.
It is all about HOW it is known.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, they do.
In other words, are we being coerced?

"predetermined" is a loaded word .. it implies that it has been decided already.

It means it has been determined already. Whether a choice was involved isn't relevant. To decide means there was a choice.

However, if we examine a scenario which the future is KNOWN, that does not in itself
mean that a person is coerced into choosing the known option.
There is still a choice. It is a famous paradox.

Hmmm...it means that they could not have chosen any other option. So, even if they don't *feel* coerced, they really are.
I don't see it as a paradox at all.

The gut-feeling says that if the future is known, then we have no choice but to choose the known option
..hence we have no choice in the matter.
That is incorrect. The reason why we think that it is correct, is due to our perception of time.
The gut-feeling says that we HAVE to choose something .. but we don't.
Simply. if we choose another option, it is known. The knowledge does not coerce.
It is all about HOW it is known.

if the future is known, there is no way we could have chosen the other option. If they could have chosen the other way, then the future would not be known (yet). Which means the choice was not free if the future is known.

So, if it is noon and it is known that my choice at 1:00 will be that I eat a tuna sandwich, then there is no way I could choose to eat a hamburger at 1:00 instead. if I *could* eat a hamburger at 1:00, then it cannot be known at noon that I will eat a tuna sandwich.

Knowledge may not coerce, but it does eliminate options. Coercion implies a conscious agent that is forcing the matter. I am certainly NOT claiming that. But having only one option (because the outcome is known) is enough to say that the choice cannot be free (even if it feels free).

 

[muhammad_isa]

It means it has been determined already. Whether a choice was involved isn't relevant. To decide means there was a choice.

If that's the way that you are using the word "predetermined", then that's what it means.
However, many people use the word in the sense that the future is KNOWN, but not determined
by an external agent necessarily.

Hmmm...it means that they could not have chosen any other option. So, even if they don't *feel* coerced, they really are.
I don't see it as a paradox at all.

That is your gut-feeling.
You caught me out with gut-feelings about infinity, if I recall.

if the future is known, there is no way we could have chosen the other option.

No, no, no.

"An agent is free to do otherwise, if he could do otherwise, if he wants to do otherwise"

..think about it.

So, if it is noon and it is known that my choice at 1:00 will be that I eat a tuna sandwich, then there is no way I could choose to eat a hamburger at 1:00 instead. if I *could* eat a hamburger at 1:00, then it cannot be known at noon that I will eat a tuna sandwich.

So what? You chose to eat the sandwich.
The fact that we perceive that the future "has not happened yet" does not mean that it might not have happened
for another agent..
..unless of course you consider time, as we measure it, is somehow sacred and universal .. which it isn't.

Knowledge may not coerce, but it does eliminate options.

No it doesn't .. see my statement in red above.

 

[Polymath257]

If that's the way that you are using the word "predetermined", then that's what it means.
However, many people use the word in the sense that the future is KNOWN, but not determined
by an external agent necessarily.

If it is *known*, then it cannot be different than what it will be, so it is determined. That is part of what it means to *know* something: that it is true.

That is your gut-feeling.
You caught me out with gut-feelings about infinity, if I recall.


No, no, no.

"An agent is free to do otherwise, if he could do otherwise, if he wants to do otherwise"

..think about it.

OK, I have thought about it and I disagree. Here's why:

Suppose an evil scientist learns how to do mind control. This scientists can *make* you want things and you won't know that this is happening.

So, this scientist makes you *want* to eat a tuna sandwich instead of a hamburger. You then eat that tuna sandwich. Was it a free decision?

I would say no, it was not. And this is the case even though you *wanted* to eat that tuna sandwich. The problem is that your desire was dictated by an outside agent.

Also, if the scientist had dictated that you would *want* to eat a hamburger, and you then ate a hamburger, that would also NOT be a free choice, even though *if you had wanted otherwise* (as dictated by the evil scientist), you would have chosen otherwise.

And this is the essential aspect of this discussion from my viewpoint: are the desires determined by past events? if they are, then the choices are not free. But if they are not, then what determines them? Are all free choices then uncaused causes?

So what? You chose to eat the sandwich.
The fact that we perceive that the future "has not happened yet" does not mean that it might not have happened
for another agent..
..unless of course you consider time, as we measure it, is somehow sacred and universal .. which it isn't.


No it doesn't .. see my statement in red above.

You can choose to eat the sandwich, but that choice not be free. My scenario above gives an example of such. Choice is a minimum requirement, but it is not sufficient for a free choice: something more is needed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK, I have thought about it and I disagree. Here's why:

Suppose an evil scientist learns how to do mind control. This scientists can *make* you want things and you won't know that this is happening.

So, this scientist makes you *want* to eat a tuna sandwich instead of a hamburger. You then eat that tuna sandwich. Was it a free decision?

I would say no, it was not. And this is the case even though you *wanted* to eat that tuna sandwich. The problem is that your desire was dictated by an outside agent.

That is all very true .. but that depends on the external agent causing the person to "want"
i.e. the person is coerced by another.

That is not the case in the scenario that I describe.
One is NOT coerced .. it is just that an external agent knows what they will choose,
as for that agent the future has "already happened" .. i.e. we have already made our choices, as far as that agent is concerned