Free Will

[PureX]

I think there are a couple of related but different issues involved in the question of free will that cause us to become easily 'sidetracked'.

One issue is the idea that 'true freedom' must have no external causation. And yet every event has some causation in that nothing occurs in abject isolation (there is no abject isolation).

Another is that 'true freedom' can't be derived from chance. It must be intentional. But that brings up a whole existential philosophical quandary regarding the roles and relationship between chance and intention in creating and maintaining existence as we know it. Both are logically evident, yet both are hotly debated, while neither are provable.

And if these two don't provide a big enough mine field of possible rabbit holes to fall into, there the fact that freedom is a relative condition. Not an ideological absolute. So it can only be assessed in relation to a lack of it. Which opens another can of endless debate.

Personally, I tend to avoid this question all together based on the realization that it is my not knowing whether or not I have free will that gives me, in effect, free will. Since, whether my decisions are actually free or not is irrelevant to me given that I can't know either way. So they are my will from my perspective. And my perspective is the one perspective I have.

 

[We Never Know]

What does it mean to 'choose' and what does it mean to be 'unimpeded'?

For example, if all of my actions are predetermined, including my wants, desires, attitudes, etc, does that mean I do not have free will?

If you are speaking of predetermined actions by a god, that isn't free will in my opinion.

 

[Polymath257]

That's what I mean when I use the phrase. When I say free will, I mean that the observer of the theater of consciousness is the only source of the will, Freud's ego. If the self is merely the passive recipient of desires generated in the neural pathways which it delivers to the self, then you have what I would call the illusion of free will, which is merely the sensation of having a desire and executing an act in service of it. If the hypothalamus sense relative dehydration, it sends a message of thirst to consciousness, that, when possible, is generally followed by taking a drink. That's not what I mean by free will. I mean that the self decided to be thirsty, not the hypothalamus telling the self it's thirsty.

What if the self isn't the 'passive recipient of desires from a neural net, but actually *is* that neural net? If the activity of the neural net and the activity of the self are different ways to describe exactly the same thing?

What if there isn't *an* observer of the theater of consciousness?

That is the illusion of free will. If that's what people mean by free will, then yes, we have that - desires and the ability to act on them.

A more complex scenario is having conflicting wills, dueling impulses. Can one be free and not the other? Suppose I receive that impulse to get a drink, but decide this time to prove that I don't have to act on it, I deliberately delay getting a readily available drink. Is that free will?

I say not. It also doesn't come from the observer as a matter of choice. He didn't choose to have that thought just then. Like the urge to drink, it's a message coming from neural circuitry also being delivered to the self. We can envision a tug of war of sorts, with one of these two prevailing, and the self being a passive observer, taking direction from the stronger urge.

Consider somebody trying to quit cigarettes. He gets an urge to smoke and a message to resist that urge. He'll identify with the second message as self. If so, he is redefining the self from the ego to some of the grey matter that informs it.

This is a concept like the supernatural or existence out of time that breaks down on close inspection and reveals that these phrases are incoherent.

Personally, I don't care if I am a passive automaton merely observing a screen called consciousness. If that's how it is, it's how it's always been. I didn't mind before knowing that, so what's the difference now? I'm OK with it whatever the case. Unlike some of the religious, I don't need there to be free will, because I have no belief in a God that damns, and therefore don't need to justify damnation.

This is brought into sharp relief when we see the theist arguing that predestination and free choice at the time of action are compatible despite that pair of ideas being incompatible and mutually exclusive. So, they just say that whatever action was taken could have been otherwise despite being known in advance by a deity. They do care which of these two is correct. I don't.

Having said all of that, and based on the Libet experiment, it looks like free will as I have defined it above is an illusion.

There are many ways to interpret the LIbet experiment, even including a rewriting of the experience later to misplace 'conscious' experience.

 

[Polymath257]

If you are speaking of predetermined actions by a god, that isn't free will in my opinion.

How about determinism because of the laws of physics?

If *I* desire a course of action and move to accomplish that course of action, does it matter whether my actions and desires were pre-determined as long as they are in line with each other?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What does it mean to 'choose' and what does it mean to be 'unimpeded'?

For example, if all of my actions are predetermined, including my wants, desires, attitudes, etc, does that mean I do not have free will?

The usual understanding is that you are responsible for your actions, DESPITE any possible reasons of determination.

A court of law sees that an adult has responsibility for their actions [ except certain cases of mental incapacity ].
That, in my view, is what unimpeded choosing refers to.

 

[ChristineM]

Which can happen whether or not there is determinism, right?

I guess it can but i was going more along the lines of a random choice

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I guess it can but i was going more along the lines of a random choice

If you random mean - made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision - then it is not a choice. It is just random. Now if you mean something else by random, please explain.

 

[Polymath257]

I guess it can but i was going more along the lines of a random choice

If I flip a coin for each choice is the choice free?

 

[muhammad_isa]

How about determinism because of the laws of physics?

One of my "pet subjects"
Unfortunately though, it generates a lot of controversy due to common misunderstandings.

Einstein's theory of relativity implies a block-universe view of time,
otherwise known as Minkowski space.
It theorises that "the present" is only our perception, and doesn't categorically exist.
That is because "now" is dependent on our frame of reference.

Physics suggests that the future has already happened - BBC Reel

However, many people consider that this implies that we cannot therefore have "true" free-will.
i.e. free-will is not compatible with determinism

This is untrue. It is a modal fallacy.

An agent is free to do otherwise, if they can do otherwise if they WANT to do otherwise.

This means that it is not the case that a person is not free to choose due to the future being fixed, as it is our choices that fix the future.
Many people can't grasp this, as they are confused by our perception of time.

 

[Trailblazer]

Free Will is one of those concepts that seems stranger and stranger the more I think about it.

Would I not *expect* my decisions to be based on my desires, my experiences, my biases, my psychology, what is available, etc? And, if the causal nexus of all of those leading to my 'choice' happens within my body, even within my brain, is that not then *my* choice? And would that not be the case even in a deterministic setting?

So what does the adjective 'free' mean in this context?

Does it mean that even if *I* am exactly the same and *everything* else is exactly the same, I would potentially make a different decision?

And, in that case, is the definition of 'free will' such that it requires the decision be an 'uncaused cause'?

Free will is simply the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. How free they are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints such as capability and opportunity. However, we can make choices as otherwise we would just be like pre-programmed robots.

According to my beliefs, our moral choices are subject to free will and that is precisely what people are held accountable for their moral choices in courts of law.

Free WIll, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System

We can choose other things that we do, that are not necessarily connected with morality. For example, people choose to get married, go to college, or have children, since nobody chooses for them.

I believe that anything that is not subject to free will is predestined (fated) by God. Some of these things are mentioned in the following chapter on free will: "But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them."

Man is forced to endure these things because God set it up that way since we live in a material world where many things happen are beyond our control.

Question.—Is man a free agent in all his actions, or is he compelled and constrained?

Answer.—This question is one of the most important and abstruse of divine problems. If God wills, another day, at the beginning of dinner, we will undertake the explanation of this subject in detail; now we will explain it briefly, in a few words, as follows. Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.

For example, if he wishes, he can pass his time in praising God, or he can be occupied with other thoughts. He can be an enkindled light through the fire of the love of God, and a philanthropist loving the world, or he can be a hater of mankind, and engrossed with material things. He can be just or cruel. These actions and these deeds are subject to the control of the will of man himself; consequently, he is responsible for them.
Some Answered Questions, p. 248

To continue reading: 70: FREE WILL

 

[ChristineM]

If I flip a coin for each choice is the choice free?

As free as it gets.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As free as it gets.

Well, were you free to choose to flip a coin? The problem has just moved.

 

[We Never Know]

How about determinism because of the laws of physics?

If *I* desire a course of action and move to accomplish that course of action, does it matter whether my actions and desires were pre-determined as long as they are in line with each other?

Then you are flirting with everything has a cause.

"determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes.

determinism | Definition, Philosophers, & Facts

 

[Polymath257]

One of my "pet subjects"
Unfortunately though, it generates a lot of controversy due to common misunderstandings.

Einstein's theory of relativity implies a block-universs view of time,
otherwise known as Minkowski space.
It theorises that "the present" is only our perception, and doesn't categorically exist.
That is because "now" is dependent on our frame of reference.

Physics suggests that the future has already happened - BBC Reel

However, many people consider that this implies that we cannot therefore have "true" free-will.
i.e. free-will is not compatible with determinism

This is untrue. It is a modal fallacy.

An agent is free to do otherwise, if they can do otherwise if they WANT to do otherwise.

This means that it is not the case that a person is not free to choose due to the future being fixed, as it is our choices that fix the future.
Many people can't grasp this, as they are confused by our perception of time.

Unless, of course, their wants are predetermined as well. In which case, the past fixes our choices, which fixes the future and its choices.

In the relativistic description, the wants and choices are determined and fixed by the total state of the universe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Unless, of course, their wants are predetermined as well. In which case, the past fixes our choices, which fixes the future and its choices.

In the relativistic description, the wants and choices are determined and fixed by the total state of the universe.

Ah, but you have ignored my post #45

 

[crossfire]

I'm not even sure I know what 'free will' means. Does it mean that my decision must be an uncaused cause? if not, what *does* it mean?

Causality is another one that I have misgivings about. What does it mean to say that one thing causes another? Does it make sense outside of the pre-existence of physical laws?

Will indicates cause, so free will does not mean acausal.

 

[crossfire]

Which can happen whether or not there is determinism, right?

One important aspect of Free Will is being able to override and rewrite your programing (habits.) Being able to overcome an addiction is one example of free will, imo.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm not even sure I know what 'free will' means. Does it mean that my decision must be an uncaused cause? if not, what *does* it mean?

Causality is another one that I have misgivings about. What does it mean to say that one thing causes another? Does it make sense outside of the pre-existence of physical laws?

The complex webs of causality connecting all phenomena, across time and space, would appear to suggest that no event, no decision, no single outcome from any plurality of possibilities, can ever be independent of all other phenomena. This, I think, is what Paul Dirac meant when he said, “Pick a flower on earth, and move the farthest star”. It is also the ultimate implication of the so called Butterfly Effect.

Which would appear to leave little room for free will. Thing is though, it is abhorrent to we humans to consider the possibility that everything we do is determined by forces way beyond our control. So we construct these narratives for ourselves, in which we are the chief protagonist, each man and woman the star in his or her own movie.

Perhaps we delude ourselves, at least regarding the degree of freedom we wield. Seems to me, it probably is exactly that, a question of degrees of freedom. We have some free will, maybe far less than we imagine.

Our butterfly has influence, but no power, over the forces and phenomena with which it interacts. But still, it must will it’s wings to flap.

 

[George-ananda]

I think the debate is between those who view the molecules and atoms making up us and the world as just following physical laws versus those that think we are 'more' than molecules and atoms (i.e. a 'soul').

Would I not *expect* my decisions to be based on my desires, my experiences, my biases, my psychology, what is available, etc?

But to a materialist all these things are exactly the predictable end result of matter following natural laws. Free will becomes an illusion.

But to a Free Will proponent there is a 'free' factor not determined by molecules and atoms and such.

 

[Polymath257]

One important aspect of Free Will is being able to override and rewrite your programing (habits.) Being able to overcome an addiction is one example of free will, imo.

But is that *all* it means? For example, you overcome the habit of addiction by forming *new* habits, essentially reprogramming yourself in the way you want.

But what makes you *want* to do that, but other aspects of your programming?