Free Will

[Nimos]

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'?

Most of what we do, doesn't really seem to be a result of free will. We don't freely choose what to believe in and not. Like I didn't choose to be an atheist, I didn't choose to prefer chocolate ice cream over some other flavor.

For the most part I would say that free will is nothing but an illusion or something constructed as a respond to our environment and surroundings.

 

[Fool]

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 the difference between making choices between service to self and service to all as self. the service to self isn't going to accept the freedom of choice, free will of other as self. In fact, it is going to try to enslave, dominate, manipulate the other as any object that it tries or does possess. this can be accomplished explicitly by violence, physical abuse, or implicitly via psychological warfare, manipulation, control.

the service to self path is much harder to accomplish. most do not readily accept violence, aggression as a healthy thing towards them; unless they are already part of the upper hierarchy. in the service to self physical differences are magnified and accentuated to ensure hierarchies of inequality, self-imposed superiority, and discrimination . in the service to all as self, hierarchies are only based on ability and mentoring capabilities. basically a meritocracy.

 

[crossfire]

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?

Programming is often contrasted with mindfulness. Your willful behaviour is what informs your habits. Where it comes from, I cannot say. Thich Nhat Hanh called mindfulness "a miracle."

 

[RestlessSoul]

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?

What makes one addict or alcoholic finally choose sobriety, when so many don’t or can’t? That almost seems an unanswerable question. For what it’s worth, I count it a miracle that I woke up one day and finally knew, I’d had enough of this and was ready to ask for help. In a way, it was as if the decision was made for me; I’ve been to funerals of friends who never had that moment.

I would say, from my own experience, that the best way to find peace and contentment in this life is to align as far as possible, one’s own will to the will of the Universe. I know you don’t like the idea of the universe having a purpose, but it certainly has patterns - precise and beautiful unfolding patterns, to which we each contribute.

 

[Curious George]

Most of what we do, doesn't really seem to be a result of free will. We don't freely choose what to believe in and not. Like I didn't choose to be an atheist, I didn't choose to prefer chocolate ice cream over some other flavor.

For the most part I would say that free will is nothing but an illusion or something constructed as a respond to our environment and surroundings.

While i agree that we do not choose our beliefs, i disagree that the lack of choice in our beliefs evidences that "most of what we do doesn't seem to be the result of free will." Can you choose to think about an issue? Can you rationalize? If so, then free will must exist.

 

[Nimos]

While i agree that we do not choose our beliefs, i disagree that the lack of choice in our beliefs evidences that "most of what we do doesn't seem to be the result of free will." Can you choose to think about an issue? Can you rationalize? If so, then free will must exist.

That is what im not so sure is possible. Can I think of an issue without it somehow being influenced or a result of something in my environment or surroundings and then rationalize about it? Im not sure and It might sound obvious that, of course we can do that.

But most likely, I wouldn't even think of an issue, because it wouldn't be relevant. So when you ask me, which again is also you influencing me to do it, and as a result of you asking me, I might think of something, which I believe is an issue, such as climate change, and I can only rationalize about it, based on knowledge I have obtained about it and that knowledge have led me to be convinced that climate change is true. We can't really choose to avoid information, if I ask your opinion about something, for which you have never thought of, then you are aware of it and your opinion about it, will be based on whatever former or relevant information you think will answer it and that will reflect your view, but were you truly "free" reaching that opinion?

 

[Curious George]

That is what im not so sure is possible. Can I think of an issue without it somehow being influenced or a result of something in my environment or surroundings and then rationalize about it? Im not sure and It might sound obvious that, of course we can do that.

But most likely, I wouldn't even think of an issue, because it wouldn't be relevant. So when you ask me, which again is also you influencing me to do it, and as a result of you asking me, I might think of something, which I believe is an issue, such as climate change, and I can only rationalize about it, based on knowledge I have obtained about it and that knowledge have led me to be convinced that climate change is true. We can't really choose to avoid information, if I ask your opinion about something, for which you have never thought of, then you are aware of it and your opinion about it, will be based on whatever former or relevant information you think will answer it and that will reflect your view, but were you truly "free" reaching that opinion?

I think you are mistaking any influencing with wholly influencing. Surely we all agree that our environment plays a role in both our thoughts and our ability to rationalize. The question is do we have any control. To dismiss free will is to conclude that one has no degree of control over thoughts or actions.

People can suggest they believe this, but I am very, very skeptical that such a belief is even possible.

 

[Nimos]

I think you are mistaking any influencing with wholly influencing. Surely we all agree that our environment plays a role in both our thoughts and our ability to rationalize. The question is do we have any control. To dismiss free will is to conclude that one has no degree of control over thoughts or actions.

People can suggest they believe this, but I am very, very skeptical that such a belief is even possible.

Depends how you look at it, for me personally, I would say that I have free will for the most part, but whether or not its technically is the case or not, doesn't really change the fact, that my perception of free will is there and that is what matters.

So its important to look at it from both angles I think.
Your brain makes up its mind up to ten seconds before you realize it, according to researchers. By looking at brain activity while making a decision, the researchers could predict what choice people would make before they themselves were even aware of having made a decision.

The work calls into question the ‘consciousness’ of our decisions and may even challenge ideas about how ‘free’ we are to make a choice at a particular point in time.
Brain makes decisions before you even know it - Nature

Benjamin Libet, which showed that the brain begins preparing for movement even before we consciously decide to move. Until then, scientists thought that a person makes a conscious decision to act, and then the brain sends signals to the body that enables us to take that action.

Obviously we are not aware of this in our everyday lives, but what does that mean for free will? That is interesting to think about, how free are we exactly?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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'?

I've been thinking about this lately, and as I read the philosophy, it seems that most philosophers are making the assumption that "free will" means free to make a conscious decision -- and wind up (through Libet et al) deciding against, as Sam Harris does.

In my view, this is incorrect. There is much more going on inside me than what I am conscious of. In trying to solve a puzzle, for example, I've often found the best strategy is to move on to something else, and when I come back, it will appear as if the answer was available all the time. Subconscious processes were working while my conscious mind was doing something else altogether.

So, in my view, the fact that Libet shows that "intention to act" occurs before consciousness of that intention is neither here nor there -- because MY unconscious mind is just as much "me" as my conscious one. And it operates -- as does my conscious mind -- using my preferences and principles, to which I believe it has full access.

I'm saying, in fact, that the "conscious" part of free will is a distraction from the real question.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

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?


Yes, the concept of 'free will' is highly problematic particularly from the libertarian 'free will.'

https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.

This may be contrasted with variations of belief in limited 'free will' as with Compatibilist view compatible with determinism. I describe 'free will' in terms of the potential of 'free will' where humans have a will but it is not necessarily free. In this concept we make 'potential choices within a limited range of choices based on a history of cause and effect events that can go back to the origins of humanity. All cause and effect events in terms of human will and by the way in all of nature based on the premise of 'natural laww and processes. The variation in our decision making process as well as cause and effect events in nature are 'fractal in nature' always within a limited number of outcomes. In other words we are not above the constraints of limitrd cause and effect events throughout nature.

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

You describe above some of the constraints that go back through history and beyond in the chain of choices and outcomes of human choices and all 'cause and effect' events.

Though the fractal nature of the variability of outcomes of events defeats the concept of the influence of the flap of the wing of a butterfly in the outcome of future events.'

The outcomes of ALL cause and effect events are intimately apart of the deterministic natural nature of out physical existence. Determinism assures that no two Sugar Maple leaves will be exactly the same, but all Sugar Maple leaves will be similar to all Sugar Maple leaves.

 

[sayak83]

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'?

I agree.
In Indian philosophy free will usually simply means self-will, ie the desires and intentions that spring from within myself as opposed to forced upon by factors external to the self. That understanding is far less problematic.

 

[F1fan]

Most of what we do, doesn't really seem to be a result of free will. We don't freely choose what to believe in and not. Like I didn't choose to be an atheist, I didn't choose to prefer chocolate ice cream over some other flavor.

It seems to me that being an atheist is the default position, and theists are created by social influences.

For the most part I would say that free will is nothing but an illusion or something constructed as a respond to our environment and surroundings.

That is what studies that revealed, that our decisions are often made well before we consciously make them.

 

[Ostronomos]

It seems to me that being an atheist is the default position, and theists are created by social influences.

It is only a default position for those billions who are swept away by illusion. However, when they die, they will awaken to the Metaphysical realm that defines reality.

So while so-called "conscientious individuals" may tout their material concerns as fact, it is in actuality illusion. And it is not possible to deny material illusion without a glimmer of truth as seen through the eyes of mathematical metaphysics.

I on the other hand am able to, in one sense, step out of that illusion while remaining "located" in another sense within space, time and object.

That is what studies that revealed, that our decisions are often made well before we consciously make them.

Agreed. And yes I've known this since 2007.

 

[F1fan]

It is only a default position for those billions who are swept away by illusion. However, when they die, they will awaken to the Metaphysical realm that defines reality.

Oh the irony of claiming there’s an afterlife as if its a fact but accusing non-believers of “being swept away by illusion”.

So while so-called "conscientious individuals" may tout their material concerns as fact, it is in actuality illusion. And it is not possible to deny material illusion without a glimmer of truth as seen through the eyes of mathematical metaphysics.

I notice your complete failure to provide evidence for these claims. So by logical default they are rejected.

I on the other hand am able to, in one sense, step out of that illusion while remaining "located" in another sense within space, time and object.

Sounds like illusion that avoids using reason to assess how it’s an illusion. Tests in reality are useful because they help minds avoid the fantasy you’re using.

 

[Polymath257]

And it is not possible to deny material illusion without a glimmer of truth as seen through the eyes of mathematical metaphysics.

Oh, please give me a reference for a treatment of 'mathematical metaphysics'. I'd love to read about it.

 

[Ostronomos]

Oh, please give me a reference for a treatment of 'mathematical metaphysics'. I'd love to read about it.

Abstract
Since the time of Aristotle, metaphysics has been an ill-defined term. This paper defines it as a logically idempotent metalinguistic identity of reality which couples the two initial ingredients of awareness: perceptual reality (the basis of physics), and cognitive-perceptual syntax, a formalization of mind. The explanation has been reduced to a few very simple, clearly explained mathematical ingredients. This paper contains no assumptions or arguable assertions, and is therefore presented as an advanced formulation of logic which has been updated for meaningful reference to the structure of reality at large. This structure, called the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, resolves the problems attending Cartesian dualism by replacing dualism with the mathematical property of self-duality, meaning (for reality-theoretic purposes) the quantum-level invariance of identity under permutation of objective and spatiotemporal data types. The CTMU takes the form of a global coupling or superposition of mind and physical reality in a self-dual metaphysical identity M:L<-->U, which can be intrinsically developed into a logico-geometrically self-dual, ontologically self- contained language incorporating its own medium of existence and comprising its own model therein.

Reference: Christopher Langan, An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics - PhilPapers

 

[Ostronomos]

Oh the irony of claiming there’s an afterlife as if its a fact but accusing non-believers of “being swept away by illusion”.


I notice your complete failure to provide evidence for these claims. So by logical default they are rejected.


Sounds like illusion that avoids using reason to assess how it’s an illusion. Tests in reality are useful because they help minds avoid the fantasy you’re using.

 

[Ostronomos]

Oh the irony of claiming there’s an afterlife as if its a fact but accusing non-believers of “being swept away by illusion”.

Conviction have you? Thankfully I can't be accused of such faulty logic.

I notice your complete failure to provide evidence for these claims. So by logical default they are rejected.

But I have. See my threads in the religion section of sciforums, first page.

Sounds like illusion that avoids using reason to assess how it’s an illusion. Tests in reality are useful because they help minds avoid the fantasy you’re using.

See what throwing around false accusations gets you? A total misunderstanding of reality. Hopefully, with my logical proofs of God in the religion section of sciforums, you will be awoken to what the top minds in theology and metaphysics (including myself) have to say about the inner workings of reality.

 

[Polymath257]

Abstract
Since the time of Aristotle, metaphysics has been an ill-defined term. This paper defines it as a logically idempotent metalinguistic identity of reality which couples the two initial ingredients of awareness: perceptual reality (the basis of physics), and cognitive-perceptual syntax, a formalization of mind. The explanation has been reduced to a few very simple, clearly explained mathematical ingredients. This paper contains no assumptions or arguable assertions, and is therefore presented as an advanced formulation of logic which has been updated for meaningful reference to the structure of reality at large. This structure, called the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, resolves the problems attending Cartesian dualism by replacing dualism with the mathematical property of self-duality, meaning (for reality-theoretic purposes) the quantum-level invariance of identity under permutation of objective and spatiotemporal data types. The CTMU takes the form of a global coupling or superposition of mind and physical reality in a self-dual metaphysical identity M:L<-->U, which can be intrinsically developed into a logico-geometrically self-dual, ontologically self- contained language incorporating its own medium of existence and comprising its own model therein.

Reference: Christopher Langan, An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics - PhilPapers

The reference given does not archive the paper, so there is no way to evaluate it except for the abstract.

But, from reading that, it is almost certainly nonsense.

If you can give a link to an archived version of this paper, I will make a fuller assessment.

 

[Polymath257]

Conviction have you? Thankfully I can't be accused of such faulty logic.

But I have. See my threads in the religion section of sciforums, first page.

See what throwing around false accusations gets you? A total misunderstanding of reality. Hopefully, with my logical proofs of God in the religion section of sciforums, you will be awoken to what the top minds in theology and metaphysics (including myself) have to say about the inner workings of reality.

What I have learned from reading metaphysics is that metaphysics is almost wholly garbage. Those aspects that are not, are trivial.