Free Will

[shunyadragon]

It is a choice made freely, end of story

Too simplistic to be real, since by far if not all decisions are based on previous chains of cause and effect events, and factors such as culture, and the desire of being a part of a since of community and identity. The survival motive of the individual, and tribe negates most potential of libertarian 'free will.

 

[nPeace]

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'?

Think of freedom in a relative sense.

 

[shunyadragon]

Think of freedom in a relative sense.
.

The only way this works is the evidence indicates that humans make decisions within a very limited possible choice of alternatives.

 

[ChristineM]

Too simplistic to be real, since by far if not all decisions are based on previous chains of cause and effect events, and factors such as culture, and the desire of being a part of a since of community and identity. The survival motive of the individual, and tribe negates most potential of libertarian 'free will.

Any choice can be simple or you can choose to make it difficult.

 

[The Hammer]

Go out of your home with no idea where you want to end up. Turn left or right at your choice.

You'll.still end up where you were supposed to be. Whether you know it or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Any choice can be simple or you can choose to make it difficult.

This does not address whether the decision is a 'free will' decision or not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

These discussions generally suffer from not making a distinction between what is sometimes called the illusion of free will, but also frequently just called free will, and other ideas of what the term can mean. If by free will we mean the experience of having desires and being able to act on them - if this is all we mean by free will - then the question and answer are trivial. Yes, that occurs.

It's only when we consider the matter in other ways that we end up with interesting questions, such as could we have chosen otherwise, or what is the origin of those impulses to act. Is the self their author, or are unseen neural mechanism which deliver their conclusions to consciousness their origin? As we've seen, we'd need a distinct idea of what we mean by the self or ego to begin to decide if that's something that can generate anything. These are knotty problems that often aren't answerable, but they are distinct from what is described in the first paragraph, and we constantly return to that. Yes, we all have desires and act on them. There is no need to discuss that further except to ask where they come from.

This is surely just the compatibilist view? As far as I can see, this is the only version of 'free will' that makes the slightest bit of sense. After reading though this thread (at least most of it, anyway ) I can't see any serious objections or alternatives.

"Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent."

That view only makes sense to me if we settle on the definition of free will I called the illusion of free will, or will determined by neural mechanisms. If one asks the questions in the second paragraph above and decides on an alternate metaphysics, they're not so compatible.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The survival motive of the individual, and tribe negates most potential of libertarian 'free will.

I don't see how.
We are not automatons .. while many things that happen in life are not in our control,
many things are.
..yet you seem to want to negate our choices by some philosophical mumbo jumbo.
A person of sound mind is resposnsible for their actions .. tribe and survival motive don't come into it.

 

[nPeace]

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

Choice involves having various options. If any options are impeded, that option is cancelled out, but our freedom to choose isn't.
That's why freedom of choice, or free will is relative. It is relative to the laws of freedom.

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 all your actions are predetermined - that is, you are scripted to do or not do a thing, then these would not be your choices.
They are choices determined for you.

For example, if you are predetermined to smoke cigars, get lung cancer, and die, this was not something you chose. It was something thrust upon you, because you may realized that smoking is bad for your health, and want to stop, but cannot.
Your choice is to stop, but you are not free to make that choice.

 

[nPeace]

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?

That's an interesting thought.
However, you are not predetermined by the laws of physics to smoke cigars, eat feces, or any of those things.
In fact, you are not even predetermined to eat vegetable, and drink water. You can choose to eat anything... even rock, and you can drink gasoline instead of water.
You would die, but it is still free will.

The only thing the laws of physic do, is limit your freedom, but since that freedom is relative, it is expected that freedom is not ultimate.

 

[ChristineM]

This does not address whether the decision is a 'free will' decision or not.

Actually it does but you probably don't realise it

 

[nPeace]

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

Yes, because you do not have to go with the choice picked by the coin. You can cheat.

 

[Curious George]

These discussions generally suffer from not making a distinction between what is sometimes called the illusion of free will, but also frequently just called free will, and other ideas of what the term can mean. If by free will we mean the experience of having desires and being able to act on them. If this is all we mean by free will, then the question and answer are trivial. Yes, that occurs.

It's only when we consider the matter in other ways that we end up with interesting questions, such as could we have chosen otherwise, or what is the origin of those impulses to act. Is the self their author, or are unseen neural mechanism which deliver their conclusions to consciousness their origin. As we've seen, we'd need a distinct idea of what we mean by the self or ego to begin to decide if that's something that can generate anything. These are knotty problems that generally aren't amenable to answering, but they are distinct from what is described in the first paragraph, and we constantly return to that. Yes, we all have desires and act on them. There is no need to discuss that further except to ask where they come from.



"Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent."

That view only makes sense to me if we settle on the definition of free will I called the illusion of free will, or will determined by neural mechanisms. If one asks the questions in the second paragraph above and decides on an alternate metaphysics, they're not so compatible.

I think these discussions also suffer from failing to follow the consequences of each theory. To suggest there is not free will, or that there is only illusion of will, is the same as asserting solipsism and akin to asserting that there is no cause and effect.

We can only know something if we assume some degree of control over our reasoning and we can only assume some degree of control over our reasoning if free will exists.

 

[idea]

Free will is a question of the nature of consciousness. Only if uncreated, with no origin, no beginning, could a being be called free.

I think Reincarnation - observation of the same life in multiple environments - would be the only way to separate nurture from inherent nature.

 

[nPeace]

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

This is nice. I just did not give it a like, due to a few clauses, I differ on... but very good.

 

[idea]

You'll.still end up where you were supposed to be. Whether you know it or not.

Many end up in unfortunate circumstances. War, poverty, abuse, sickness.

Perhaps "free will" is an invention of the privileged class to rationalize their privilege - to rationalize the pain of others without feeling responsible for helping to change environments.

It is easy to blame the victim - they are supposed to be abused, they chose abuse.

It is difficult to take responsibility for another - my choice of inaction contributed to their abuse.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Only because you made the choice - used your free will - to form new habits - put on the new personality, and strip off the old - be transformed, by making your mind over.
Not having free will, would be like the caterpillar, which has no choice, but to make that transformation to a butterfly. It's not on its own will.

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

Your free will.

 

[The Hammer]

Many end up in unfortunate circumstances. War, poverty, abuse, sickness.

Perhaps "free will" is an invention of the privileged class to rationalize their privilege - to rationalize the pain of others without feeling responsible for helping to change environments.

It is easy to blame the victim - they are supposed to be abused, they chose abuse.

It is difficult to take responsibility for another - my choice of inaction contributed to their abuse.

I don't see it as victim blaming. In fact I find it empowering. The fact that no matter what I do, I'll end up where I'm supposed to be learning what I was supposed to.

It's not our responsibility o take responsibility for others.

 

[nPeace]

I think these discussions also suffer from failing to follow the consequences of each theory. To suggest there is not free will, or that there is only illusion of will, is the same as asserting solipsism and akin to asserting that there is no cause and effect.

We can only know something if we assume some degree of control over our reasoning and we can only assume some degree of control over our reasoning if free will exists.

Well said. Excellent, actually.

 

[The Hammer]

Many end up in unfortunate circumstances. War, poverty, abuse, sickness.

This is how I know free will doesn't exist 100%. No one would choose these thinga. We have choices, and make decisions, but our path is severely limited.