Free Will

[nPeace]

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.

That is not actually true.
atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

If you are an atheist, in reality, you consciously held the view that there must not be a god, or gods, as claimed by others.
All these -ist on here, consciously chose not to believe, or believe something.

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.

Would be interested to hear why you hold that opinion. Is it just an idea, a thought, a view based on the prodings of inner feelings toward or against something?

 

[nPeace]

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?

Can a choice be made by us, without our being aware that we made a choice?
Yes. We do things subconsciously, without consciously being aware.
The thing is, it is we that made the choice - our inner person... the man we are, on the inside.
Is this something you can relate to?

 

[nPeace]

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?

It just means that what is going on in our mind, is shaping our behavior - our actions.
So, for example, a person may feed their mind on unwholesome entertainment... not realizing the effect it is having on his person.
Then when he acts, he may think he did not make that choice, but he actually did.
His heart deceives him... by rationalizing... either to commit the wrong, or justify it, or even deny it.
The heart is treacherous... and desperately wicked.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Where is the Winner frubal when you need it.
Excellent! Thank you for that.

 

[idea]

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.

As a parent, and a teacher, I do take at least partial responsibility for my kids. I've learned from trying to help others.

Synergy - the whole is not the sum of parts, but interactions. Who we are is who we are with others. If we are kind, it is a description of our interaction.

A single atom has no color, no phase of matter, not gas or liquid, not red or blue - color, phase - it describes a group and interactions - we only measure interactions.

A single person on a deserted island- are they kind? Are they cruel? It is undefined, non-existent - no character - no color.

Who we are is who we are with others. Only interactions between at least two. We never see the one. We only see interaction. There is no feee will of individual, only interactions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

I don't see solipsism there. I lean toward the idea that what I call the self is best thought of as a passive observer of some of the brain's activity.

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.

I don't assume that free will exists except in the trivial sense I called the illusion of free will. I also don't assume that I control my thinking. I think that I might be only an observer of what the brain is doing, which includes giving me the impression that I'm running the show. These questions seem unanswerable. Furthermore, the answers don't matter to me. I'm good with reality being whatever it actually is if that's different from how it appears.

atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

If you are an atheist, in reality, you consciously held the view that there must not be a god, or gods, as claimed by others.

You contradicted the definition you cited, which I consider too long anyway: atheist- a person who lacks belief in gods. This includes the atheists not specifically mentioned. I'm an agnostic atheist, meaning that I don't hold that view.

 

[nPeace]

You contradicted the definition you cited, which I consider too long anyway: atheist- a person who lacks belief in gods. This includes the atheists not specifically mentioned. I'm an agnostic atheist, meaning that I don't hold that view.

Okay. Lacks belief in gods So, like a child that lacks belief in the sea, right? No choice is presented.
Same for a young person raised in a religion. They have not made a choice either.
So that person is atheist then? Is that how atheists define the term?
Do you have a dictionary with your definition, so that I can examine this closely?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Okay. Lacks belief in gods So, like a child that lacks belief in the sea, right? No choice is presented.

No, more like a person that doesn't have enough information to decide if a proposition is correct or false. It's agnosticism - "I don't know, and I choose not to guess."

You just met a man. Do you consider him trustworthy or unreliable? Hopefully, neither until you have cause to conclude oneor the other. You're agnostic on the matter. There may be three possible answers - yes, no, and I don't know - but there are only two possible ways to live: as if you trust him, or as if you don't, and you should choose the latter. "I don't trust you" doesn't mean that I know that you're untrustworthy, and "I don't believe in gods" doesn't mean that I say they don't exist.

Same for a young person raised in a religion. They have not made a choice either.
So that person is atheist then? Is that how atheists define the term?

I define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. People quibble over whether that should include such things infants, dogs, and rocks (I've seen them all named). An alternate definition might be anyone who answers 'no' to the question of whether they hold a god belief, which eliminates those that can't.

Do you have a dictionary with your definition, so that I can examine this closely?

I didn't use a dictionary to arrive at my definition. As you saw, I modified the one you offered from the OED. Here's one from Wiki: "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Some confusion is sure to arise, however, when I try to differentiate that which is me, from those things that are not me. If I and my environment are inseparable, doesn’t that make any definition of me necessarily incomplete? I am looking out at the world from within, yet the vision I have of the world is held within my mind. So where do I end, and the external world begin?

I think you'd instantly detect you/not-you if a fly flew up your nose!

 

[Nimos]

That is not actually true.
atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

If you are an atheist, in reality, you consciously held the view that there must not be a god, or gods, as claimed by others.
All these -ist on here, consciously chose not to believe, or believe something.

I would disagree.

An atheist or theist doesn't simply change their beliefs whenever they feel like it. For me, nothing convinced me that God(s) offer the best explanation and therefore atheism prevails. My guess is that this holds true for the believers as well, that a God(s) offers the best explanation for them.

What might cause us to change our minds is evidence of the opposite, but neither of us chooses what evidence might convince us, we might obviously refuse to look at them, but then one would be aware of it and that one is clearly fooling oneself, and I would argue that such thing doesn't really work because we have to be truly convinced of something for it to hold any value for us.

Would be interested to hear why you hold that opinion. Is it just an idea, a thought, a view based on the prodings of inner feelings toward or against something?

I don't think I would call it an inner feeling, because I think it would give a wrong impression or understanding of it. I think conviction is more accurate.

If I should explain it using numbers and that these could illustrate different views or opinions, so let's take "2" and "5". We would both agree that "5" is a greater number than "2" and therefore we would both be convinced by that. Most things we do or views we hold are rarely as obvious as in this example because they are much more complex than simply comparing two numbers.

So we could illustrate that by using "X" and "Y" and then we are asked which of these is more likely to be the highest value. So we are presented with a range of information or arguments for each of these about which one it is. But rarely do we get all the information we need to reach the correct answer, so we go with what seems most convincing.

And if you are convinced, given the arguments/information you are presented with that "X" is the highest, then you would go with that, even if that is actually the wrong answer. This would be your inner feeling and why I think it's inaccurate to use that word because it is not something you grabbed out of thin air, but based on a range of information that convinced you.

Can a choice be made by us, without our being aware that we made a choice?
Yes. We do things subconsciously, without consciously being aware.
The thing is, it is we that made the choice - our inner person... the man we are, on the inside.
Is this something you can relate to?

I don't think that is true. I think the closes you can to that is when we do something instinctively, where we don't have time to make a choice. But in other cases, I think we draw on whatever information is available, it might be extremely limited or it might be quite a lot of information. And by Information just to avoid confusion, it can be passed experiences, something we read, heard, saw etc. which might have nothing to do with the actual thing we have to make a choice about, so it can be an extremely weak foundation, but simply something that makes us believe that one option is more likely to be better than another. But given we don't choose which of these things we rely on that convinced us, we don't really have free will as I see it.

It just means that what is going on in our mind, is shaping our behavior - our actions.
So, for example, a person may feed their mind on unwholesome entertainment... not realizing the effect it is having on his person.
Then when he acts, he may think he did not make that choice, but he actually did.

Not 100% sure what you mean, but we as humans tend to not enjoy watching things or "feed" our minds with things we don't enjoy. But I don't think any human decides what they enjoy and don't enjoy.

Using the example of ice cream, some like chocolate flavour and some don't, but we didn't choose this through free will. Obviously one can "force" themselves to eat chocolate ice cream and eventually develop a taste for it. But I don't think this holds true if we were talking about something more serious. As an example, let's say hurting other people, that if you just do it enough then you will eventually enjoy it.

 

[Curious George]

I don't see solipsism there. I lean toward the idea that what I call the self is best thought of as a passive observer of some of the brain's activity.

We can only have knowledge if that is well justified; therefore, you cannot have knowledge without reasoning. Asserting that you have no degree of control over your thoughts and actions is tantamount to saying we cannot actually reason but are instead predestined to reach our conclusions whatever they may be. So, if our conclusions are predetermined and our reasoning isn’t ours, then we cannot have knowledge. I suppose that is a degree worse than actual solipsism, but I am unsure how you don’t see solipsism.

 

[nPeace]

I would disagree.

An atheist or theist doesn't simply change their beliefs whenever they feel like it. For me, nothing convinced me that God(s) offer the best explanation and therefore atheism prevails. My guess is that this holds true for the believers as well, that a God(s) offers the best explanation for them.

What might cause us to change our minds is evidence of the opposite, but neither of us chooses what evidence might convince us, we might obviously refuse to look at them, but then one would be aware of it and that one is clearly fooling oneself, and I would argue that such thing doesn't really work because we have to be truly convinced of something for it to hold any value for us.

So it is a conscious effort, is it not?

I don't think I would call it an inner feeling, because I think it would give a wrong impression or understanding of it. I think conviction is more accurate.

If I should explain it using numbers and that these could illustrate different views or opinions, so let's take "2" and "5". We would both agree that "5" is a greater number than "2" and therefore we would both be convinced by that. Most things we do or views we hold are rarely as obvious as in this example because they are much more complex than simply comparing two numbers.

So we could illustrate that by using "X" and "Y" and then we are asked which of these is more likely to be the highest value. So we are presented with a range of information or arguments for each of these about which one it is. But rarely do we get all the information we need to reach the correct answer, so we go with what seems most convincing.

And if you are convinced, given the arguments/information you are presented with that "X" is the highest, then you would go with that, even if that is actually the wrong answer. This would be your inner feeling and why I think it's inaccurate to use that word because it is not something you grabbed out of thin air, but based on a range of information that convinced you.

...but you have not been convinced. You take a guess, with the hope that you are right.
So I don't understand why you are against the word feeling, other than because you want to distance yourself from anything that is not certain.
It's not certain. You think, feel, believe... This is not saying you are emotionally attached to something, necessarily.
You might have a reason for believing.

I don't think that is true. I think the closes you can to that is when we do something instinctively, where we don't have time to make a choice. But in other cases, I think we draw on whatever information is available, it might be extremely limited or it might be quite a lot of information. And by Information just to avoid confusion, it can be passed experiences, something we read, heard, saw etc. which might have nothing to do with the actual thing we have to make a choice about, so it can be an extremely weak foundation, but simply something that makes us believe that one option is more likely to be better than another. But given we don't choose which of these things we rely on that convinced us, we don't really have free will as I see it.

The information is already in your head, and there is information coming in, even as you speak.
Your subconscious is processing information 40 to 50 bits per second, so choices are being made even before you speak.
Your brain has already determined, and is continuing to determine how to answer me, and yes, it is based on what you already know... and believe.

Not 100% sure what you mean, but we as humans tend to not enjoy watching things or "feed" our minds with things we don't enjoy. But I don't think any human decides what they enjoy and don't enjoy.

Right. You did not get what I am saying.
You subconsciously take in things that make you what you are, on the inside, and it may be things you are not even aware of - little subtle things that slip past your conscious awareness.

Using the example of ice cream, some like chocolate flavour and some don't, but we didn't choose this through free will. Obviously one can "force" themselves to eat chocolate ice cream and eventually develop a taste for it. But I don't think this holds true if we were talking about something more serious. As an example, let's say hurting other people, that if you just do it enough then you will eventually enjoy it.

You don't choose the color of your eyes, or skin either.
It's hereditary. Your genes passed on from a parent, grandparent, distant grandparent, play a tole in what you like or don't like. Even smell.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

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.

What if the desires which lead to the choices are determined?

What if the choice I wold make is determined?

what if *I* am exactly the same as my neural network?

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.

And what if the choice I make is also pre-determined? It is me making the choice, but *I* am the neural activity in my brain and maybe that is determined.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Certainly nothing that general, including everyone. But maybe my specific history and specifics of my viewpoints, all determine what I will choose to do.

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.

Now that is an assumption that I am not sure I can make. Why do yo think that the laws of physics only limit your freedom as opposed to determine precisely what you will choose given the history of each individual choice?

I am quite sure that each individual has specifics in their brains that are different enough to give different choices even with the laws of physics applying in each and every case to determine precisely what will be chosen.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And what makes you think that you have *actual* options? Maybe there is precisely one future that is possible and ALL of your choices are pre-determined?

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.

But if they are *my* choices, determined by me and my personality and history, can they still be pre-determined and free as well?

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.

 

[Polymath257]

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.



"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.

Exactly. If I *am* my neural network in action, then the laws that govern that neural network also determine my choices, but those choices are still *mine* (because I am that working neural network).

 

[Polymath257]

That is not actually true.
atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

If you are an atheist, in reality, you consciously held the view that there must not be a god, or gods, as claimed by others.
All these -ist on here, consciously chose not to believe, or believe something.

Well, the question is whether belief is a choice or is determined by history and personality, etc.

Would be interested to hear why you hold that opinion. Is it just an idea, a thought, a view based on the prodings of inner feelings toward or against something?

It just means that what is going on in our mind, is shaping our behavior - our actions.

Precisely. What is going on in our minds determines what we will do. And what is going on in our minds is part of the physical history of that decision, right?

So, for example, a person may feed their mind on unwholesome entertainment... not realizing the effect it is having on his person.
Then when he acts, he may think he did not make that choice, but he actually did.
His heart deceives him... by rationalizing... either to commit the wrong, or justify it, or even deny it.
The heart is treacherous... and desperately wicked.

So the specific choice was determined by previous choices which were determined by previous choices, etc. And so our choices are determined by our past.

 

[nPeace]

What if the desires which lead to the choices are determined?

What if the choice I wold make is determined?

what if *I* am exactly the same as my neural network?




And what if the choice I make is also pre-determined? It is me making the choice, but *I* am the neural activity in my brain and maybe that is determined.

So we are not talking about free will, but something that would not be free will?
In other words, let's find something that is not free will?
I'll get back to you later. Gotta go..

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

This echoes Alexander and the Gordian knot. But does the story indicate the wisdom, or the ignorance, of the Western mind?

Either way, the question being asked here is, how do you know when you choose a course of action, that your choice wasn’t determined by the web of causation converging on the moment in which you appeared to choose? How do you know you have choice rather than the illusion of choice? Go back to any moment in your past, think of a choice you may have subsequently come to regret, and ask yourself, given the exact same circumstances and knowledge that you had then, could you possibly have chosen any different?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, the question is whether belief is a choice or is determined by history and personality, etc.



Precisely. What is going on in our minds determines what we will do. And what is going on in our minds is part of the physical history of that decision, right?

So the specific choice was determined by previous choices which were determined by previous choices, etc. And so our choices are determined by our past.

Unless there is an irreducible randomness in nature, in which case determinism, like everything else, has it’s limits.