Freewill Revisited

[Curious George]

A computer can choose to do things, but does not have free will. Choice in itself is not an surefire indicator of free will.

You must demonstrate more than that we have mere choice to demonstrate free will. You must demonstrate that our choices are caused by "us" -- however you define "us". And that, as it happens, is an extraordinarily hard thing to do with any intellectual honesty and relevant knowledge at all.

Computers do not choose. Computers apply an algorithm and deliver an output. You are begging the question by defining choice in a way that precludes choice.

Proving that cause exists, as it happens, is an extraordinarily hard thing to do, (impossible in fact), with any intellectually honesty and relevant knowledge.

But still, we believe in cause and effect. Why? Because, cause is necessary and relevant--just as is free will.

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

I think we can choose to do things but I also believe we are not free to do what we want.

The Bible teaches that our will (individually) is beholden to our nature. Man as a result of the fall in Adam has a sin nature. He is conceived in sin already, and brought forth speaking lies. Because Adam's death and curse passed upon all men. Because all sinned in Adam. So while we are by nature spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, we can do nothing to please God.

For this reason, God causes a new birth in His chosen people to give them spiritual life, through the quickening power of God the Holy Spirit, as His Gospel is preached and Christ is set before them as crucified for the sins of God's elect. He makes them willing in the day of His power. They choose Christ when God imposes His will on them. They were not willing, but God makes them willing by His grace. So their minds are changed (they repent) and seek Christ.

So by nature, man is chained to his sin nature which he received from his first father, Adam. He cannot choose Christ. He cannot believe the gospel. He is not willing for Christ to reign over him. He must have a supernatural act change his will.

Yet, even after conversion to Christ, the will of man is now as it were, chained to Christ, not free to not choose Christ, but the rebirthed child of God loves Christ who first loved him, and is not willing to depart from Christ.

So we see that man, by nature, is not a free agent with an ability to choose Christ. This notion is foreign to the Bible. Those who advance such a notion are worshiping their own will rather than Christ. They are will worshipers, with a false christ that cannot save, being dependent on the will of man. Such a christ is not a savior, for God alone is Savior and God has all power, and is not dependent on man for anything, but does whatsoever He pleases in heaven and earth, and none can stay His hand or say unto Him, "What are you doing?"

God is absolutely Sovereign in salvation, having all the power. Unto Him is due all the glory for salvation. Christ hath trodden the winepresses of the wrath of God alone. He alone brought the victory. God has absolute power over all flesh. This is comforting to the Christian, because he knows himself to be a sinner who cannot save himself. He depends fully on Christ to save him. Therefore he rejoices at this good news (the Gospel) that declares Christ has done it all and accomplished fully the salvation of all God's elect.

 

[Nous]

I think we can choose to do things but I also believe we are not free to do what we want.

Does that make sense?

So I've been a mess intellectually. All over the map. Normal reading has led me to meditation. Simple stuff. Stop for 5 minutes and focus on your breath... when you find yourself distracted and off on some tangent no judgement... just go back to the breath. Try to take control of what your mind focuses on. I want to focus on that time period... Five minutes.

I don't know about you but when I made real attempts at this my brain was so distracted. It stands to reason that those distractions influence our free will. For any serious people there are free meditation apps out there... headspace, waking up, others... I don't think you really need an app. So reading 21 lessons and this dude says he meditates two hours a day. Go back to five minutes.

I think we clearly don't have free will. You can make arguments that someone chose to do X, Y and Z and if only they were Catholic or Muslim they would have known better and chose differently. I agree in the sense that the people and environments we subject ourselves too and in that one sense we might have free will of some type but not the way most people think we do.

We seem to be products of our culture, genes and environment. I do not have any measurable control of any of those things so - its hard to argue I'm free.

Unfortunately, the phrase "free will" is confusing to many people, especially when one hasn't studied the philosophical literature on the topic. Free will is best understood as simply the ability to choose between available options or possible actions:

free will

noun
Definition of free will (Entry 2 of 2)

1: voluntary choice or decisionI do this of my own free will

2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention​

Definition of FREE WILL

In arguing that people generally have the ability choose between available options, no one claims that we are not influenced in our decisions -- indeed, we are hugely influenced in almost all our decisions -- and no one claims that we do not often struggle to execute our prior decisions. One of the most common modern struggles people have is to stick to the diet they have previously decided to adhere to. I don't ever recall deciding to eat a whole 10,000-calorie blueberry cobbler in one sitting, but I have so eaten.

Anyway, to assert that one lacks the ability to choose between available options entirely, i.e., to deny that one's free will wholly, is self-stultifying. A person or thing completely lacking the ability to choose between available options is unable to choose to articulate a true answer rather than a false answer to the question of whether one has free will. See:

Like Epiphenomenalism, Denial of Free Will is Self-Stultifying

 

[Nous]

Treating people as if they were not responsible for their crimes only leads to more crime.

Which is true only because people are able to choose to perform or not perform criminal acts.

 

[Nous]

Actually, we act as we do, even if it's a matter of embracing an act such as choosing, because we can do no differently.


.

So you're saying that you could not have chosen to state a true proposition rather than a false one in what you posted? How did you determine that you could not have chosen to state a true proposition rather than a false one?

 

[Nous]

A computer can be programed to make choices.

What program is that? Link to it. I didn't get it on my computer. I need to install it.

 

[sealchan]

I think we can choose to do things but I also believe we are not free to do what we want.

Does that make sense?

So I've been a mess intellectually. All over the map. Normal reading has led me to meditation. Simple stuff. Stop for 5 minutes and focus on your breath... when you find yourself distracted and off on some tangent no judgement... just go back to the breath. Try to take control of what your mind focuses on. I want to focus on that time period... Five minutes.

I don't know about you but when I made real attempts at this my brain was so distracted. It stands to reason that those distractions influence our free will. For any serious people there are free meditation apps out there... headspace, waking up, others... I don't think you really need an app. So reading 21 lessons and this dude says he meditates two hours a day. Go back to five minutes.

I think we clearly don't have free will. You can make arguments that someone chose to do X, Y and Z and if only they were Catholic or Muslim they would have known better and chose differently. I agree in the sense that the people and environments we subject ourselves too and in that one sense we might have free will of some type but not the way most people think we do.

We seem to be products of our culture, genes and environment. I do not have any measurable control of any of those things so - its hard to argue I'm free.

I highly recommend those who are contemplating the nature of free will to read Daniel Dennett's Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting.

Free will is a mythic idea of our modern age. It does point to a reality which can be called agency. But it should be understood that that agency is much more limited than we, as a culture, understand. A good understanding of free will helps us to realize what our points of self-influence are. Addiction is our most profound demonstration of our sphexishness.

IMO, free will is experienced in our minds when multiple options are poised such that we are either ambivalent about our path ahead or when we are highly conflicted about our path ahead. This lack of energy about which path we should take forward or this profound conflict of energy about the same gives us a space to choose. But meaning in these cases is weak. Now when we experience a clear choice then meaning is strong. So free will and meaning are in juxtaposition.

Now, also we have a memory of our experience and we can, after the fact, determine that a different course of action would have been preferable. Coming to this conclusion gives us a real agency in the future when similar circumstances present themselves. At that point we may or may not recall our previous resolve, but if we do we still may or may not undertake that new path. But the experience of that process is also an experience of free will.

Lastly, experience provides us with skills and what might be fancily called processes of epistemology...when confronted with a mystery or a problem how does one attempt to reach a clearer point for taking meaningful (rather than ambivalent or conflicted) action? We can learn that there are resources we may go to (such as meditation) which may reset our current mindset and provide it with new information or allow the emotion of certain factors to dissipate. We may choose to employ these methods in order to address a current crisis or indecision. By resorting to these discovered methodologies we are enabling our free will.

Free will is not a thing like a special red glow to our nerve impulses, it is a set of experiences in our consciousness which give us a recognition of our agency. That agency is rooted in causal processes but is entirely significant in how our particular individual wills direct us into our next course of action in the face of uncertainty.

As Dennett might say, who cares about free will that is unchained from causal outcomes?

 

[Katzpur]

You're missing the point. No one is saying a computer chooses to do something different than it's programed to choose.

No, I'm not missing the point. You're misusing the word "choose."

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think we can choose to do things but I also believe we are not free to do what we want.

Does that make sense?

So I've been a mess intellectually. All over the map. Normal reading has led me to meditation. Simple stuff. Stop for 5 minutes and focus on your breath... when you find yourself distracted and off on some tangent no judgement... just go back to the breath. Try to take control of what your mind focuses on. I want to focus on that time period... Five minutes.

I don't know about you but when I made real attempts at this my brain was so distracted. It stands to reason that those distractions influence our free will. For any serious people there are free meditation apps out there... headspace, waking up, others... I don't think you really need an app. So reading 21 lessons and this dude says he meditates two hours a day. Go back to five minutes.

I think we clearly don't have free will. You can make arguments that someone chose to do X, Y and Z and if only they were Catholic or Muslim they would have known better and chose differently. I agree in the sense that the people and environments we subject ourselves too and in that one sense we might have free will of some type but not the way most people think we do.

We seem to be products of our culture, genes and environment. I do not have any measurable control of any of those things so - its hard to argue I'm free.

I always like to ask what's Free Will for somebody who's suffering from something like Dementia or similar?

 

[Curious George]

I always like to ask what's Free Will for somebody who's suffering from something like Dementia or similar?

Some degree of control: same as it is for all.

 

[Sunstone]

No, I'm not missing the point. You're misusing the word "choose."

Please demonstrate to me that there is a proper or correct way to use words in light of my comments in this thread:

Dictionaries are Not the Final Word on the Definitions of Words

 

[Thief]

I think we can choose to do things but I also believe we are not free to do what we want.

Does that make sense?

So I've been a mess intellectually. All over the map. Normal reading has led me to meditation. Simple stuff. Stop for 5 minutes and focus on your breath... when you find yourself distracted and off on some tangent no judgement... just go back to the breath. Try to take control of what your mind focuses on. I want to focus on that time period... Five minutes.

I don't know about you but when I made real attempts at this my brain was so distracted. It stands to reason that those distractions influence our free will. For any serious people there are free meditation apps out there... headspace, waking up, others... I don't think you really need an app. So reading 21 lessons and this dude says he meditates two hours a day. Go back to five minutes.

I think we clearly don't have free will. You can make arguments that someone chose to do X, Y and Z and if only they were Catholic or Muslim they would have known better and chose differently. I agree in the sense that the people and environments we subject ourselves too and in that one sense we might have free will of some type but not the way most people think we do.

We seem to be products of our culture, genes and environment. I do not have any measurable control of any of those things so - its hard to argue I'm free.

as long as you breathe.....you need to work within such parameters
and as long as you need shelter, a car, clothing......you also need a job

so forth and so on

what freedom will you have after your last breath?

 

[Katzpur]

Please demonstrate to me that there is a proper or correct way to use words in light of my comments in this thread:

Dictionaries are Not the Final Word on the Definitions of Words

Hey, this is way too trivial a point to warrant an argument. You made some comments which explained your "choice" of the word "chose." I understand them. I still think the word itself does not apply to anything a computer does. I don't believe the wheels of my car choose to move my car backward when I put it in reverse, either. I just wouldn't have used that word myself because I think it involves a conscious decision to pick one of several alternatives.

 

[Nous]

I highly recommend those who are contemplating the nature of free will to read Daniel Dennett's Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting.

Free will is a mythic idea of our modern age. It does point to a reality which can be called agency. But it should be understood that that agency is much more limited than we, as a culture, understand. A good understanding of free will helps us to realize what our points of self-influence are. Addiction is our most profound demonstration of our sphexishness.

IMO, free will is experienced in our minds when multiple options are poised such that we are either ambivalent about our path ahead or when we are highly conflicted about our path ahead. This lack of energy about which path we should take forward or this profound conflict of energy about the same gives us a space to choose. But meaning in these cases is weak. Now when we experience a clear choice then meaning is strong. So free will and meaning are in juxtaposition.

Now, also we have a memory of our experience and we can, after the fact, determine that a different course of action would have been preferable. Coming to this conclusion gives us a real agency in the future when similar circumstances present themselves. At that point we may or may not recall our previous resolve, but if we do we still may or may not undertake that new path. But the experience of that process is also an experience of free will.

Lastly, experience provides us with skills and what might be fancily called processes of epistemology...when confronted with a mystery or a problem how does one attempt to reach a clearer point for taking meaningful (rather than ambivalent or conflicted) action? We can learn that there are resources we may go to (such as meditation) which may reset our current mindset and provide it with new information or allow the emotion of certain factors to dissipate. We may choose to employ these methods in order to address a current crisis or indecision. By resorting to these discovered methodologies we are enabling our free will.

Free will is not a thing like a special red glow to our nerve impulses, it is a set of experiences in our consciousness which give us a recognition of our agency. That agency is rooted in causal processes but is entirely significant in how our particular individual wills direct us into our next course of action in the face of uncertainty.

As Dennett might say, who cares about free will that is unchained from causal outcomes?

Does Dennett argue for compatibilism?

Are you arguing for compatibilism?

 

[viole]

Computers do not choose.

Yet.

Computers apply an algorithm and deliver an output. You are begging the question by defining choice in a way that precludes choice.

And you are begging the question that the human mind does not follow an algorithm. I think that assuming that the human mind goes beyond Turing computability is a pretty strong claim that seems to be motivated solely by anthropocentrism and an unsubstantiated rejection to the fact that we are not much more than mere machines.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sunstone]

Hey, this is way too trivial a point to warrant an argument. You made some comments which explained your "choice" of the word "chose." I understand them. I still think the word itself does not apply to anything a computer does. I don't believe the wheels of my car choose to move my car backward when I put it in reverse, either. I just wouldn't have used that word myself because I think it involves a conscious decision to pick one of several alternatives.

You're free to define your terms however you wish, as am I.

 

[Sunstone]

What program is that? Link to it. I didn't get it on my computer. I need to install it.

Another response would be to ask how I was defining "choice" -- or, figure it out from context, if that's possible. However, you might not have the free will for those things to be options for you.

 

[Katzpur]

You're free to define your terms however you wish, as am I.

Absolutely. But if we can't agree on what a term means, that's going to put up a roadblock when it comes to our being able to agree on any premise which involves the use of that word. Being able to agree on what words mean makes conversation possible.

 

[Sunstone]

Computers do not choose. Computers apply an algorithm and deliver an output. You are begging the question by defining choice in a way that precludes choice.[/quote

I am simply using the word "choice" in the sense of "picking between options". And yes, I have heard professional programmers use the word "choice" in that context. Do you have a more convenient word for what happens when a computer picks between option A and option B, based on its programming?

 

[Sunstone]

Absolutely. But if we can't agree on what a term means, that's going to put up a roadblock when it comes to our being able to agree on any premise which involves the use of that word. Being able to agree on what words mean makes conversation possible.

"Putting up a roadblock" in order to insist that we define our terms according to your wishes sounds a bit juvenile to me. I see no reason why we can't simply acknowledge each other's usages. But if you do, then I think I'll end our conversation here, although you're free to continue talking.