is it free will or consequential will?

[Skwim]

"And I'm sorry, but I truly don't remember doing this before,"

Maybe you just have a poor memory and I have a good memory.

Perhaps we both have selective memory. I don't choose to remember things I don't consider important and you choose to remember them. Nothing unusual about that at all. It's part of human nature. We're different people.

But instead of concluding that, you come up this weird, off the wall explanation.

And I agree it's off the wall, it's very off the wall. However, the circumstances that prompted it---your feelings were evidently hurt because in my opinion you may have simply erected a smoke screen to cover up your distaste for the conclusion---are no less off the wall. I'm sorry, but I don't see such a reaction being explained by normal, on the wall explanations.

 

[Jeremiah]

Perhaps we both have selective memory. I don't choose to remember things I don't consider important and you choose to remember them. Nothing unusual about that at all. It's part of human nature. We're different people.

And I agree it's off the wall, it's very off the wall. However, the circumstances that prompted it---your feelings were evidently hurt because in my opinion you may have simply erected a smoke screen to cover up your distaste for the conclusion---are no less off the wall. I'm sorry, but I don't see such a reaction being explained by normal, on the wall explanations.

"your feelings were evidently hurt because in my opinion you may have simply erected a smoke screen to cover up your distaste for the conclusion"

It has nothing to do with hurt fleeing; you could not hurt my feelings. I just don't want to put forth the extra effort to deal with your antics. I just don't consider you worth the time and effort of a philosophical discussion; you are too busy trying to make this personal, instead of keeping focus on the discussion.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I am not the one here making unfalsifiable claims.

You're the one saying there could be another way for events to happen besides cause-and-effect and randomness. There is no other logical possibility.

We can not truly say that the perceived randomness or determinism, is for-sure random or an infinite series of cause and effect.

Free will is impossible in either case, so it doesn't matter.

We simply do not know; nor do we know how the human mind works; which has little to do with understanding the "hardware" but more so with the "software".

We have a very good understanding of how brains work, and minds are functions of brains so we have a very good understanding of minds.

Perhaps it is possible that a "cause" can self start itself, becoming its own cause and effect.

A cause precedes an effect by definition. You'll need to come up with another word for your mysticism. What you're describing sounds more like a random event.

 

[Willamena]

You're the one saying there could be another way for events to happen besides cause-and-effect and randomness. There is no other logical possibility.

Of course there are. You've not read or read about the philosopher David Hume? "Just because all the swans we know are white doesn't mean there aren't black ones," isn't just an agnostic position.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Of course there are.

Name one

 

[Willamena]

Name one

Not that it will matter, but...

Chaos ("unstable aperiodic behavior in nonlinear dynamic systems") which combines randomness with determinism, to name one.

The notions of events happening randomly and those that are a series of causes and effects are, of course, images dependent upon time. Another approach to an "alternative" is to address existence (such as the existence of events) apart from the framework of time --that is, to include the existence of time in the model of the event. Buddhist' philosophies address such ideas with an approach of substance or essence (form) and its inherent opposite (emptiness) present in each moment. By examining existent things from the epistemological perspective of "each moment" (as opposed to the ontological perspective of an "objective reality") the aspect of time is included as but one of the many things being portrayed by the models.

Hume took a not dissimilar approach when he defined cause and effect using empiricism. We do not actually observe "the effect of a cause," or "the cause of an effect." We observe one thing, and then another; cause and effect is a connection drawn between the two --an approach that ultimately places the responsibility for the defining models of the world on our own shoulders.

Which brings us to philosophy of mind...

 

[CarlinKnew]

Chaos ("unstable aperiodic behavior in nonlinear dynamic systems") which combines randomness with determinism, to name one.

Chaotic behavior is deterministic. The subjective unpredictability of dynamical systems arises when: a) the system is sensitive to initial conditions and b) knowledge of the system is limited.

The notions of events happening randomly and those that are a series of causes and effects are, of course, images dependent upon time. Another approach to an "alternative" is to address existence (such as the existence of events) apart from the framework of time --that is, to include the existence of time in the model of the event.

Do you mean "exclude"? Otherwise I don't follow. Isn't the existence of time included in a deterministic account of an event?

Buddhist' philosophies address such ideas with an approach of substance or essence (form) and its inherent opposite (emptiness) present in each moment. By examining existent things from the epistemological perspective of "each moment" (as opposed to the ontological perspective of an "objective reality") the aspect of time is included as but one of the many things being portrayed by the models.

I don't know what you mean by substance and emptiness being present in each moment, nor how that relates to the conversation.

Hume took a not dissimilar approach when he defined cause and effect using empiricism. We do not actually observe "the effect of a cause," or "the cause of an effect." We observe one thing, and then another; cause and effect is a connection drawn between the two --an approach that ultimately places the responsibility for the defining models of the world on our own shoulders.

Yes it is, and it's a connection that would be illogical to deny.

 

[Willamena]

Do you mean "exclude"? Otherwise I don't follow. Isn't the existence of time included in a deterministic account of an event?

No. The deterministic account of an event is included in time.

I don't know what you mean by substance and emptiness being present in each moment, nor how that relates to the conversation.

Perhaps a discussion for another thread. The only real relevance here is that there are other models. I agree with post #36.

Yes it is, and it's a connection that would be illogical to deny.

Right. No one's denied it.

 

[waitasec]

I have no idea how this differentiates free will from consequential will. Could you please elaborate? I'm beginning to get the uncomfortable idea that you have no greater clue than I do as to what the difference is.

a choice made by free will is a choice made without knowing the outcome, sort of like gambling.
isn't life full of these types of choices?
committing to someone is a gamble ...right?

in the case of john 3:16 if jesus were to say, believe in me (have faith in me) and left it at that then the choice is free to make. but since the outcome for both choices are laid out then the choice is coerced/manipulated...
does that help?

 

[Skwim]

"your feelings were evidently hurt because in my opinion you may have simply erected a smoke screen to cover up your distaste for the conclusion"

It has nothing to do with hurt fleeing; you could not hurt my feelings.

Really! Well you had me fooled. Characterizing my remark as indicating you were "shamefully hiding from the truth" to me reflects an internalization grounded in bruised feelings. Why else cast it as shameful? No need to answer.

I just don't want to put forth the extra effort to deal with your antics. I just don't consider you worth the time and effort of a philosophical discussion; you are too busy trying to make this personal, instead of keeping focus on the discussion.

One momentary step off the straight and narrow---please note all the effort I put into addressing your argument---to reflect on your purpose in posting your argument and I'm "too busy trying to make this personal." Okay, so you can't address my points and therefore tried to redirect our discussion into a personal one, which, I might add, you've been very successful at. And you now want use this as an excuse to bail. So be it. Maybe we'll meet again under better circumstances. Take care.

 

[PolyHedral]

We most definitely do know: the universe has been proven to contain a random element. (or doesn't obey causality)

 

[Meow Mix]

We most definitely do know: the universe has been proven to contain a random element. (or doesn't obey causality)

Piping my two cents here, Bell's inequality tells us that there aren't hidden variables in QM and that with our interpretations of QM as it stands we must abandon either locality or [scientific] realism.

It doesn't necessarily mean there is an ontological random element, though that may be the case. It may be more likely that QM is an incomplete theory if you ask me.

 

[Skwim]

Not that it will matter, but...

Chaos ("unstable aperiodic behavior in nonlinear dynamic systems") which combines randomness with determinism, to name one.

Err . . . this appears to be an aborted version of Kellert 's definition of chaos theory where he said chaos theory is "the qualitative study of unstable aperiodic behavior in deterministic nonlinear dynamical systems” *
Emphasis added of course.



More on chaos.

"Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, physics, economics and philosophydynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."
source
​

Again, emphasis added.


*Stephen H kellert, In the Wake of Chaos: Unpredictable Order in Dynamical Systems, University of Chicago Press, 1993.

 

[Willamena]

Err . . . this appears to be an aborted version of Kellert 's definition of chaos theory where he said chaos theory is "the qualitative study of unstable aperiodic behavior in deterministic nonlinear dynamical systems” *
Emphasis added of course.



More on chaos.

"Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, physics, economics and philosophydynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."
source
​

Again, emphasis added.


*Stephen H kellert, In the Wake of Chaos: Unpredictable Order in Dynamical Systems, University of Chicago Press, 1993.

I guess it depends on how "randomness" is defined. My boat says that this explanation does indicate randomness while not denying determinism ("having no specific pattern", "...an event in which all outcomes are equally likely", etc.).

 

[PolyHedral]

A random machine won't return the same result if you run it with the same parameters twice. Chaotic systems don't do that.

 

[Skwim]

I guess it depends on how "randomness" is defined. My boat says that this explanation does indicate randomness while not denying determinism ("having no specific pattern", "...an event in which all outcomes are equally likely", etc.).

Yes it does depend on definition; however, when discussing free will, which is what this thread is about, randomness is only brought up as an alternative to determinism, which would necessarily make it nondeterministic.

 

[Willamena]

Yes it does depend on definition; however, when discussing free will, which is what this thread is about, randomness is only brought up as an alternative to determinism, which would necessarily make it nondeterministic.

Right. The word "randomness" in this thread is being used to refer to the idea of the uncaused cause. The challenge, though, was to present alternatives to determinism vs. the uncaused cause, and chaos is one. It's not intended that chaos explain "free will" or deny determinism.

 

[Skwim]

Right. The word "randomness" in this thread is being used to refer to the idea of the uncaused cause. The challenge, though, was to present alternatives to determinism vs. the uncaused cause, and chaos is one.

But chaos is deterministic, as was pointed out in the quote I supplied, "these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved," so it doesn't qualify as an alternative to determinism.

It's not intended that chaos explain "free will" or deny determinism.

Well, It is presented as an alternative to determinism; used to address the question: If an event has no cause then by what means does it arise? So far the only option I've ever come across is that it was random. It could just as well have not materialized as done so. And this is just as abhorrent to "free willers" as is determinism, at which point the discussion usually comes to an abrupt end or digresses into irrelevant issues.

 

[Senior NevaLes X]

Free will is a conquest of the truth within itself. I have the will to succeed. I have the will to fail. Yet I am subject to the variables of life. These instances can cause my determination to faulter or sway in the wind. But if I am rooted solely in the strength of my will power, then I have just conquered all barriers, therefor manifesting all that I desire in this life.

 

[Willamena]

Well, It is presented as an alternative to determinism; used to address the question: If an event has no cause then by what means does it arise? So far the only option I've ever come across is that it was random. It could just as well have not materialized as done so. And this is just as abhorrent to "free willers" as is determinism, at which point the discussion usually comes to an abrupt end or digresses into irrelevant issues.

IMO, "random" is not even an option as "cause" (it is, in essence, an effect, the unpredictable outcome). As far as I'm concerned, Carlin is correct in at least the assertion that the uncaused cause cannot happen in the framework of determinism. The reason, though, is because of our innate ability to assign (meaning, to the world). There will never not be "cause," not as long as we're around (to construct the determinstic framework).

The better alternative for an image of "free will" (one I've already mentioned) are the epistomological models that, rather than trying to revise the ontological model to squeeze uncaused causes into (or out of) causation, choose a different perspective from which to view the issue, the perspective of our own conscious participation in the universe. And really, isn't that what "free will" is all about? Us, doing things, wilfully. Asserting our being.

Here's me. There's you. Here's a moment in time, a moment when something in particular, something significant, is happening to one or both of us. We participate in the event, even if only observing; we participate, in whatever actions and thoughts we do; together, "we" must be a necessary part of the model of what is going on with the issue of "free will". By whatever flavour of free will one might define, our conscious participation is vital for "free will" to have happened. We are here, a part of the universe, and our minds are a part of the objective sequence of events taking place. To minimize the role of our participation in the sequence of events taking place in the universe (or worse, eliminate it) is to look at less than the whole picture (not saying you've done that, but it's a familiar approach) and to model less than a whole picture.

But I'm rambling now.