Oh Free-Will. Where art Thou???

[firedragon]

Hard determinism will typically say we don't have free-will. Even in the position of hard determinism, free-will is accommodated in some schools of God believers. Not in a naturalistic philosophical manner, but within the theology where God has knowledge. The problem remains we tend to think God knows what I will do the next minute, and there is only one variable. Do you understand? One variable means I am going to drink tea at 5:15 PM today and that's the only think I am going to do at that time, and God knows it. I have no other option or any chance of doing anything else.

IN this case also, what you should know is that this knowledge of God matter could also mean God knows every single variable. Just that, we don't understand the variables. This is one school of thought.

Nevertheless, philosophers argue about determinism and libertarianism. Atheists too. A lot of atheistic philosophers argue for determinism, as well as the flip side. Thus, even some atheists dont believe in free will, and claim that we have already been determined in our actions. Thus, this is not necessarily a God problem.

So bottomline is, a strong position is that every occurrence, action, are either determined by causality, or random. What one must think about is that lets say a person is today worrying about free will, what caused him or her to do so? Was it nurture or nature? Lets say it was nurture, then maybe the society or the parents had some influence on them. If its nature, he was born to worry about free will. Thus, considering nurture again, what nurtured the parents or the society to influence him? Why did they question it, act in a certain way, or speak out? Did they also do it that way because it was all determined? Or is it a combination of nurture and nature both? Were they all determined to have this combination?

One would think if we have nurture and nature both in a particular event, can we have conflict in our minds prior to this event and the outcome of that conflict will decide what the event is or its outcome?

Compatibilists, which a school of thought say that this nature and nurture will give weight to both sides of the scale in our decision making process, and the heavier sides will tip the scale. So in this case prior to an event a human being will have multiple decisions to make, and that will have a causal chain which will also depend on decisions made with each link in that causal chain.

Now this is a purely naturalistic, philosophical argument for compatibilism.

Consider it carefully and apply that to your theistic model of God, free-will, and knowledge. Lets see where it could go.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I see the free will problem as purely semantic and is true or not true depending on perspective. As individuals, we experience a freedom of will at times due to our perception of being somewhat outside the rest of the system; we are products of the whole but can only experience our unique part of the pattern. Thus, all the effects of the causes that influence our will are a part of our self, and become the tools for our will to act.

On the other hand, we are intrinsically a part of the whole, and cannot be separated except by the defining power of our consciousness.

 

[ppp]

I see the free will problem as purely semantic and is true or not true depending on perspective. As individuals, we experience a freedom of will at times due to our perception of being somewhat outside the rest of the system; we are products of the whole but can only experience our unique part of the pattern. Thus, all the effects of the causes that influence our will are a part of our self, and become the tools for our will to act.

On the other hand, we are intrinsically a part of the whole, and cannot be separated except by the defining power of our consciousness.

The question is not whether or not it is true in perspective, but whether there is free will in reality. I see no good reason to think that it does.

 

[sun rise]

Meher Baba expresses the conundrum paradoxically. His "daaman" is the hem of a garment and the image is that people hold onto God as a young child holds on to the parent's clothes. This is a key sentence expressing the paradox:

If it is destined that My 'daaman' should slip from your hands, it will: but it is for Me to warn, and for you to remain alert.

Destined in this case I take to be karma. Meher Baba's sister, Mani, is reported to have expressed it in terms of a train journey. The train's route is fixed by impressions from prior lives. You have no choice about being on the train - that is destined. What we do have is the choice of what we do and especially how you react during the journey

Karma is simply action and reaction at the soul level. But as I understand it, we have a choice where karma is not involved The choice is not totally free because both our heredity and environment affect us but we do have a choice.

 

[Brian2]

The question is not whether or not it is true in perspective, but whether there is free will in reality. I see no good reason to think that it does.

Are you compelled to believe one way or the other, or is it a rational choice?

 

[ppp]

Are you compelled to believe one way or the other, or is it a rational choice?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Brian2]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

So reasoning compels you to choose x or y depending on the weight of the evidence for x and y.
Or maybe your choosing x or y leads you to think it was a choice.
But of course others end up believing differently while hearing the same evidence so I guess that means that the scales we use to weigh the evidence varies from one person to the other,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if indeed it was a choice.

 

[ppp]

So reasoning compels you to choose x or y depending on the weight of the evidence for x and y.
Or maybe your choosing x or y leads you to think it was a choice.

It's a choice. It's just not a free choice. It's tethered to my nature and to my knowledge and to my experience.

But of course others end up believing differently while hearing the same evidence so I guess that means that the scales we use to weigh the evidence varies from one person to the other

Well, obviously. Some people want their knowledge to come from as reliable a process as is available. Some people are content to go with their feelings, even though feelings are demonstrably unreliable for making choices about what is true and what is not. And then those people fall somewhere between the two.

 

[firedragon]

I see the free will problem as purely semantic and is true or not true depending on perspective. As individuals, we experience a freedom of will at times due to our perception of being somewhat outside the rest of the system; we are products of the whole but can only experience our unique part of the pattern. Thus, all the effects of the causes that influence our will are a part of our self, and become the tools for our will to act.

On the other hand, we are intrinsically a part of the whole, and cannot be separated except by the defining power of our consciousness.

Maybe. But there is a huge amount of philosophical literature on it so it is definitely quite a big deal. There are even scientists who tried to provide data that proves determinism, and other scientists were debating the data.

 

[firedragon]

I see no good reason to think that it does.

Why? You dont believe there is free will? Are you a hard determinist? What are your reasonings?

 

[firedragon]

It's a choice. It's just not a free choice. It's tethered to my nature and to my knowledge and to my experience.

You just argued for compatibilism, while you said they are mutually exclusive a little earlier. Did you contradict yourself? Can you explain?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The question is not whether or not it is true in perspective, but whether there is free will in reality. I see no good reason to think that it does.

Actually, the question was "Where art thou?"

And perspective plays a part in the realities of things like free will, which is dependent on a subject.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Maybe. But there is a huge amount of philosophical literature on it so it is definitely quite a big deal. There are even scientists who tried to provide data that proves determinism, and other scientists were debating the data.

Sure, I hope I didn't suggest it wasn't a big deal. I find the question interesting myself! Semantic doesn't imply irrelevancy.

 

[firedragon]

Sure, I hope I didn't suggest it wasn't a big deal. I find the question interesting myself! Semantic doesn't imply irrelevancy.

Dennet says that semantics were used in the free will debate. I agree with him on that part where creating phrases like "the free will problem" is a psychological trick to actually make it a big deal.

 

[Nakosis]

Consider it carefully and apply that to your theistic model of God, free-will, and knowledge. Lets see where it could go.

I think the question is whether we, you, I have the ability to make a conscious choice vs an unconscious choice.
Although there is evidence that we usually make choice before we are consciously aware of having made a choice, I think on the rare occasion we make a choice not dictated by the subconscious mind.

We also have the ability to imagine different possible outcomes. Different possible futures and decide to follow one course of action that we consciously, rationally decide on. Until we as a conscious agent has created/imagine all of these various scenarios, our final choice has not been predetermined. In these cases we act as a conscious agent to direct our actions towards a potential future of our choosing.

Most often though, this doesn't happen. We rely on our genetic/cultural programming to decide for us. Maybe 99% of the time. More for some, less for others.

Our ability to imagine is the mechanism which allows us to alter our course through time. As humans, we are still very infantile in this ability. As we mentally develop, I suspect we will increase our ability to choose our own future.

 

[firedragon]

I think the question is whether we, you, I have the ability to make a conscious choice vs an unconscious choice.

What is an "unconscious choice"?

Although there is evidence that we usually make choice before we are consciously aware of having made a choice,

What evidence?
And what is a choice in this scenario?

We also have the ability to imagine different possible outcomes. Different possible futures and decide to follow one course of action that we consciously, rationally decide on. Until we as a conscious agent has created/imagine all of these various scenarios, our final choice has not been predetermined.

How do you prove that the final choice has not been predetermined?

Most often though, this doesn't happen. We rely on our genetic/cultural programming to decide for us. Maybe 99% of the time. More for some, less for others.

Whats the evidence that 99% of the time nurture to decide for us?

Thank you very much.

 

[Nakosis]

What is an "unconscious choice"?

Like when you are driving to work. You no longer have to consciously decide the route to take you've driven many times.

What evidence?
And what is a choice in this scenario?

Startling evidence to support belief in the role of the unconscious in decision-making was demonstrated in an experiment by a group of scientists led by John-Dylan Haynes from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany. Using fMRI brain scans, these researchers were able to predict participants’ decisions as many as seven seconds before the subjects had consciously made the decisions. As the researchers concluded in Nature Neuroscience, “Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness. This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks. But when it comes to decisions, we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind. This is questioned by our current findings.”
Our Brains Make Up Our Minds Before We Know It.

How do you prove that the final choice has not been predetermined?

One can't "prove" such things imo. However these future scenarios did not exist until they were imagined. How could they determine the future before they existed?

Whats the evidence that 99% of the time nurture to decide for us?

Thank you very much.

Of the cuff estimate based on how little conscious awareness I spend on making decisions.
Have you never consciously analyzed an important decision in your life?

Most decisions have little consequences other than triggering a desired biochemical response.
IOW choosing what will make me happy or feel satisfied.
Sometimes however I will spend hours or even days considering what possible futures could result from my choices.

 

[firedragon]

Like when you are driving to work. You no longer have to consciously decide the route to take you've driven many times.

Thats an action, not a choice. If you are driving every day to work and you take the same route every single day, you will never take a left turn 15 minutes to work, when all you have is 15 minutes. Thats pretty nonsensical. So your natural path will be taken. Thats not a choice, its action. Unless you really want to take a left turn and spend a few minutes more to take a longer route for a change, which means you have preplanned to waste a few minutes taking the left turn, which is a very conscious choice you had made.

Startling evidence to support belief in the role of the unconscious in decision-making was demonstrated in an experiment by a group of scientists led by John-Dylan Haynes from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany. Using fMRI brain scans, these researchers were able to predict participants’ decisions as many as seven seconds before the subjects had consciously made the decisions. As the researchers concluded in Nature Neuroscience, “Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness. This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks. But when it comes to decisions, we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind. This is questioned by our current findings.”
Our Brains Make Up Our Minds Before We Know It.

So you are a determinist but a soft determinist of some sort. Nevertheless, this finding is based on the responsive use of the right hand or left hand to push a button. Great experiment, but it can not address the full length of this discussion. Like complex moral judgment. To be or not to be, cannot be equaled to push with the right hand or left hand. Good start.

One can't "prove" such things imo. However these future scenarios did not exist until they were imagined. How could they determine the future before they existed?

Very good. Thats the whole point. You can not prove this with science. It's a philosophical topic. Science can address a response to a cause. I mean address, not that they can definitely prove, but maybe they will. A human reaction can be addressed by science to see if you react prior to thinking. Which hand will you use to catch that fly who is flying right at your nose? Science can address that. But science cannot address the metaphysical truths. Only philosophy can.

You have mixed up scientific evidence to philosophical proofs.

Of the cuff estimate based on how little conscious awareness I spend on making decisions.
Have you never consciously analyzed an important decision in your life?

Nah. I dont analyse important decisions. I am a lowly creature with no such cognitive ability. You think?

OF course. Any tom, dick, or harry will analyse important decisions in life. We dont like a robot go and get married or start a business with an if/then decision. We go by feelings, emotions, thought, and rationality. Not just an if/then.

Most decisions have little consequences other than triggering a desired biochemical response.
IOW choosing what will make me happy or feel satisfied.
Sometimes however I will spend hours or even days considering what possible futures could result from my choices.

See. This is not evidence to 99%. You are making a philosophical argument. I thought you practice scientism. Empiricism. Not A priori arguments.

Yes. I agree. We do make conscious choices like that. That is "Free Will".

 

[firedragon]

I appreciate your thoughts @Nakosis

Great. Thanks.

 

[danieldemol]

You have mixed up scientific evidence to philosophical proofs.

Could the term "philosophical proof" be an oxymoron. When did philosophy prove anything?

In my opinion.