Should we believe in Free Will?

[Willamena]

I see desire vs. nonsense.


Because the will is directed by understanding, it is not free.

Will is directed by the author of the narrative. Understanding is more like a story-board.

 

[Willamena]

I disagree in that the options may be extremely limited, and at times only one choice is possible, there may be times for a limited range of possible choices in some of our decisions.

But why would possible choices count? Surely only actual choices should be considered.

 

[shunyadragon]

But why would possible choices count? Surely only actual choices should be considered.

Actual past choices are what we know took place for past outcomes of chains of cause and effect events and choices, and we can follow the deterministic factors that determine the choices made and limit the possible choices. Research indicates there is not much freedom in our choices, but most proponents of 'compatibilism' consider there to be wiggle room for alternates choices within a limited range, and in the long range determinism rules.

I describe it as 'potential free will,' and as a matter of fact most people do not exercise their potential. It is pretty consistent that as people grow older they are less flexible in making alternate decisions,

 

[Willamena]

Actual past choices are what we know took place for past outcomes of chains of cause and effect events and choices, and we can follow the deterministic factors that determine the choices made and limit the possible choices. Research indicates there is not much freedom in our choices, but most proponents of 'compatibilism' consider there to be wiggle room for alternates choices within a limited range, and in the long range determinism rules.

I describe it as 'potential free will,' and as a matter of fact most people do not exercise their potential. It is pretty consistent that as people grow older they are less flexible in making alternate decisions,

I would submit that actual past choices are what did take place, regardless that we knew of them. Actuality is the narrative of truth, and truth is objective.

My personal research indicates that there you either made a choice or you didn't, and in having made one you freely exercised the power of choosing.

Congrats.

 

[Skwim]

Mental phenomena don't exist actually, so cause and effect applies to them symbolically. They are part of the personal narrative, the story of "me." Mental events, like choice, decision, belief, knowing, are symbolic: their nature is meaningful, rather than physical.

If they are limited, it is only by what we tell ourselves.

. The adjective "actual" refers to fact, which refers to the narrative of truth.

So it's not a fact that mental phenomena exist. Boy, That's a first, and I seriously doubt you'll find many, if any, who will agree with you. Of course, agreeing is a mental phenomenon which doesn't really exist, so it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that no one will ever agree with you, Including yourself.

.

 

[Skwim]

I disagree in that the options may be extremely limited, and at times only one choice is possible, there may be times for a limited range of possible choices in some of our decisions.

And I say that choices, choosing and decisions are all illusions. And there are no true options, as in one could do one or the other.


.

 

[Willamena]

So it's not a fact that mental phenomena exist. Boy, That's a first, and I seriously doubt you'll find many, if any, who will agree with you. Of course, agreeing is a mental phenomenon which doesn't really exist, so it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that no one will ever agree with you, Including yourself.

.

Is it a fact that a belief is true?

It's not a first, the idea that what we believe doesn't reflect reality.

 

[Skwim]

Is it a fact that a belief is true?

Which belief?

It's not a first, the idea that what we believe doesn't reflect reality.

?​

.

 

[shunyadragon]

And I say that choices, choosing and decisions are all illusions. And there are no true options, as in one could do one or the other. .

I believe your view describes humans in terms of deterministic robots, and of course I disagree. First, there are indeed viable options in the chain of outcomes of human decisions within a limited range, but of course the main contention between different philosophies is how much of a range there is. It ranges from your view which is our decisions are predetermined to Libertarian Free Will where the range of options are quite large. I believe the evidence of contemporary science discounts the extremes.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would submit that actual past choices are what did take place, regardless that we knew of them. Actuality is the narrative of truth, and truth is objective.

I will object to the use of 'Truth' in this context. We can objectively look back in time and evaluate the chains of outcomes of cause and effect decisions and related physical events, and yes we can see a deterministic trend, but not in the absolute sense,

"Truth is a luxury of delusions of human Vanity."

My personal research indicates that there you either made a choice or you didn't, and in having made one you freely exercised the power of choosing.

There is no question that we did make choices, and the obvious does not contribute to the discussion. The question is the degree of deterministic causes in our decisions.

 

[Willamena]

I will object to the use of 'Truth' in this context. We can objectively look back in time and evaluate the chains of outcomes of cause and effect decisions and related physical events, and yes we can see a deterministic trend, but not in the absolute sense,

"Truth is a luxury of delusions of human Vanity."

There is no other sense for truth. To undermine the objectivity of truth is a logical fallacy (however poetically it may be scorned), as evidenced in the liar's paradox.

There is no question that we did make choices, and the obvious does not contribute to the discussion. The question is the degree of deterministic causes in our decisions.

Again, how does a degree of deterministic causation impact free will?

 

[`mud]

A lot of these conversations are discussing options in different forms.
All of them seem to ignore the possibility of corrective error on one's own carelessness. Or am I missing something in this immense word salad ?

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no other sense for truth. To undermine the objectivity of truth is a logical fallacy (however poetically it may be scorned), as evidenced in the liar's paradox.

Not clear. Claims of Truth are too illusive and delusional, because of too many conflicting claims of 'Truth' by fallible humans.

Actually, humans are clueless to the degree of free will there is in the outcomes of the cause and effect of their decision making process. It is comforting egocentric claim to believe in free will, but the reality is it may be dominantly an illusion.

Again, how does a degree of deterministic causation impact free will?

There are two stages of deterministic causation that limit free will. Te first is and the biggy is Natural Laws. The second is the chain of cause and effect outcomes of previous decisions and events not only of the individual, but the surrounding human paradigm such as one's culture, and the physical outcomes of cause and effect relationships that we have no control over.

 

[osgart]

A will that is free is free from making unjust errors in intention. Objective, universal morality exists, and being on the right side of it makes one's will free and at peace. Evil, and addiction makes ones will a slave to the cruelty of those things.

A just heart is a free will. Free will is the nature of intention.

If determinism was true, than explain how the invention of the computer is a foregone natural result and no other possibility existed. We very well could have opted out of computers, and still be living without them today. It was the freedom of the minds that created them that allowed those inventions to exist.

 

[Stevicus]

If determinism was true, than explain how the invention of the computer is a foregone natural result and no other possibility existed. We very well could have opted out of computers, and still be living without them today. It was the freedom of the minds that created them that allowed those inventions to exist.

It's often said that necessity is the mother of invention. Why were computers needed in the first place? What tasks were important to humanity that it required finding ways to make those tasks easier? Why were humans created to be so limited in their abilities that it required the building of machines to enhance our abilities?

Why were humans created to need so much food to survive? Who decided that? Free will? Not likely.

Why did this fact ostensibly instill in humans a fear of starvation, which motivated humans to try to find ways of storing food and methods to inventory how much they have, so they can make sure they have enough? This is all a function of how humans were designed and created, not a function of free will.

 

[Nous]

It's really quite stunning to me to learn how anti-scientific so many people are so as to disregard (and even deny) the fact that the thesis of determinism has been proven empirically false. The postulates of both realism and localness of quanta in the absence of (or prior to) a measurement have been experimentally refuted. Therefore, the thesis of determinism cannot be true.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's really quite stunning to me to learn how anti-scientific so many people are so as to disregard (and even deny) the fact that the thesis of determinism has been proven empirically false. The postulates of both realism and localness of quanta in the absence of (or prior to) a measurement have been experimentally refuted. Therefore, the thesis of determinism cannot be true.

Quantum Mechanics, as well as any theory nor hypothesis does prove anything false, especially determinism. Theories and hypothesis can only falsify the negative.

Your delusions concerning the nature of determinism and Quantum Mechanics persists unabated.

 

[Nous]

Quantum Mechanics, as well as any theory nor hypothesis does prove anything false, especially determinism.

I didn't say or imply that a theory proves anything false. Read it again:

It's really quite stunning to me to learn how anti-scientific so many people are so as to disregard (and even deny) the fact that the thesis of determinism has been proven empirically false. The postulates of both realism and localness of quanta in the absence of (or prior to) a measurement have been experimentally refuted. Therefore, the thesis of determinism cannot be true.​

 

[shunyadragon]

I didn't say or imply that a theory proves anything false. Read it again:

It's really quite stunning to me to learn how anti-scientific so many people are so as to disregard (and even deny) the fact that the thesis of determinism has been proven empirically false. The postulates of both realism and localness of quanta in the absence of (or prior to) a measurement have been experimentally refuted. Therefore, the thesis of determinism cannot be true.​

You said 'proven empirically false,' which science cannot empirically do that.

 

[Willamena]

Not clear. Claims of Truth are too illusive and delusional, because of too many conflicting claims of 'Truth' by fallible humans.

Actually, humans are clueless to the degree of free will there is in the outcomes of the cause and effect of their decision making process. It is comforting egocentric claim to believe in free will, but the reality is it may be dominantly an illusion.



There are two stages of deterministic causation that limit free will. Te first is and the biggy is Natural Laws. The second is the chain of cause and effect outcomes of previous decisions and events not only of the individual, but the surrounding human paradigm such as one's culture, and the physical outcomes of cause and effect relationships that we have no control over.

'Truth' and 'claims of truth' are two different things.