What do you mean by "free will?"

[atanu]

I addressed this same topic in post #81 that previous thread, and I would also like to know how religionists who propagate "free will" would answer this:

When it comes to the "problem of evil," this is where the rubber meets the road. It's easy and convenient to blame humans and our alleged "free will" for the evil of this world, but what is that really saying?

When did "evil" in humans really begin? Was it when we were created? Or is it because humans don't like to feel cold, hunger, pain, or other such travails of life?

Imagine an early human, unable to find food or shelter, yet sees another human who has both but not enough to share. So, the first human decides "Hey, if I kill this guy, then I can eat his food, take over his shelter, and I will survive." According to religion, this human is exercising his "free will" to do evil.

But let's look at this more closely: Why would this person be hungry and cold in the first place? Who designed humans to get hungry in the first place? Who designed humans to require copious amounts of food on a daily basis? If humans were designed so that they could live on a single grain of rice every year, then I guarantee that most "evil" probably never would have happened. That's not because of humans and their "free will," but because of a bad "Designer."
---
If there was such a thing as "free will," there would be no such thing as "insomnia." If someone wants to go to sleep but can't, then something is keeping them awake, and there goes "free will" right out the window. Someone who is chronically sleep-deprived may go psychotic, and that may also affect their choices and "free will."

Another example is memory loss. Can a person instantly recall any moment in their life with absolute accuracy? If not, then there is no "free will." If one can't even control their own memory and thought processes, then where is the "free will"?

The entire concept of "free will" is BS. Anyone who would propagate that idea has not thought it out very clearly.

Nature has its laws. Anything of nature follows those rules. If our intellect is of nature only, we have no free will. Our thinking is predestined.

 

[atanu]

I...

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:
1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.
...

We believe that we have competence to have power over desire. .... slowly, lovingly, and surely.

 

[Willamena]

Then, you agree that "free will" is a bogus concept?

Not at all. We have the power to act.

 

[Willamena]

It is wrong to say that we do no choose our desires. All individual tendencies are built up over many lifetimes of thinking and acting and making choices - no desire just appears accidentally at any age in this lifetime.

There is nothing wrong with humanity stopping people acting out their evil desires (step 3) - and governments/organizations already do that (maybe not in the case of gun control). However, God does not interfere in any of these three steps - that is what free will is all about.

Something built up through choices is emergent, it is not itself a choice.

 

[sayak83]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

The one thing I never understood is why a policeman would be morally culpable for not preventing a crime that he knew was happening (say from a 911 call) while a God isn't (say via a prayer).

 

[Glaurung]

Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Free will is simply the ability to make you own decisions, that's all. And I experience this process every waking moment of life. In my view, it takes a deep commitment of faith to believe that your consciousness and ability to interact with the world around you is essentially an illusion. Which itself implies free will, as you have to choose to accept determinist prepositions. (Yet alone argue for them).

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

You do in fact have a great deal of control over your desires. It is called custody of the mind, wherein you make the conscious effort over time you inculcate a helpful disposition towards virtue. You do this by consciously rejecting bad impulses and going out of your way to act on good ones. But this requires you to take responsibility for your own internal state, which is often anathema to the modern mindset. Indeed, there's an entire industry predicated on getting people to do the exact opposite.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

I have the ability to do what I wish to do, insofar as I have the ability to act. There's no contradiction in saying that my choices are real and that there are limits to my ability to enact my will. We still live in a world of rules. What is denied is that those "rules" predetermine my choices. It isn't the laws of physics that "caused" me to punch someone in the face, it was my choice to do so. "Physical laws" are only relevant insofar as it is physically impossible for me to attack someone with telekinesis. But that limitation doesn't mean my will (my ability to choose how to act) is somehow an illusion because of that.

When I say we have free will I am saying that you truly make choices and are responsible for those choices. Not that those choices occur tabula rasa and that world is an empty sandbox wherein you have no limits on your influence and abilities.

 

[LuisDantas]

So if you are not making the decisions for your life. Who or what is?

Mostly the circunstances. Perhaps only the circunstances.

 

[columbus]

So if you are not making the decisions for your life. Who or what is?

The nearly infinite different, mostly tiny, events that shaped you and the circumstances you are in at any given moment. The long chain of causality stretches back to the singularity.

Free will is the illusion created the complexity of the forces that shaped us and caused us to do and choose and even think what we do. We are just not perceptive or smart or rational enough to understand ourselves. We are emergent results of a long process, far too vast for us to perceive. But free will is what we call the illusion that the choices are within our control.
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

The nearly infinite different, mostly tiny, events that shaped you and the circumstances you are in at any given moment. The long chain of causality stretches back to the singularity.

Free will is the illusion created the complexity of the forces that shaped us and caused us to do and choose and even think what we do. We are just not perceptive or smart or rational enough to understand ourselves. We are emergent results of a long process, far too vast for us to perceive. But free will is what we call the illusion that the choices are within our control.
Tom

Not a solid argument though.

Because I can't chose to shoot lasers out of my eyes like superman. Free will doesn't exist.

Free will is not the ability to do whatever you want with no exceptions.

 

[Enoch07]

Mostly the circunstances. Perhaps only the circunstances.

Eh ok.

I of course reject that, but if that's how you live that's on you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

Free will is given for us to rise above our animal instincts. So lets examine this against your 3 steps, but there needs to be a 4th, which is indeed the first step.

1 - First what determines what is an evil desire? What are the set boundaries, mans laws or Gods Laws? Nature and Nurture for each person would define these and one would presume that the person making the choice, has already had an education that defines the Moral Boundaries. The education given should have given us the skills required to suppress animal desires for higher goals and for the good of all peoples. This is best done with the Spirit of Faith.

"1. The person has an evil desire." This is the seed to activate free will, the chance to make a positive and good thought override the evil desire, at this stage we have the choice to replace this evil thought with a thought that is good.

2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire. This is the Free will Choice. When Nature and Nurture Had set the boundaries and told of the consequences of neglecting those boundaries, then this is man giving into his weaker side. If Nature and Nurture has neglected to give the boundaries, then we have to ask what was the boundary crossed?

3. The person causes the evil desire to happen. Could we say the cause was actually before this, the cause was at your step 1 when the seed of the evil choice was not replaced with the seed of a better thought. Could it be the thought is already the act, even if not to the stage of acting upon it in each individual. By harboring the thought, we feed others that are weaker to undertake the act.

In life we must consider to take all evil out of all our thoughts and not in any way feed the desire to do what is not good.

Regards Tony

 

[LuisDantas]

Eh ok.

I of course reject that, but if that's how you live that's on you.

On what basis do you reject that, and to which extent?

 

[Enoch07]

On what basis do you reject that, and to which extent?

It just seems defeatist to me. I got too much fight in me to subscribe to such a belief.

 

[sayak83]

I can't count how many times I've heard theists brush off the Problem of Evil by just saying "free will!"

... but how would that work, exactly? Those of you who do this: exactly what do you mean by "free will" and how is it relevant?

Considering deliberate evil acts inflicted by one person on another, there's a three-step process:

1. The person has an evil desire.
2. The person chooses to act on their evil desire.
3. The person causes the evil desire to happen.

Any description of free will I've ever heard deals with step 2: the decision to act. It doesn't deal with step 1, since we generally can't choose our desires. For instance, someone who might be predisposed to adultery won't commit adultery if he isn't attracted to the person he might commit adultery with.

It also doesn't deal with step 3, since what we desire isn't necessarily physically possible. For instance, no matter how much I want to kill someone by making their head explode telekinetically, it won't happen. If I want to kill them by lightly misting them with water, I can do this, but they won't die from it.

All three steps are required for a deliberate evil act to happen, but "free will" claims only deal with step 2.

So how could a change in step 1 (e.g. taking away evil desires) or step 3 (e.g. making an evil act physically impossible) deny someone their free will in step 2?

I will provide a scientific definition of free will applicable to any complex input-output system. Let us assume that the system is in an internal state mathematically represented by state space matrix [A]. For brains, it will be state of its constitutive neurons and glial cells and their interconnections. Assume the system gets an input represented by the vector X (say a set of sensory inputs) and subsequently it emits a behavioral output Y. Then the operation of the system can be represented by the matrix equation [A] X = Y.

Now we come to the question of how variable is the output Y to small changes in the internal state [A] of the system when input X is kept constant. So suppose the internal state of the system is just slightly different, say it is [A+ a]. Then, if the input X is unchanged, how much change is observed in the output (Y+y)?

So we have the new equation [A+a] X = Y + y

If for a small change a, we observe a very large change y... then we say that the output is very sensitive to internal conditions. If, along with this, small changes in input X has relatively little impact to y when A is kept same.... then we say that the output is insensitive to external input conditions. Both together in conjunction will cause us to describe a responsive input-output system as primarily driven by its own internal states and hence can be said to have a "will" that is relatively free from externally imposed conditions. Hence "free" and "will".

 

[Koldo]

And I'd agree, where's the conflict there?

It means it is logically impossible for God to do evil. This is an example of a being that can only do good.

 

[sayak83]

Nature has its laws. Anything of nature follows those rules. If our intellect is of nature only, we have no free will. Our thinking is predestined.

There is no consensus regarding the nature of free will and agency in dharmic traditions. Here is an excerpt from a book. What do you think?

Traditions of contemplative practice are inherited and developed by
a number of classical schools including Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Buddhism,
Vedānta, and Kashmiri Śaivism. These schools’ analyses of free will and agency are profoundly influenced by such practice, which is taken to reveal a more accurate picture of selfhood and its capacities than ordinary experience. By appeal to both meditational experience and philosophical analysis, these schools deconstruct the empirical ego into various components and tie such components to more fundamental metaphysical realities and causal processes. Given such a deconstruction, where, if anywhere, are agency and responsibility to be located?Where is the seat of human willing and the origin of human action?
Abhidharma Buddhists argue personal agency and free will make sense from the conventional perspective but not according to the fundamental reality of momentary dharmas . Part of their challenge is to navigate between both registers to make sense of our felt sense of agency and its importance in the pursuit of enlightenment.

Sāṃkhya and Advaita Vedānta conclude that the will is ultimately extrinsic to selfhood, part of a psychological apparatus covering the ā tman with which we identify in our unenlightened way of thinking. These schools typically say that mistakes about agency are a fundamental part of spiritual ignorance. The notion that we are in control, that we are beings who act, is somehow a crucial aspect of the cognitive and affective disorders collectively called avidyā , existential ignorance.

Though it too is a monistic school, Kashmiri Śaivism radically differs from Advaita Vedānta over the issue of individual freedom. For the Advaitins, Brahman, the ultimate reality, does not act, as action implies change and Brahman does not undergo modification of any kind. Therefore, since we are identical to that fundamental reality, the notion of ourselves as volitional beings that can generate change is an illusion. For the Śaivas, however, our individual freedom is an expression of the creative spontaneity of the single reality of Śiva. The error that belies our unenlightenment is not our sense of volitional freedom, but rather our failing to see the identity of our
freedom with God’s own power.

Somewhat akin to the Śaivas, a number of theistic Vedāntins argue that our problem is not that we think we are agents, but rather that we ignore the fact that our agency is derivative of, and in constant negotiation with, the agency of God, who is the supreme Self. They further reflect on individual freedom in relation to a God who creates, sustains, and oversees the universe, yet responds to the loving entreaties of his devotees.

 

[LuisDantas]

It just seems defeatist to me. I got too much fight in me to subscribe to such a belief.

Defeat? Honestly not seeing it.

 

[Koldo]

Hi, I think you miss the point about free will, it does not equate to the ability to see your will put into action. So, for example, a person has the will to commit a crime, of any kind, however, because of the decree of God, he may be prevented from actualising that desire or will, this does not change the fact that his intention, and will is for wrong. It is this which is important. He had free will.

So for example.
A man goes to the bank, he intends to rob the bank,and he does so. His intention was to commit the crime & he was able to do so.

A man goes to the bank with the intention to rob the bank, he is prevented from doing so.

Both are equally blameworthy in their intention so in that sense, both will have earned sin do their exercising their free will.

A man goes to the bank and intends to rob the bank, but, when he gets there, his heart softens and he thinks, what was I thinking? I am not even going to go there.

His freewill came into play, he changed his mind, and because he intended something criminal but held himself to account and prevented himself from doing so, he is praiseworthy and in this case earns a good deed.

Freewill is the choices we make, not the actions that stem from that intention.

For each stage of the crime planned, there is a possibility to either be limited in the harm we can do [as God decreed exactly what He permits], or permitted to continue with the crime [God tests everyone in a test like this, the victim, the perpetrator too, so though a crime may be committed, the criminal is blameworthy, however, the victim may obtain mercy and paradise because of that.

When a person intended harm and then by freewill did not do so, [whether able to or not] but that intention, or desire was curbed, he is rewarded.

All scenarios are demonstrations of free will. Actions are according to intentions. Each person is rewarded or punished - according to what he intended, no matter what the outcome is.

That means equally, that a person may be seen to do an act that is praiseworthy, but if the intention is not praiseworthy, then the *intention* [freewill] is blameworthy. God knows best.

You missed the point. If free will doesn't relate to the actions that stem from our intentions then God could possibly interfer with our actions and then prevent all evil. And in doing so our free will would remain intact.

 

[Koldo]

Will is intention and the nature of it. Freedom means you are going to decide the nature of your intentions at some point in your life. The two choices are that which is just, or that which is unjustifiable by any means. Most people make their choice in youth as to the type of person they are going to be.
That is free will. Once you exercise it, than you are bound by the laws of your choice of injustice or become free in the justice of what is good for life.

So once free will is exercised, you become who you are by that choice.

How do you decide the nature of your intentions at some point in your life ?
Please do explain this process.

 

[Koldo]

It is wrong to say that we do no choose our desires. All individual tendencies are built up over many lifetimes of thinking and acting and making choices - no desire just appears accidentally at any age in this lifetime.

How do we choose our desires ?
Exemplify if you can.

There is nothing wrong with humanity stopping people acting out their evil desires (step 3) - and governments/organizations already do that (maybe not in the case of gun control). However, God does not interfere in any of these three steps - that is what free will is all about.

Why do you see a distinction between God interfering and humans interfering ?