What Most People Fail to Understand about the Concept of Free Will

[Laika]

I would argue that the materialistic worldview is necessarily deterministic.

If the kind of materialism you're talking about is monistic and therefore logically consistent with the premise that only matter exists, yes.

If determinism holds true, then every choice we make could not have been otherwise.

In Marxist Materialism, whilst all our actions are caused that does not mean they could not have been otherwise. What counts is whether something we necessary or accidental in relation to the process. Certian keys aspects of our decisions remain consistent if the same decision is repeated and are therefore necessary to that process. However, there are certain circumstances which can change when the decision is repeated and whilst these do have an effect they do not change the outcome.

e.g. In the case of a marriage ceremony it doesn't matter which church I go to, as so long as it is the same denomination the ceremony will be the same. in that respect the religion necessitates a certian kind of ceremony, but the choice of location is an accident in relation to it.

Regardless on how you define "free will," it must be compatible with either determinism or indeterminism.

This depends on what you mean by 'freedom'. Metaphysical or libertarian free will assumes that freedom is a property of the mind. it is based on dualistic theories that we can chose to do something irrespective of material constraints because the mind and the body are assumed to be seperate. Taken to its logical extreme, this is false; e.g. I cannot 'will' myself to levitate off the ground and am therefore not 'free' to do so. because choice is thought to be independent of the body/matter, it is considered accidental and without cause. therefore determinism and 'freedom' of the will are mutually exclusive.

An alternative view is that freedom is the freedom to realise necessity. I may not be able to fly by an act of will, but by understanding the laws of thermodynamics and building a plane based on their specification I am 'free' to do so.

Yes, there is a third possibility. We can jettison "causality." But in so doing, we jettison free will with it. Because if an agent doesn't exert any causality whatsoever, then the agent cannot possibly exhibit free will.

In terms of realising necessity the agent is themselves the cause and therefore has freedom of the will, because will is determined. Or as Bankjanki quoted...

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." - Schopenhauer

This is an interesting change of affairs. You now seemed to have co-opted my view, namely, that subjectivity is a fundamental component of the nature of reality. Nevertheless, a truly probabilistic event is one that ultimately reduces to some element of pure chance. IOW, indeterminism doesn't make free will anymore palatable than determinism. This is what you and most people fail to understand.

The "problem" with materialistic determinism is that will is caused and is not the product of pure chance. This raises a series of perverse ethical problems that if we can gain objective and therefore scientific knowledge of a person we can 'predict' their behaviour and therefore control it. However, the nature of this control is not absolute- we cannot will another person to beahve one way or another, but we can condition them to behave a certian way like one of Pavlov's Dogs. Our ethical understanding relies heavily on metaphysical or libertarian conceptions of free will which emphasise subjectivity as the agency of a person independent of material constraints and causes. So this remains a relatively unexplored area of ethical understanding.

 

[Marisa]

The more I see the concept of "free will" argued, the more I think we need to go back to drawing board. I think it's probably worth pointing out that any concept of free will cannot exist with an omniscient and omnipowerful deity when it is assumed that said deity takes any part in man's affairs because the only possible outcome of that knowledge set is a malicious deity who allows people to suffer, and leaves us to infer whether "need" exists and whether or not one can continue to define said deity as "good" when it's divine plan requires suffering.

Or, free will simply isn't well enough understand as a concept outside of religion, and probably shouldn't be used by the religious until it is. I can choose whether or not to eat. But I cannot choose whether or not to be hungry.

 

[Jumi]

I can't be both, because it's an "either/or" situation. Either determinism holds true or indeterminism holds true. Now, one could argue that our decision-making process has both a deterministic aspect and an indeterministic aspects. But even in this context, the only reason why I could have chosen otherwise must ultimately reduce to pure chance.

Doesn't seem that way. Sometimes we can decide how we act, sometimes we are like Pavlov's dogs. Have you ever tried concentrating on something for a really long time?

 

[jojom]

Or, free will simply isn't well enough understand as a concept outside of religion,

I disagree. I think it's well understood outside religion.

"Free will

a. When you chose to act one way rather than another, you were free to have acted differently
b. You could have done otherwise
c. Determinism must be false (as we have free will)"
http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Intro_Philosophy_SP_2011/Nagel_Free_Will.htm​

 

[JFish123]

There are 2 roads predestined. A road to heaven, and a road to hell. And it's our choice which road we travel on.

 

[jojom]

There are 2 roads predestined. A road to heaven, and a road to hell. And it's our choice which road we travel on.

How about all those unaware there is a choice? Or everyone left unconvinced by inept preachers?

 

[JFish123]

How about all those unaware there is a choice? Or everyone left unconvinced by inept preachers?

Doubt Gods Love or Power to get His message to them?

 

[Marisa]

I disagree. I think it's well understood outside religion.

"Free will

a. When you chose to act one way rather than another, you were free to have acted differently
b. You could have done otherwise
c. Determinism must be false (as we have free will)"
http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Intro_Philosophy_SP_2011/Nagel_Free_Will.htm​

But go back to my example. I can choose whether or not to eat, but I cannot choose whether or not to be hungry.

Have you red Free Will by Sam Harris? It expands on this concept much further. So many of our actions are rooted in our experiences and even basic bodily functions, I really don't think we understand "free will" as a concept.

 

[Marisa]

Doubt Gods Love or Power to get His message to them?

Which god?

 

[Thief]

This is true, we all know that.
But what does it tell us?
It tells us, that there are two states (or two entities). It is not hard to see, that the choiceless awareness is the default mode, which is always there, without our help. But "now and then", something disrupts this natural flow. It happens when we perceive more the one possibility. Doubt arises, triggering increased alertness. Awareness is shifted to possibilities which were presented to us, and we start the decision making process. We scan our memory, senses and feelings for clues that would help us make the right choice, which is then determined by those inputs. This process starts with doubt, and ends with certainty, feelings which we do not control. We can make the decision right away, or hesitate for days or months.

What is important is the point of transition from choiceless awareness to decision making process. It is triggered by seeing possibilities, which is based on our knowledge and experience. Reality lies in present, and it is one flow, so not enough to make a choice. It is our imagination that creates simulations of reality, out of which we choose one. Those simulations feeds on reality as a source of knowledge, but they are complemented by things we know, things we believe, and things we learned through experience.
This is precisely what Eden myth is all about. This being in one, choiceless flow is paradise, because it's free from care. And how does it end? In the myth Adam and Eve ate the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and this is what we base our choices upon. We have the knowledge about what is good and what is bed for us, and we choose what is good. Since this choice is based on knowledge, it's determined by it.
Funny, because I just realized that the original sin was inevitable. Without knowing good from evil, Adan and Eve were not able to make a choice. Apple came to them withing one flow, so it was not their fault, not their sin. This puts few religions upside down...

I say....someone had to be first.
On the spiritual plane....that would be God.

The first of Man had no names....no law.....see Chapter One of Genesis.
The first to have a soul would be Adam.
His bride and wife is also his twin sister.
Eve is a clone....no navel.(Chapter Two)

 

[leibowde84]

Definitions:



Comments:

Regardless on how you define "free will," it must be compatible with either determinism or indeterminism. Why? Because those are the only two logical possibilities. (If anyone here believes that there is another possibility, then please share it with us.) This is what most people fail to understand about the concept of free will: If determinism holds true, then every choice we make could not have been otherwise. If indeterminism holds true, then every choice we make could only have been otherwise due to chance.

I would say that most people adhere to both definitions, as they believe that most of the things we consider to be "choices" are actually dependent on our previous experiences, and we are in actuality biased in favor of what we end up choosing (determinism), but there are always exceptions to this rule (indeterminism definition "b").

 

[leibowde84]

I say....someone had to be first.
On the spiritual plane....that would be God.

The first of Man had no names....no law.....see Chapter One of Genesis.
The first to have a soul would be Adam.
His bride and wife is also his twin sister.
Eve is a clone....no navel.(Chapter Two)

Is your assumption that it is "God" merely speculatively based on your ignorance of other possibilities, whether they be spiritualistic or materialistic?

 

[Willamena]

I disagree. I think it's well understood outside religion.

"Free will

a. When you chose to act one way rather than another, you were free to have acted differently
b. You could have done otherwise
c. Determinism must be false (as we have free will)"
http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Intro_Philosophy_SP_2011/Nagel_Free_Will.htm​

It's even simpler than that: if there is a "you" that exists only grammatically, then it's entirely free to do whatever it wants uninhibited by the world at large.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's even simpler than that: if there is a "you" that exists only grammatically, then it's entirely free to do whatever it wants uninhibited by the world at large.

Is that supposed to make logical sense? It does not appear to be.

Edited to add: unless you mean that entirely abstract entities can be free by design?

Fair enough, but not very useful for understanding what an actual person with Free Will would be like, don't you think?

 

[McBell]

But go back to my example. I can choose whether or not to eat, but I cannot choose whether or not to be hungry.

Why not?
I choose to eat in such a manner that I am not hungry.

Have you red Free Will by Sam Harris? It expands on this concept much further. So many of our actions are rooted in our experiences and even basic bodily functions, I really don't think we understand "free will" as a concept.

Not paying attention to our experiences and bodily functions and or ignore them until they become a factor is not the same as having no choices.

 

[Willamena]

The more I see the concept of "free will" argued, the more I think we need to go back to drawing board. I think it's probably worth pointing out that any concept of free will cannot exist with an omniscient and omnipowerful deity when it is assumed that said deity takes any part in man's affairs because the only possible outcome of that knowledge set is a malicious deity who allows people to suffer, and leaves us to infer whether "need" exists and whether or not one can continue to define said deity as "good" when it's divine plan requires suffering.

Or, free will simply isn't well enough understand as a concept outside of religion, and probably shouldn't be used by the religious until it is. I can choose whether or not to eat. But I cannot choose whether or not to be hungry.

Omniscience and omnipower does not necessarily entail caring about people. You'd have to make that argument to make your post work.

 

[McBell]

I can't be both, because it's an "either/or" situation. Either determinism holds true or indeterminism holds true. Now, one could argue that our decision-making process has both a deterministic aspect and an indeterministic aspects. But even in this context, the only reason why I could have chosen otherwise must ultimately reduce to pure chance.

Except you have not established it has to be an either/or.
You have merely made the claim it does.

 

[Willamena]

Edited out insulting part: unless you mean that entirely abstract entities can be free by design?

Fair enough, but not very useful for understanding what an actual person with Free Will would be like, don't you think?

If you take grammatical entities to be entirely abstract, then yes.

Grammatical entities are most useful.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Determinism, to a large degree, happens for many reasons; cultural upbringing, genetic predispositions, environment, these things have a strong bearing on who we are.
But we are not slaves to those things, we can make choices, and we are not slated for a certain fate, and destiny is an illusion.

 

[jojom]

But go back to my example. I can choose whether or not to eat, but I cannot choose whether or not to be hungry.

The events encompassed by free will only includes actual possibilities. Want to say you lack free will because you cannot choose to lift your car with one arm, go ahead, but it isn't saying anything about the concept.

Have you red Free Will by Sam Harris?

No.

It expands on this concept much further.

If he has any grasp on free will I doubt very much that he expands on your mistaken notion.

I really don't think we understand "free will" as a concept.

Don't know who your "we" is, but I understand it.