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

[LuisDantas]

Me. I can give hundreds of citations, many written by those whose knowledge and expertise is superior to mine, but unless you can access not only these sources but the entirety of the requisite background, this isn't of much help. Granted, I'm not either, but you asked what I would recommend and I don't know of anyone else who has the knowledge of the field and access to the sources I do that you know.

Maybe you can give at least the general outlines of the basics?

For instance, is there such a thing as free will?

How meaningful is it?

How does it relate to the idea of a creator God, if at all?

What consequences, if any, there are in ignoring the idea or attempting to deny it?

 

[LuisDantas]

Cause and effect is not dogma.

Proposing that they must apply for existence entire is.

I raise my finger in the air and pronounce loudly.....SCIENCE!

My point exactly.

 

[Banjankri]

Science would have you believe an object at rest will stay that way.....until....'something' moves it.

No, it doesn't. Did you know that vacum does not exist? Everything is boiling.

I do believe...

There is no point in comparing beliefs without a common ground. What we can do is to put a certain belief to the test, and see if it holds.

I say Spirit first.

What do you mean by Spirit? I'm asking for an answer that is build out of things we can literaly experience, not just talk about.

 

[Thief]

No, it doesn't. Did you know that vacum does not exist? Everything is boiling.

There is no point in comparing beliefs without a common ground. What we can to is to put a certain belief to the test, and see if it holds.

Ah! by all means.....

 

[Banjankri]

Ah! by all means.....

And where does it take us?
I don't know why, but people are not able to speak openly and directly about anything this days.

 

[Marisa]

I choose to not be hungry by eating before I get hungry.
Of course, having Crohn's Disease i pretty much have to unless I want to be in agony.

That bites (no pun intended), I'm sorry to hear that. I don't want anyone in agony.

Thank you.

 

[Marisa]

High amounts of stress and using speed are two other ways to not be hungry.

I've done the stress thing, but never speed. LOL

 

[jojom]

Well, he's a neuro-scientist and this sort of thing is well within his wheelhouse. And he's not approaching the subject from a religious standpoint. And no, he's not answering me in the book, but then who am I? Just some idiot with a computer clacking away and expounding great volumes of knowledge? Please don't mistake me for thinking I'm so expert on the subject as to run around telling other's all about their "mistaken notions". Read it or don't.

But you said his book " expands on this concept [your concept] much further." What gives?

 

[Marisa]

But you said his book " expands on this concept [your concept] much further." What gives?

Expands on this concept = explains what he means.

 

[jojom]

Expands on this concept = explains what he means.

No! Your point was that what he says expands on what YOU mean:

"Have you red Free Will by Sam Harris? It expands on this concept much further."
​

This concept being your: "I can choose whether or not to eat, but I cannot choose whether or not to be hungry. "

And, as I explained, your concept here isn't valid, and here's why: It's the equivalent of saying you cannot choose to---and actually---lift your car with one arm.

I'm pretty darn sure Sam Harris would reject your concept here of being able to actually choose to do the impossible. Impossible feats wouldn't be covered under alternative choices.

​

 

[McBell]

No! Your point was that what he says expands on what YOU mean.

"Have you red Free Will by Sam Harris? It expands on this concept much further."
​

This concept being your: "I can choose whether or not to eat, but I cannot choose whether or not to be hungry. "

And, as I explained, your concept here isn't valid, and here's why: It's the equivalent of saying you cannot choose to---and actually---lift your car with one arm.

I'm pretty darn sure Sam Harris would reject your concept here of being able to actually choose to do the impossible. Impossible feats wouldn't be covered under alternative choices.

​

Impossible feats do not interfere with any meaningful definition of "free will".

 

[jojom]

Impossible feats do not interfere with any meaningful definition of "free will".

Are you suggesting that a free will choice includes choosing to do the impossible? "Choice" only has meaning where the options are viable. You may say you can choose to fly to New York or choose to fly the Moon, but is it really a meaningful choice? Of course not. Free will implies that ability to do something, and if an option is not doable it can't be said to be a viable choice. "Choice" in such instances is simply nonexistent and meaningless, and free will would never enter into the picture. It cannot act on the two "options."

In any case, you're right in saying that "Impossible feats do not interfere with any meaningful definition of 'free will'." Just like green apples, they have nothing to do with it.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Determinism, just because something is cause by something else doesn't mean the out come is determined by that cause. So I think that is were the definition fails. Generally when consciousness is not involved, it's a matter of physics which can be pretty well predicted.

Indeterminism, I think obviously when consciousness is involved, the outcome is not predictable. So every event may have a cause or not but just because there exists a cause doesn't mean the outcome is necessarily predictable. Where consciousness is involved, I think this has to be considered a special case.

Free will, I believe will can be acted upon by consciousness. A conscious agent has the ability to alter their will. For some to a greater or lesser.

 

[jojom]

Determinism, just because something is cause by something else doesn't mean the out come is determined by that cause.

So what does it mean to say that something is cause by something else if it doesn't mean that the out come, the something, is determined by that cause; the something else?

So I think that is were the definition fails. Generally when consciousness is not involved, it's a matter of physics which can be pretty well predicted.

Keep in mind that an ability to predict or not predict something has nothing to do with the validity of determinism. And why wouldn't determinism play a role in consciousness? If your thoughts aren't determined then they must arise randomly.

Free will, I believe will can be acted upon by consciousness. A conscious agent has the ability to alter their will. For some to a greater or lesser.

And how does this ability function? Is it driven randomly; you are just as likely to think "antidisestablishmentarianism" as "jellyfish." Or is there some actual reason (cause) that "antidisestablishmentarianism" popped into your head rather than "jellyfish"?

 

[Nakosis]

So what does it mean to say that something is cause by something else if it doesn't mean that the out come, the something, is determined by that cause; the something else?

Ok, well lets say you are hungry. The hunger causes you to make a choice. The outcome could be to eat an apple or a chocolate bar or perhaps ignore feeling hungry. A cause can have more than one outcome. That cause doesn't necessarily predict which outcome.

Keep in mind that an ability to predict or not predict something has nothing to do with the validity of determinism. And why wouldn't determinism play a role in consciousness? If your thoughts aren't determined then they must arise randomly.

I'm just working with the definition of indeterminism which says the outcome is not predictable. If determinism allows for unpredictability then both determinism and indeterminism can be true. I don't see where by definition they are precisely opposite.

And how does this ability function? Is it driven randomly; you are just as likely to think "antidisestablishmentarianism" as "jellyfish." Or is there some actual reason (cause) that "antidisestablishmentarianism" popped into your head rather than "jellyfish"?

That's a pretty large explanation, but basically consciousness allows for imagination and recursion and randomness if that is what is chosen. One can make an random choice or one can imagine pretty much anything they want. Any possible past, any possible present or any possible future. None of what is imagined has to have actually occurred. However what we imagine can be use during the process of making a decision. In fact such a recursion process may happen many, many times before a choice is made.

 

[jojom]

Ok, well lets say you are hungry. The hunger causes you to make a choice. The outcome could be to eat an apple or a chocolate bar or perhaps ignore feeling hungry. A cause can have more than one outcome. That cause doesn't necessarily predict which outcome.

The predictability of an event has absolutely nothing to do with determinism. That you may not be able to predict an outcome doesn't make it any less determined.

I'm just working with the definition of indeterminism which says the outcome is not predictable.

Okay.

If determinism allows for unpredictability then both determinism and indeterminism can be true.

Why? This is like saying that because apples and lemons are both fruits they both taste sour.

I don't see where by definition they are precisely opposite.

Indeterminism is the concept that events (certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically.

Determinism: all events are caused.
Indeterminism: events (certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically.
​

An event cannot be both caused and not caused. This is where determinism and indeterminism are precisely opposite.

That's a pretty large explanation, but basically consciousness allows for imagination and recursion and randomness if that is what is chosen.

Do you ever recall choosing to allow randomness take over your consciousness?

One can make an random choice or one can imagine pretty much anything they want.

How does this this "random choice" operate? What kind of choosing operation is at work that is random? Randomness precludes choosing. If I choose something it' automatically pushes randomness out of the picture. Randomness means that an event has an equal chance of happening as not happening, but in choosing you effectively kill this equality and set the event in stone.

None of what is imagined has to have actually occurred. However what we imagine can be use during the process of making a decision. In fact such a recursion process may happen many, many times before a choice is made.

I fail to see what this has to do with either free will or determinism, other than one's "choice" has been predetermined by the forgoing events that made up your imagination.

 

[bobhikes]

[Q

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 can agree and believe indeterminism is the root of will with the B definition( a theory that holds that not every event has a cause)

Most actions can very well be caused. The brain sets up simple routine to quickly do some tasks. We have reflexes. We also have the ability to stop actions and this is where indeterminism comes in by stopping we are allowing the causes to change we are allowing us to reflect off logic and then process information creating new information from logic and when we want we can start the action response again. All that is needed is the ability to switch off action for a period of time. Once this is switched off until it is turned on we have no cause and effect. Think of day dreaming or focused thought, where you are in the action deep thought and your wife, mother or children are trying to get your attention to no avail sometimes physically touching you.

 

[Marisa]

No! Your point was that what he says expands on what YOU mean:

"Have you red Free Will by Sam Harris? It expands on this concept much further."
​

This concept being your: "I can choose whether or not to eat, but I cannot choose whether or not to be hungry. "

And, as I explained, your concept here isn't valid, and here's why: It's the equivalent of saying you cannot choose to---and actually---lift your car with one arm.

I'm pretty darn sure Sam Harris would reject your concept here of being able to actually choose to do the impossible. Impossible feats wouldn't be covered under alternative choices.

​

Whatever.

 

[jojom]

Whatever.

Girly talk? Anyway, although I recognize your remark as an admission I'm right, it doesn't amount to a "whatever" at all.

 

[Marisa]

Girly talk? Anyway, although I recognize your remark as an admission I'm right, it doesn't amount to a "whatever" at all.

I think I've commented enough in this conversation for you to fully grasp where I stand. But do feel free to take whatever meaning you choose from my single word reply. I'm glad to know that there's an expert on the concept of free will I can turn to should I have questions.