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

[Nakosis]

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.

Determine per a definition means predictable. Determined can also mean decided on. So how are you using it?

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

I'm just working with the definitions provided. Maybe if you can explain how you see these terms as

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.​

​

There were two definitions provided for indeterminism. The first "a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes" See were it says not predictable from "prior" causes? You're saying determinism has nothing to do with predictability, whereas indeterminism does. If one is defined in consideration of predictability and one isn't they don't necessarily oppose each other.

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

You're getting stuck on the second definition, which has nothing to do with will, free or otherwise.

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

Sure

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.

Sure, but prior to the choosing either could have equal chance. An action is not determined until 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.

You are seeing it as a sequence of events which happen one after the other. Like a simple decision tree in a computer program. If x = 1 then do y.

In this perception, it does seem like the output is determined by the input. It's predictable, even thought you don't like that word but this is what it is.

The way you should look at it is <input> <process> <output>. The input doesn't determine the output, the process does. The input triggers the process, therefore causes the process to occur, it doesn't determine the output.

The process is you, your mind. The process is self contained. There may have been many inputs throughout your life which may have been integrated into the process or discarded. Also included in the process is imagination and consciousness. Both imagination and conscious, which is all part of the same self contained entity, you, can alter the process. Imagination and consciousness are internal to the agent, they are not an input to the agent. They are what makes the agent a unique entity. You want to separate these process from the agent, see them as external causes. I disagree with this view, consciousness and imagination are the agent. These are contained by the "self" entity. If you try to separate these process from the agent, then there is no agent.

So this self contain agent, with consciousness and imagination is capable of being causal. Independent of external inputs, or triggered by external inputs. The mind is pretty fascinating. It can also act via a determined process when the conscious self does not involve itself in the process. However consciousness is also capable of overriding the determined process.

That's why we have invention, improvement. That's why man can develop moral codes and religion and art. It's why we are not programmed robots, running on a straight rail through life with no detours or alternate routes.

 

[jojom]

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.

Hardly an expert. Just someone who thinks he as a decent grasp of it.

 

[jojom]

Determine per a definition means predictable.

Never, ever seen that definition (Got a source?). Among other things (not including predictable) it's taken to mean: to be the cause of or reason for (something). And this is how we're using it here; a verb of arising out of the process of determinism. We are talking about free will and determinism.

Determined can also mean decided on. So how are you using it?
I'm just working with the definitions provided. Maybe if you can explain how you see these terms as

In the discussion here, "as a verb of arising out of the process of determinism."

There were two definitions provided for indeterminism. The first "a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes" See were it says not predictable from "prior" causes? You're saying determinism has nothing to do with predictability, whereas indeterminism does.

No. Just to be clear here, predictability has no impact one way or the other on the validity determinism. Just because we could not predict when an earthquake happened doesn't mean that it wasn't determined by prior geological events. HOWEVER, there are deterministic events that can be predicted. That my thumb will hurt if I hit it with a hammer is certainly predictable. Thing is, predictable or not, all events are deterministic. As for indeterministic events, those that arise without cause, they remain unpredictable.

You're getting stuck on the second definition, which has nothing to do with will, free or otherwise.

I don't think I'm stuck on anything. Just using a better definition than the one in the opening post.

Sure

Sure!!! You recall choosing to allow randomness take over your consciousness? Sorry, but I find this highly doubtful.

Sure, but prior to the choosing either could have equal chance. An action is not determined until a choice is made.

The action, obviously, but how does the choice arise if it isn't determined (caused)? If it isn't caused then it must have been a random act, in which case you had no input as to what was opted for at all.

You are seeing it as a sequence of events which happen one after the other. Like a simple decision tree in a computer program. If x = 1 then do y.

In this perception, it does seem like the output is determined by the input. It's predictable, even thought you don't like that word but this is what it is.

The way you should look at it is <input> <process> <output>. The input doesn't determine the output, the process does. The input triggers the process, therefore causes the process to occur, it doesn't determine the output.

Exceedingly bad analogy.

The process is you, your mind. The process is self contained. There may have been many inputs throughout your life which may have been integrated into the process or discarded. Also included in the process is imagination and consciousness. Both imagination and conscious, which is all part of the same self contained entity, you, can alter the process. Imagination and consciousness are internal to the agent, they are not an input to the agent. They are what makes the agent a unique entity. You want to separate these process from the agent, see them as external causes. I disagree with this view, consciousness and imagination are the agent. These are contained by the "self" entity. If you try to separate these process from the agent, then there is no agent.

And exceedingly poor assumptions and conclusions.

So this self contain agent, with consciousness and imagination is capable of being causal. Independent of external inputs, or triggered by external inputs. The mind is pretty fascinating. It can also act via a determined process when the conscious self does not involve itself in the process. However consciousness is also capable of overriding the determined

So what drives the operation of the consciousness? Does it operate randomly or because of cause? You do realize that these are the only two possible mechanisms, don't you?

That's why we have invention, improvement. That's why man can develop moral codes and religion and art. It's why we are not programmed robots, running on a straight rail through life with no detours or alternate routes.

Nice, sleep easy thought I guess, but nothing worth jotting down.

 

[McBell]

Are you suggesting that a free will choice includes choosing to do the impossible?

No, I am not.
I am saying that you can choose to fly.
Having made the choice does not mean you will, only that you have made the choice.
Choosing to do something impossible is not a limitation on free will, it is an indication of faulty thinking.

 

[Thief]

No, I am not.
I am saying that you can choose to fly.
Having made the choice does not mean you will, only that you have made the choice.
Choosing to do something impossible is not a limitation on free will, it is an indication of faulty thinking.

similar to choosing there is no God?

 

[McBell]

similar to choosing there is no God?

I have no idea seeing as I have not made any such choose.
You should try baiting someone else.
I am not interested in your Pigeon Chess.

 

[Thief]

I have no idea seeing as I have not made any such choose.
You should try baiting someone else.
I am not interested in your Pigeon Chess.

then you are going to play somewhere else?

 

[Nakosis]

Never, ever seen that definition (Got a source?). Among other things (not including predictable) it's taken to mean: to be the cause of or reason for (something). And this is how we're using it here; a verb of arising out of the process of determinism. We are talking about free will and determinism.

No, I'll drop it since I ran across this.
"Predictability, Determinism, and Free Will?
Although many thinkers confuse predictability with determinism, neither Newton nor Laplace likely did so. Newton was painfully aware of the errors made in astronomical observations. Laplace invented his super intelligent being to contrast its infinite mind (like that of God) to the finite minds that must remain infinitely distant from such knowledge. He knew that the information for even one single particle is infinite mathematically."
Predictability

I don't think I'm stuck on anything. Just using a better definition than the one in the opening post.

That's fine, my point was that as defined in the original post, they weren't necessarily exclusive. I was going to suggest maybe a better definition be used.

Sure!!! You recall choosing to allow randomness take over your consciousness? Sorry, but I find this highly doubtful.

I don't know how hard it might for some, but you empty yourself of any attachments or desire and start an action without thought. Mostly pointless since it's not really an act of will. More just to see if it can be done.

The action, obviously, but how does the choice arise if it isn't determined (caused)? If it isn't caused then it must have been a random act, in which case you had no input as to what was opted for at all.

It is determined by the agent. Consciousness' ability to act on will. To modify, suppress, alter will.

Exceedingly bad analogy.

And exceedingly poor assumptions and conclusions.

Ok then it should be easy for you to explain your opinion.

So what drives the operation of the consciousness? Does it operate randomly or because of cause? You do realize that these are the only two possible mechanisms, don't you?

It doesn't have to be driven by anything external to itself, though it usually is. However I suppose that is the fundamental difference in our views. You don't believe consciousness is capable of originating cause.

Nice, sleep easy thought I guess, but nothing worth jotting down.

Right, but the problem for determinism is to have an answer for these things.

 

[jojom]

It is determined by the agent. Consciousness' ability to act on will. To modify, suppress, alter will.

Then we're forced to go back another step and determine how this agent works. Is its output random or caused?

Ok then it should be easy for you to explain your opinion.

Rather than miss the object of your request, exactly what opinion do you want explained?

It doesn't have to be driven by anything external to itself, though it usually is. However I suppose that is the fundamental difference in our views. You don't believe consciousness is capable of originating cause.

In a very real sense I do. Our consciousness does it all the time. I think X because I "thought" Y, because I "thought" H, because I "thought" T, because I . . . . . . . . . . However, if you mean our consciousness can come up with a cause out of thin air, then no. This would be an act of pure randomness, and I don't believe this is how our brain works: completely at random. OR that it vacillates between operating randomly and operating causally.

Right, but the problem for determinism is to have an answer for these things.

No problem whatsoever. Every such event is caused, a cause that arose from prior causes, which arose from a prior causes, which arose. . . . . .

 

[Nakosis]

Then we're forced to go back another step and determine how this agent works. Is its output random or caused?

The output would be caused by the Agent.

Rather than miss the object of your request, exactly what opinion do you want explained?

What you saw wrong with the explanation I provided. You felt is was poor but didn't say why.

In a very real sense I do. Our consciousness does it all the time. I think X because I "thought" Y, because I "thought" H, because I "thought" T, because I . . . . . . . . . . However, if you mean our consciousness can come up with a cause out of thin air, then no. This would be an act of pure randomness, and I don't believe this is how our brain works: completely at random. OR that it vacillates between operating randomly and operating causally.

I believe it is possible to make a random choice, and I suppose we disagree on that, but I don't really see it as being relevant to the discussion on freewill.

I wouldn't say thin air. What I was trying to explain before is that through imagination, which is a process of the Agent, a cause can be created which is not related to an actual past.

No problem whatsoever. Every such event is caused, a cause that arose from prior causes, which arose from a prior causes, which arose. . . . . .

Is what you are saying is every event is determined by a prior cause?

I'm fine with cause, I don't agree there is there is a relationship between the cause and effect that is necessarily determined by the cause. A cause could have different possible effects as a result. Any resultant effect can be said to be caused, however that doesn't mean the actual cause determined the actual effect. It triggered the event, not that it determined what that event would actually be.

You can say there exists a problem, which triggered someone to create a solution. The problem didn't determine the solution. The conscious Agent did that.

And further that solution was created by the Agent that had no direct relation to the cause other than triggering the need for a solution.

If this is the sense you mean cause by, I've no problem with that statement since it doesn't interfere with free will.

 

[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.

Free will which is compatible with determinism is called compatibilism
Free will which is compatible with indeterminism is called libertarianism

I think these maybe better understood definitions?

determinism
The view that every event has a cause and that everything in the universe is absolutely dependent on and governed by causal laws. Since determinists believe that all events, including human actions, are predetermined, determinism is typically thought to be incompatible with free will.

indeterminism
The view that there are events that do not have any cause; many proponents of free will believe that acts of choice are capable of not being determined by any physiological or psychological cause.

I assume psychological means as a result of desire. IOW the belief that there is more occurring when a decision is made than just a physiological process that creates a desire which we have no choice except to act on.

I wouldn't say chance. Decisions can also be the direct result of conscious control.

Are we ok with these definitions or are we talking about something else?

Me, I believe conscious control of our decision process is possible, where ever that fits in this discussion.

 

[jojom]

The output would be caused by the Agent.

You misunderstand. I can go along with you and acknowledge that its an agent of some kind, but to repeat, we're forced to go back another step and determine how this agent works.

What you saw wrong with the explanation I provided. You felt is was poor but didn't say why.

Oh wow, that goes back through too many exchanges. Sorry, but I'm not up to going through them all to comment.

I believe it is possible to make a random choice, and I suppose we disagree on that, but I don't really see it as being relevant to the discussion on freewill.

To cut to the chase, determinism doesn't allow for the concept of choice. Choosing implies performing an uncaused event. Thing is, no one actually chooses anything in the free will sense.

I wouldn't say thin air. What I was trying to explain before is that through imagination, which is a process of the Agent, a cause can be created which is not related to an actual past.

Before we go further I'll need to know exactly what this "Agent" is. If a cause is created unrelated to any past event (cause) then just how does it come into being? In any case, unless this process of the agent is a totally random one, it HAS to consist of a series of cause/effect events.

Is what you are saying is every event is determined by a prior cause?

Aside from possibly some events at the quantum level, yes.

I'm fine with cause, I don't agree there is there is a relationship between the cause and effect that is necessarily determined by the cause.

This isn't making sense. You're determinant, "the cause," refers back to the "relationship." IOW "I don't agree there is there is a relationship between the cause and effect that is necessarily determined by the cause of the relationship." "Relationship" is not a verb (doer) but a state of being.

A cause could have different possible effects as a result.

Absolutely. A car crash can cause a lot of different effects. But every one of those effects has the car crash as its cause.

Any resultant effect can be said to be caused, however that doesn't mean the actual cause determined the actual effect.

So what determined the effect? I have no idea what you mean by "the actual cause," but the idea of effect itself demands a cause. To say it's untrue that "actual cause determined the actual effect" is akin to saying that "A fact is not a fact."

It triggered the event, not that it determined what that event would actually be.

Now you're just playing with words. Gotta explain "triggered" big time, and how it differs from cause.

You can say there exists a problem, which triggered someone to create a solution. The problem didn't determine the solution. The conscious Agent did that.

Okay.

And further that solution was created by the Agent that had no direct relation to the cause other than triggering the need for a solution.

What "cause"

If this is the sense you mean cause by, I've no problem with that statement since it doesn't interfere with free will.

Plain and simple, when I use "cause" I mean it as the instigator of an event. No need to pose convoluted relationships or go into agents and triggers. ALL events have a cause, be it in your back yard or in your brain. Lacking that, an event would have to be entirely random; it could just as well not happen as happen. Of course, if you believe you do things entirely randomly, fine. Just let me know when get in your car and take to the streets.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

Here:Free Will: Some explanations (and its compatibility with the sciences) | ReligiousForums.com

How meaningful is it?

According to the free will theorem, it is fundamental to reality. According to most who allow for it in terms of consciousness, vital for understanding the nature of the brain, cognition, etc.

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

It doesn't. Free will is possible with fatalism. An ontological interpretation of spacetime entails fatalism, but not that we can't make choices such that no other was possible, rather that we've already made every choice there is to make. However, we still make these choices and from a local (causal) sense we are capable of having made others despite this fatalism.

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

Free will is the basis for legal systems and other core components of modern society. Scientifically, reality seems to lack the kind of "crisp", non-vague properties of the classical realm of experience, and without allowing for the subjective "creation" of the emergence of this classical realm through conscious observation of the type that can be said to entail or require free will, we must dismiss a good deal of modern physics (or at least understanding it in something other than irreducibly statistical). Free will may not require mental causation (the soul or similar "ghost in the machine" might, in theory, exercise causal power over the physical), but unless we are willing to let go of key components of the scientific endeavor we must equate free will with at least the appearance of mental causation and it understanding mental causation (either as an illusion or real) is key to understanding the brain as well as causality itself. The list goes on.

 

[Banjankri]

Free will is the basis for legal systems and other core components of modern society.

Legal systems based on free will are probably the biggest mistake of human race. This is preciely why prison doesn't fix people, it just punishes them, causing further degradation.
Notion of free will didn't evolve by accident. It is the only reason why we care. It's the main source of suffering, and the cause for social development at the same time. It's just an idea, but very powerfull one. Even more powerfull than God

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legal systems based on free will are probably the biggest mistake of human race. This is preciely why prison doesn't fix people, it just punishes them, causing further degradation.

Psychiatry, clinical psychology, and any and all attempts at "rehabilitation" require free will too.

Notion of free will didn't evolve by accident.

True. There was no reason to suspect that there was even the slightest possibility for there to be no free will until a very odd development in a particular culture prompted a tradition (mostly ignored until the early modern period) of thought regarding causes and effects, but even then nobody questioned free will (which wasn't a concept or notion because in order for it to be so there had to be some notions that we don't actually make the choices we do). Fatalist thought questioned something like free will, but it wasn't until classical (Newtonian) deterministic physics that it became possible for "free will" to exist as the notion it does (for example, the earliest uses are those that explain a form of causation, non-coerced choices, the ability for people to be responsible for their sins, etc.).

It is the only reason why we care.

People have been caring long before there was anything like a notion of free will.

 

[Banjankri]

Psychiatry, clinical psychology, and any and all attempts at "rehabilitation" require free will too.

No, they don't. That's the reason why "rehabilitation", and "resocialisation" fail.

People have been caring long before there was anything like a notion of free will.

How you name it, does't really make big difference. Care is an attitude which is suppose to give us a certain result. To be able to care, you need a belief, that you can actually change things. When we care, we have a desired state in our mind, and we act to make it true.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, they don't.

Without free will, there is no basis for supposing that a person can act or think in a way differently than they do. Statements like "you have to want to change", "fake it 'till you make it", and the fundamentals of positive psychology, cognitive behavioral therapy, and really any therapy all require that a person is capable of choosing to think and act differently. Therapy of any sort is never regarded as "brain-washing" but as willful acts/decisions made under guidance of professionals to change one's conscious perceptions. Without free will, the only possible rehabilitation would be "re-programming" of a type that not even brain-washing is capable of effecting.

Care is an attitude which is suppose to give us a certain result.

What result is it "supposed" to give, and who or what determined it is supposed to do this?

When we care, we have a desired state in our mind, and we act to make it true.

If this is true and we have no free will, then there is no way to not have that state and no way to act other than we would act based on that state. To suppose we can have a different state of mind that changes how we act supposes free will.

 

[psychoslice]

No one really has so called free will, we are all conditioned and programmed through the mind, much of what we do is because of this programming, so you may believe you have free will, but you don't, that is until you are self realized, and truly realize that you are not your mind, that you are beyond the mind, its that simple.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No one really has so called free will, we are all conditioned and programmed through the mind

The mind isn't a computer and conditioning, influences, etc., don't prevent free will as it is generally understood (or at least the generally understand components necessary for free will to be said to exist).

much of what we do is because of this programming

Well luckily I've been addressing this nonsense for a while:


“To understand why neurons and computers are fundamentally different, we must bear in mind that modern computers are algorithmic, whereas the brain and neurons are not.”
Tse, P. (2013). The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial causation. MIT Press.

“no formal system is able to generate anything even remotely mind-like. The asymmetry between the brain and the computer is complete, all comparisons are flawed, and the idea of a computer-generated consciousness is nonsense.”
Torey, Z. (2009). The crucible of consciousness: An integrated theory of mind and brain. Cambridge: MIT press.

“The free will theorem supports a powerful challenge to the scientific credentials of determinism, by showing, on certain well-supported assumptions, that two cornerstones of contemporary science, namely (1) acceptance of the scientific method as a reliable way of finding out about the world, and (2) relativity theory’s exclusion of faster-than-light transmission of information, taken together, conflict with determinism in both its versions. Belief in determinism may thus come to be seen as notably unscientific.”
Hodgson, D. (2012). Rationality + Consciousness = Free Will (Philosophy of Mind). Oxford University Press.

“there is no evidence for a computer program consisting of effective procedures that would control a brain’s input, output, and behavior. Artificial intelligence doesn’t work in real brains. There is no logic and no precise clock governing the outputs of our brains no matter how regular they may appear.”
Edelman, G. M. (2006). Second nature: Brain science and human knowledge. Yale University Press.

"First, it is widely accepted that the ‘‘atoms’’ (in the philosophical sense) do not behave deterministically. Second, it is becoming more and more widely recognized that complex dynamical systems can exhibit new sorts of causal capacities not found at the level of their constituents. We have emphasized, among these, sentience, goal seeking, consciousness, acting for a reason, and self-evaluation. Third, we have argued that higher-level systems exert downward effects on their constituents via selection among possibilities generated randomly, probabilistically, or according to deterministic lower-level laws.”
Murphy, N., Brown, W.S (2007). Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will. Oxford University Press.


"No computer program, no matter how cleverly designed, has an entailment structure like a mind, or even a prion.”
Kercel, S. W. (2003, June). Softer than soft computing. In Soft Computing in Industrial Applications, 2003. SMCia/03. Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 27-32). IEEE.


"For 50 years, computer scientists have been trying to make computers intelligent while mostly ignoring the one thing that is intelligent: the human brain. Even so-called neural network programming techniques take as their starting point a highly simplistic view of how the brain operates.”
Hawkins, J. (2007). Why Can't a Computer be more Like a Brain?. Spectrum, IEEE, 44(4), 21-26.

“The brain is not a computer, nor is the world an unambiguous piece of tape defining an effective procedure and constituting “symbolic information.” Such a selectional brain system is endlessly more responsive and plastic than a coded system.”
Edelman, G. M. (1999). Building a Picture of the Brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 882(1), 68-89.

 

[Banjankri]

Without free will, there is no basis for supposing that a person can act or think in a way differently than they do.

It's like saying it's impossible to change computers behavior if it doesn't have free will. There is a reason why somebody did something believing it's the right thing to do. To fix it, you need to find it, and fix it. It's not a simple task, but that the only way it can be done. You can always lock him down for years, but that will not fix him.

Therapy of any sort is never regarded as "brain-washing"

And they should. If something is dirty, you need to wash it. The only reason why it's not used in this way, is because of human dignity. Another myth...

Without free will, the only possible rehabilitation would be "re-programming" of a type that not even brain-washing is capable of effecting.

So, you know what is needed, but you think it's impossible. That's a good starting point.
It is possible, but very expensive.

What result is it "supposed" to give, and who or what determined it is supposed to do this?

Money, if you care about money.
Fame, if you care about fame.
Food, if you care about food...
Path leading one to those results is created out of his past experiences. This is called know-how. If you care about money, and you know how to get them, you will act accordingly.

To suppose we can have a different state of mind that changes how we act supposes free will.

If you have two identical twins, but only one believes in his power to act, they will behave differently. Actually, that's who we are. Biological machines programmed to think that they have free will.