Why Free Will does not Exist

[atanu]

By the sense it makes, AND the utter lack of any other operational mechanism. Got one? Please share.
Why?

There cannot be a cause that will favour 'sense' over 'non-sense'. If there is indeed such a cause that favours sense over non-sense then spell it out.

Yup, and at the same time personally remain open to any other operational mechanism you may suggest. Got one? Please share.
.

I had written about it. But you simply ignored.

I will go back to the example of a man on river who does not know that his boat is hurtling towards a fall and his imminent death but a man hovering over the river knows the approaching disaster and can act consciously.

The above metaphor is just a pointer, to point you to a possibility that the seer consciousness that sees/knows the thoughts of intellect, is a layer of intelligence, distinct from the intellect, and is akin to the man in the sky. It has choice in the space of time between an event/thought and the action. We all use it to meditate, to decide ethically, to decide good of friends or of children, we decide to care for our parents etc, etc.. This is the conscience that we all are endowed with to lesser or more degree. If this seer consciousness was absent there would not be any reason for existence of ethics. No reason for any responsibility. Rapist and murderers are then helpless victims of cause effect.

That is ridiculous to me.

 

[blü 2]

Is it called Compatibilism?

I think of it more as true-but-doesn't-matter-ism.

 

[blü 2]

You can't define what your idiosyncratic "understanding of determinism" is, can you?

My understanding of determinism is fuzzy determinism, an expression I've already defined for you.

The reason it doesn't fit your definition of determinism is because that definition implies strict determinism, a future that could in principle be calculated exactly if only all the data could be marshaled.

And I've said all that before.

Your "understanding of determinism" is obviously inconsistent with the definition of determinism in the SEP article. Correct?

Of course. Why do you think I call it 'fuzzy determinism' and not 'determinism' or 'strict determinism'?

1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions:
the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions:
to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition:
My hands are obedient to my will.​

But that's meaningless for our purposes until you define 'freedom' in relation to will. What definition of 'freedom' do you say is meant in your quote?

 

[Skwim]

I had written about it. But you simply ignored.

It wasn't an operational mechanism. Tell me how the will operates free of causation.

"The will is the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions"
Source: Dictionary.com
​

Show us how the power of control the mind has over its own actions works sans causality. Causality being a "because of this, then that" sort of operation.

If this seer consciousness was absent there would not be any reason for existence of ethics. No reason for any responsibility. Rapist and murderers are then helpless victims of cause effect.

Like it or not, but Yup, that's the way it works. As I told Willamena,

"It may be too bad that responsibility can't be plopped down in the lap of choice, but that's the way it works. Responsibility lies with all the determining causal factors leading to the event in question."
​

When it comes down to the nitty-gritty of determinism there is no basis for ethics. The basis of ethics lies within the illusion of free will. Don't like it? then continue to live in your illusion I guess.

Thing is, none of our wishes, likes, desires, hankerings, cravings, or specific needs should have any bearing on the truth of either determinism or free will. Their truth must stand on their own merits, and while there are plenty of merits for determinism, there are none for free will. Free will simply lacks any kind of operational mechanism.

.

 

[atanu]

It wasn't an operational mechanism. Tell me how the will operates free of causation.

"The will is the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions"
Source: Dictionary.com
​

Show us how the power of control the mind has over its own actions works sans causality. Causality being a "because of this, then that" sort of operation.


Like it or not, but Yup, that's the way it works. As I told Willamena,

"It may be too bad that responsibility can't be plopped down in the lap of choice, but that's the way it works. Responsibility lies with all the determining causal factors leading to the event in question."
​

When it comes down to the nitty-gritty of determinism there is no basis for ethics. The basis of ethics lies within the illusion of free will. Don't like it? then continue to live in your illusion I guess.

Thing is, none of our wishes, likes, desires, hankerings, cravings, or specific needs should have any bearing on the truth of either determinism or free will. Their truth must stand on their own merits, and while there are plenty of merits for determinism, there are none for free will. Free will simply lacks any kind of operational mechanism.

.

Although insisting that determinism is true, you assert that you are seeing the truth and that others do not see the truth.

If determinism is true then your claim has no basis of objectivity. Your view was determined from before.
......

That we have free will can be demonstrated through yoga, meditation, and any behavioural training.

An impulsive person can be taught to be patient. An angry person can be taught to master the mind. All our life most of us employ our will blindly. There are some who do that mindfully. It is about choosing between the pleasurable on one hand or the good on the other.

You are not able to see this, since you have bound your intellect to a limiting paradigm that mind constitutes a single layer.

No. Mind is multi-layered. Intellect is ruled by the memories embedded in the identity sense (ego self). But above this ego self is the self that sees both the intellect and the ego I. Meditation helps to realise that seer consciousness.

 

[Willamena]

It wasn't an operational mechanism. Tell me how the will operates free of causation.

"The will is the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions"
Source: Dictionary.com
​

Show us how the power of control the mind has over its own actions works sans causality. Causality being a "because of this, then that" sort of operation.
.

Faculties are operations of the mind. They do not have mechanics. You picking up a glass and holding it to your lip is "the faculty of conscious and especially deliberate action" at work.

The mind does not have a power of control over its own actions, that is misworded; rather, the body in action is the power of control of the mind. There are no physical activities in the mind--all descriptors, such as "faculty," are only representational.

Like it or not, but Yup, that's the way it works. As I told Willamena,

"It may be too bad that responsibility can't be plopped down in the lap of choice, but that's the way it works. Responsibility lies with all the determining causal factors leading to the event in question."
​

When it comes down to the nitty-gritty of determinism there is no basis for ethics. The basis of ethics lies within the illusion of free will. Don't like it? then continue to live in your illusion I guess.

Thing is, none of our wishes, likes, desires, hankerings, cravings, or specific needs should have any bearing on the truth of either determinism or free will. Their truth must stand on their own merits, and while there are plenty of merits for determinism, there are none for free will. Free will simply lacks any kind of operational mechanism.

.

Other determinists seem to have no problem accounting for ethics: "The objectively right action, in any circumstances, is that action which, of all that are possible, gives us, when account is taken of all available data, the greatest expectation of probable good effects, or the least expectation of probable bad effects." Bertrand Russell
IV. Determinism and Morals: THE ELEMENTS OF ETHICS (1910) by Bertrand Russell

 

[Willamena]

Other determinists seem to have no problem accounting for ethics: "The objectively right action, in any circumstances, is that action which, of all that are possible, gives us, when account is taken of all available data, the greatest expectation of probable good effects, or the least expectation of probable bad effects." Bertrand Russell
IV. Determinism and Morals: THE ELEMENTS OF ETHICS (1910) by Bertrand Russell

I, myself, favour this thinking:
"For we saw that the objectively right action may be defined as that one which, of all that are possible under the circumstances, will probably on the whole have the best consequences. The action which is objectively right must therefore be in some sense possible. But if determinism is true, there is a sense in which no action is possible except the one actually performed. Hence, if the two senses of possibility are the same, the action actually performed is always objectively right; for it is the only possible action, and therefore there is no other possible action which would have better results." Bertrand Russell
IV. Determinism and Morals: THE ELEMENTS OF ETHICS (1910) by Bertrand Russell

 

[Nous]

The reason it doesn't fit your definition of determinism is because that definition implies strict determinism, a future that could in principle be calculated exactly if only all the data could be marshaled.

(1) It isn't my definition; it is the definition I quoted from the SEP article on determinism. (2) The definition does not does not say anything about "calculating" "in principle". It merely uses the term "fixed". That's what determinism is.

1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions:
the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions:
to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition:
My hands are obedient to my will.

But that's meaningless for our purposes until you define 'freedom' in relation to will. What definition of 'freedom' do you say is meant in your quote?

No, the definition of "will" is not meaningless, obviously.

But if you want to add the concept of "freedom" to "will," I suppose #3 will suffice--

the definition of freedom

3. the power to determine action without restraint.​

--as long as one keeps in mind that it doesn't mean choosing options that are not available. (Someone on the compatibilism thread said that free will meant that a person could grow wings and fly.)

 

[atanu]

This issue is a non issue for most easterners who hold that our Karma has been determined by our past actions, and strongly influences our current actions, but we are free to improve our Karma by good actions, for which we are competent because we are endowed with competence to discern right and wrong. Our consciousness is not a product of a chain reaction but is as it is and is independent.

 

[Willamena]

--as long as one keeps in mind that it doesn't mean choosing options that are not available.

Well said.

 

[blü 2]

But if you want to add the concept of "freedom" to "will," I suppose #3 will suffice--

the definition of freedom

3. the power to determine action without restraint.​

Now we have to ask what 'restraint' means.

Is necessary obedience to physics processes ─ the ones that constitute all your brain functions ─ a 'restraint'?

If it's not, then we're not arguing about anything much.

 

[Skwim]

Although insisting that determinism is true, you assert that you are seeing the truth and that others do not see the truth.

If determinism is true then your claim has no basis of objectivity. Your view was determined from before.

Sure it does. And certainly I don't know why you're bringing objectivity into the issue. In any case:

ob·jec·tiv·i·ty
noun:
the quality of being objective.

ob·jec·tive
adjective​

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
​

All that aside.
Our thinking is a compilation of mental events, which at any point in our life is the sum total of all the mental events that preceded it. If those previous mental events included critical thinking, insights, perceptions, comprehensions, and rational understandings, to some extent or another they will all figure into a particular judgement. Now if they weren't particularly insightful, perceptive, rational, or instances of critical thinking, the judgment may well be quite poor. But good, poor, or bad, the judgment is no less an act of the intellect than those you presume to occur from free will.

That we have free will can be demonstrated through yoga, meditation, and any behavioural training.

An impulsive person can be taught to be patient. An angry person can be taught to master the mind. All our life most of us employ our will blindly. There are some who do that mindfully. It is about choosing between the pleasurable on one hand or the good on the other.

You are not able to see this, since you have bound your intellect to a limiting paradigm that mind constitutes a single layer.

Sure I can, and I can easily see them as the result of the preceding cause/effect events---NOT choosing---that brought them into being.

No. Mind is multi-layered. Intellect is ruled by the memories embedded in the identity sense (ego self). But above this ego self is the self that sees both the intellect and the ego I. Meditation helps to realise that seer consciousness.

And all these were the result of those causal events that brought them into being, and themselves may well act as the cause of some effect event in the future.

However, in as much as you're having a very difficult time understanding determinism and can't explain how free will works---examples are not explanations---I'm going to sign off on our exchange.

Have a good day.

.
.

 

[Skwim]

Faculties are operations of the mind. They do not have mechanics. You picking up a glass and holding it to your lip is "the faculty of conscious and especially deliberate action" at work.

The mind does not have a power of control over its own actions, that is misworded; rather, the body in action is the power of control of the mind. There are no physical activities in the mind--all descriptors, such as "faculty," are only representational.

Interesting, sadly enough.

.

 

[atanu]

Sure it does. And certainly I don't know why you're bringing objectivity into the issue.

Ability of objective discernment of truth of any proposition is the most crucial point in this discussion.

Sure I can, and I can easily see them as the result of the preceding cause/effect events---NOT choosing---that brought them into being.

The preceding cause itself was caused by certain prior choice.

(Yes. You have to eventually arrive at "The world as will and representation".)

Have a good day.

Thank you. Same wishes for you.

 

[Nous]

But if you want to add the concept of "freedom" to "will," I suppose #3 will suffice--

the definition of freedom

3. the power to determine action without restraint.​

Now we have to ask what 'restraint' means.

Regardless of whatever it is you are confused about with regard to what “will” or “freedom of the will” means--

the definition of will

noun
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions:
the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions:
to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition:
My hands are obedient to my will.​

--your fuzzy idea of determinism certainly doesn't resolve any issue about free will. For instance, you haven't been able to account for the distinction between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements, namely the latter of which we are unable to foretell with any degree of accuracy compared to the former, which we can foretell with great accuracy long in advance, as demonstrated by the commonplace activity of paying mortgages where we promise to pay a certain amount to the mortgage company by a certain date each month for the next 30 years, and each month perform a string of complex bodily actions that result in fulfilling that promise. We are able to foretell that monthly act of paying the mortgage only because it is a willful, voluntary act.

 

[blü 2]

noun
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions:
the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions:
to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition:
My hands are obedient to my will.​

We've been through all that. We're up to the part where you tell us whether automatic obedience to the rules of physics in the exercise of all our brain functions is a 'restraint' or not.

If the answer is 'No, it's not' then your definition of 'free will' means 'the ability to choose free of restraint / uninhibited'. And the fuzzy determinism which gives rise to it all is taken to be irrelevant to free will.

If the answer is, 'Yes, it's a restraint', then 'will' in that setting isn't and can't be 'free'.

How do you see it?

your fuzzy idea of determinism certainly doesn't resolve any issue about free will.

In my view all brain function, being physical, operates within the rules of physics. At present physics offers only two options as to how things happen in reality: caused, and random. So all brain functions, hence all our choices, are the result of one or both of those two and nothing else ─ and this is what I call fuzzy determinism.

For instance, you haven't been able to account for the distinction between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements

We've evolved to have self-awareness / consciousness / sense of self. This gives us a strong sense of making our own decisions, and justifies notions of personal responsibility, very important if gregarious animals such as humans are to live and work cooperatively.

That these are, in the ultimate analysis, the products of fuzzy determinism, doesn't alter that condition. This is unsurprising since we have no way at the present time of marshaling the data and calculating from it to foresee the future; so knowledge that this is the case doesn't weigh upon us or alter our conduct significantly in relation to others who don't know or don't agree with that view.

(The most outrightly fatalistic culture I've personally experienced, that of rural Turkey some decades ago, explained their fatalism in religious terms: whatever happens, good or bad, is the unarguable will of God.)

 

[atanu]

We've been through all that. We're up to the part where you tell us whether automatic obedience to the rules of physics in the exercise of all our brain functions is a 'restraint' or not.

Please examine your assumptions in this case. For a moment, assume that you are the seer of the brain functions and not the brain functions or not the effects of the brain functions.

 

[blü 2]

Please examine your assumptions in this case. For a moment, assume that you are the seer of the brain functions and not the brain functions or not the effects of the brain functions.

How do you say brains work?

 

[Willamena]

How do you say brains work?

Very carefully.

 

[atanu]

How do you say brains work?

I add to the response of Willamena. If you knew how the brain worked you would be immortal.

(But, honestly, my case is different because the paradigm is different).