Echogem222
Active Member
Free will is making choices of our own will, therefore not being dependent on anything else to make said choice, in other words, not using knowledge.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why we don't have free will using logic
- Thread starter Echogem222
- Start date
I don’t agree with your definition of free will. In order to make a choice, you must use our knowledge. In order to have a will, you have to have knowledge. So your idea that you must make a decision without using your knowledge makes no sense to me. I like Wikipedia’s definition better; the ability to choose from various acts unimpeded. This we do have in many cases.
Free will - Wikipedia
Interesting.
My three assumptions / axioms are that
A world exists external to me
My senses are capable of informing me of that world
Reason is a valid tool.
I think 'awareness' precedes those, though ─ cogito ergo sum / identity / self seems to be at the heart of being human.
Echogem222
Active Member
So your argument is that I'm not human?
So you're hinting you're really AI?
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
The influence that determines choice would be based on our experiences. This in and of itself would suggest determinism.
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
Self and non-self or God and non-God merge to become the one that distributes over the one.
If we accept the logic of the above statement, we may also begin to accept that there may be different types of awareness. Which include spirituality. However, for the vast majority who do not experience this level of awareness, it may be shrouded in mystery and thus falls to the wayside as a widely accepted science.
I, among others, have acknowledged the possibility that the word "existence" may refer to more than just the primitive science of "observation" and the set of physical matter in our universe. But can include many different universes. We are at an unprecedented time in History where science is beginning to widen its scope to include the spiritual as well.
I am all too pleased with the open-mindedness of today's scientific industry.
I understand the concept of self. I don't understand what real thing (what thing found in nature ie in the world external to the self) is meant to be denoted by the word "God". As far as I can tell, the only way gods are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined, in individual brains, very often as the result of acculturation.
Again, what is the word "spirituality" intended to denote that isn't solely generated by an individual brain?
I haven't found any basis for such a view, nor do I regard scientific "observation" as primitive, since it has resulted in the present technology of the world, both for good and for ill, but continually exploring and informing. There seems to be no realistic alternative to the view that the human brain and its functions are all the result of complex biochemical and bioelectrical interactions, which (again) is being described as a result of observation, opening the way to explanations.
What's a good example of this?
That open-mindedness is towards reasoned enquiry, and thus to results that follow from real, examinable evidence, though, no?
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Not sure I fully understand your argument, so might get it wrong. 
Logic is not based on faith, but on knowledge and you can gain knowledge through trial and error, observation etc. If we imagine going far back in time to our early ancestors, assuming they saw a lion and didn't know what it was and one got eaten by it. Then they could use that knowledge through the observation of the one getting eaten, that other animals with similar features such as leopards probably aren't friendly either and they should be afraid of them. This has nothing to do with faith.
It compares two similar things and uses logic to conclude that they are of a similar nature. If it should happen that one got eaten by a leopard at a later point, that knowledge would confirm their reasoning and they could further expand on the logic to conclude that other animals with sharp teeth would probably also eat them.
If we go with evolution, we could very well have started from nothing, single cells dividing into multicellular cells having neither knowledge nor beliefs, slowly evolving into more complex lifeforms, slowly evolving instincts into knowledge and beliefs. Even other animals have gained knowledge of certain things, like chimps using simple tools, some birds are also able to do this. Even the common dog can be trained to do certain things which is also knowledge in a simple form.
(But again might have misunderstood you argument)
Math is a human construct, so 1+1 can't in "reality" be 3 or anything other than 2.
I don't see what logic has to do with free will?
Logic is not based on faith, but on knowledge and you can gain knowledge through trial and error, observation etc. If we imagine going far back in time to our early ancestors, assuming they saw a lion and didn't know what it was and one got eaten by it. Then they could use that knowledge through the observation of the one getting eaten, that other animals with similar features such as leopards probably aren't friendly either and they should be afraid of them. This has nothing to do with faith.
It compares two similar things and uses logic to conclude that they are of a similar nature. If it should happen that one got eaten by a leopard at a later point, that knowledge would confirm their reasoning and they could further expand on the logic to conclude that other animals with sharp teeth would probably also eat them.
Free will implies making choices that are not determined beforehand. You don't need any knowledge or belief to make a choice. If I asked you to choose the best one between "Tyrlimur" and "Mojilin" you have nothing to base it on, no knowledge of what im talking about, and no belief that one is better than the other, you simply have to choose one. Obviously, you could make the argument that you believe the the first option sounds better, but it is not the belief you are referring to, it would be categorized as a guess. Yet you have free will to choose whichever of the two options you like.
It doesn't.
If we go with evolution, we could very well have started from nothing, single cells dividing into multicellular cells having neither knowledge nor beliefs, slowly evolving into more complex lifeforms, slowly evolving instincts into knowledge and beliefs. Even other animals have gained knowledge of certain things, like chimps using simple tools, some birds are also able to do this. Even the common dog can be trained to do certain things which is also knowledge in a simple form.
But logic is true, it is a methodology of how to draw sound conclusions based on knowledge obtained. That doesn't mean that we are perfect at doing this, because we often lack sufficient information to do it, or we might even draw on wrong information.
(But again might have misunderstood you argument)
Last edited:
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
Universal consciousness my man. The God is a universal mind that can be generated when the conditions are right or the feedback between the observer and the world occur through spiritual expansion. Quite simple to understand really.
You in particular need to be more open minded about spirituality. Your views put you in a very small selection of the population. Materialists are deceived by the false conception of reality, namely material objects. But God is not apparent in the matter we perceive.
There may be no possible way for you to discover God until you meet your fate. As all who do.
Logic answers many questions that evidence cannot.
Ostronomos
Well-Known Member
Hence, God is real BECAUSE He is proven using logic.Not sure I fully understand your argument, so might get it wrong.
Math is a human construct, so 1+1 can't in "reality" be 3 or anything other than 2.
I don't see what logic has to do with free will?
Logic is not based on faith, but on knowledge and you can gain knowledge through trial and error, observation etc. If we imagine going far back in time to our early ancestors, assuming they saw a lion and didn't know what it was and one got eaten by it. Then they could use that knowledge through the observation of the one getting eaten, that other animals with similar features such as leopards probably aren't friendly either and they should be afraid of them. This has nothing to do with faith.
It compares two similar things and uses logic to conclude that they are of a similar nature. If it should happen that one got eaten by a leopard at a later point, that knowledge would confirm their reasoning and they could further expand on the logic to conclude that other animals with sharp teeth would probably also eat them.
Free will implies making choices that are not determined beforehand. You don't need any knowledge or belief to make a choice. If I asked you to choose the best one between "Tyrlimur" and "Mojilin" you have nothing to base it on, no knowledge of what im talking about, and no belief that one is better than the other, you simply have to choose one. Obviously, you could make the argument that you believe the the first option sounds better, but it is not the belief you are referring to, it would be categorized as a guess. Yet you have free will to choose whichever of the two options you like.
It doesn't.
If we go with evolution, we could very well have started from nothing, single cells dividing into multicellular cells having neither knowledge nor beliefs, slowly evolving into more complex lifeforms, slowly evolving instincts into knowledge and beliefs. Even other animals have gained knowledge of certain things, like chimps using simple tools, some birds are also able to do this. Even the common dog can be trained to do certain things which is also knowledge in a simple form.
But logic is true, it is a methodology of how to draw sound conclusions based on knowledge obtained. That doesn't mean that we are perfect at doing this, because we often lack sufficient information to do it, or we might even draw on wrong information.
(But again might have misunderstood you argument)
Nimos
Well-Known Member
You appear to be affirming what I said, that the only way God is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain,.
Again, you appear to be affirming what I said above.
I have no reason to think that's correct, since I have no reason to think I'll be imagining or experiencing anything after I die.
Logic needs to be based on facts. A fact is an accurate statement about a state of affairs in the world external to the self, reality.
Above, all you offer is ideas about imaginary things, purely conceptual things. I suggest you need real evidence before your argument becomes at all persuasive.
Echogem222
Active Member
How do you know 100% for certain that math is a human construct? How do you know that the first person who invented math did so of their own free will?Not sure I fully understand your argument, so might get it wrong.
Math is a human construct, so 1+1 can't in "reality" be 3 or anything other than 2.
If logic requires faith, then by extension, it requires faith to think you have free will. However, by understanding that even logic requires faith, that level of uncertainty makes it impossible to make choices unless something else is influencing us since knowledge we are certain of is required to make choices otherwise.
And how do you know that knowledge is truly real? How do you know that anything existed before 5 seconds ago as you are reading this? I don't, but I have faith my memories indicate what they seem to.
Maybe this world isn't dangerous at all, that we don't actually need to do anything to survive for as long as we do. What then would be the point in logic?
Free will? Then why is knowing two options required? And why would you make one choice over the other? You said we have free will, which means we would be able to fully explain the reason why we're choosing one over the other, after all, we should be able to understand ourselves fully, yes? But to say the choice is just random means we have no understanding of why we're picking one over the other, because it's random which means: made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.
You think that life makes enough sense for logic to be true, yes, but you don't know so with 100% certainty. Life doesn't have to make sense since we did not create reality, we just exist inside of it, we don't determine the rules we must follow. (Rules like gravity, of tiredness, hunger, etc.)
(But again might have misunderstood you argument)
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Because math is a method invented to make things easier. I'm not sure what free will has to do with it?
It doesn't matter whether we created reality or not, the fact is that whatever we live in now is our reality. Gravity etc. is part of reality and we take that reality into account when using logic.
For instance, you could jump off a tall building, but your knowledge of what happens to things falling from great heights means that logically you can draw the conclusion that you most likely won't land safely on the ground. That doesn't mean that on your way down gravity doesn't suddenly change and you are saved in the last minute, but that would require faith rather than logic for you to bet on that. There is no logical reason for you to assume that gravity would suddenly change.
Following from above, it doesn't matter whether the Universe was created 5 seconds ago or not, our reality is still whatever we experience/observe/measure in this one.
And we know knowledge is real or part of reality because it can be demonstrated. Yet there is always uncertainty, so things are only ever as certain as possible.
This means that gravity could in fact change 5 seconds after you read this, but again there is no logical reason to assume that it would, based on the best knowledge we have about how gravity works.
You don't need to have faith in your memories, in fact following your own reasoning, these could be equally flawed. You seem to be arguing for solipsism which is a nonsense position in my opinion, since you can't even be sure you yourself exist
But logic doesn't require faith.
You reach a logical conclusion when two or more things seem similar in nature. As I said in the last reply, that doesn't mean that we don't make logical mistakes, because our knowledge might be limited or based on wrong information.
If logic required faith, it would be a guess.
Not sure I understand what you mean. We use logic to make sense of the world we live in.
Because in many cases you have to make a choice, where you might not know the exact outcome but are leaning towards one choice being better than the other. This can be done using logic, faith or simply guessing.
I never said we had free will
This is a complex thing. But besides when a person is panicking I would assume that most people would be able to explain why they made one choice over another, based on either logic, faith or simply making a guess, I think that would cover the majority of the things, obviously there might be biological things that can cause people to act irrational. But if we assume we are talking about a healthy person.It doesn't naturally follow that if we have free will we should be able to fully understand ourselves, there are lots of unknowns and also there are lots of things that influence us. Did you eat because of free will? or did you eat because you were hungry?
It simply means that it is a decision made without enough conviction for why one choice would be better than another or you could say that there is simply not enough information for you to make a rational choice.
Echogem222
Active Member
You seem to think that we can know that we exist, but you've yet to prove this to me. So instead of just going all over the place with this argument, let's just focus on why we can know we exist. Please, prove it to me with 100% certainty, and also explain why I'm able to doubt such a thing as being so certain, to think that I need faith.Because math is a method invented to make things easier. I'm not sure what free will has to do with it?
It doesn't matter whether we created reality or not, the fact is that whatever we live in now is our reality. Gravity etc. is part of reality and we take that reality into account when using logic.
For instance, you could jump off a tall building, but your knowledge of what happens to things falling from great heights means that logically you can draw the conclusion that you most likely won't land safely on the ground. That doesn't mean that on your way down gravity doesn't suddenly change and you are saved in the last minute, but that would require faith rather than logic for you to bet on that. There is no logical reason for you to assume that gravity would suddenly change.
Following from above, it doesn't matter whether the Universe was created 5 seconds ago or not, our reality is still whatever we experience/observe/measure in this one.
And we know knowledge is real or part of reality because it can be demonstrated. Yet there is always uncertainty, so things are only ever as certain as possible.
This means that gravity could in fact change 5 seconds after you read this, but again there is no logical reason to assume that it would, based on the best knowledge we have about how gravity works.
You don't need to have faith in your memories, in fact following your own reasoning, these could be equally flawed. You seem to be arguing for solipsism which is a nonsense position in my opinion, since you can't even be sure you yourself exist
But logic doesn't require faith.
You reach a logical conclusion when two or more things seem similar in nature. As I said in the last reply, that doesn't mean that we don't make logical mistakes, because our knowledge might be limited or based on wrong information.
If logic required faith, it would be a guess.
Not sure I understand what you mean. We use logic to make sense of the world we live in.
Because in many cases you have to make a choice, where you might not know the exact outcome but are leaning towards one choice being better than the other. This can be done using logic, faith or simply guessing.
I never said we had free will
It doesn't naturally follow that if we have free will we should be able to fully understand ourselves, there are lots of unknowns and also there are lots of things that influence us. Did you eat because of free will? or did you eat because you were hungry?
It simply means that it is a decision made without enough conviction for why one choice would be better than another or you could say that there is simply not enough information for you to make a rational choice.
Ah, and if you use the argument, because we have evidence, then explain to me the reasons why evidence is evidence of evidence without using circular reasoning. But based on what you've said so far, I don't believe even you think it's possible to know such things with 100% certainty, this is fine, but still, please explain to me why evidence is evidence of evidence to even the slightest degree without using circular reasoning.
Last edited:
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Nothing is 100% certain, I explained that in the last post, we are simply working with what offers the best possible explanation at any given point in time, that is the reality in which we live.
Again you seem to be a supporter of Solipsism, which to me is a pointless position because it is contradictive and meaningless.
Even if we don't exist, the reality of "not existing" is what you experience now and that is what you have to relate to. It doesn't matter if you call it existing or not existing or whether you can be certain about it or not. It doesn't change anything. Let's assume you are the only one existing and I merely exist within your mind. Then you still have to relate to me, by replying to these posts etc. So it doesn't matter, the difference between me not existing and me actually existing beyond you as my own mind, makes no difference.
So there is no reason to spend time on solipsism because it is a pointless thought experiment even if ultimately it is true. So the evidence for it is not only impossible because even the evidence would be made up in your own mind.
It is much more useful to spend time on one's reality because nothing is gained from this nonsense Solipsism.
Can’t speak for the other guy, but I know with 100% certainty that I exist. The reason I know is due to the evidence provided to me by my 5 senses, and the way I evaluate this evidence makes me 100% certain. Granted this evidence might not be good enough to convince you we exist, but it is definitely enough to convince me.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Another aspect of free will and logic has to do with the data choices we make before we apply deterministic logic. Logic follows deterministic rules, but if we change the data, we can alter how the determinism rules end; conclusion. This deflection can be done with will power. This is done by fake news all the time.
For example, say a scientist spent years collecting data for their medical research. The data is all over the place, but he averages the data and draws the best curve through the graph. He then reasons with this curve.
Next, say I was a writer for fake news. My job to push an alternate narrative or conclusion, specified by my boss on the propaganda team. The way I can do that, without using fake data or any logic tricks, is to erase some of the data points until my desired curve is a circle. This circle has all valid data points from the study, so I am technically using real and genuine data. But now I have a data circle, for a curve, all with solid data points. I am not lying in the sense of faking the date, but I am slack in terms of the full context of all the data; ignore incriminating data.
Next, I apply the determinism of logic to the round curve and get the circle conclusion. My fellow clan members are happy with my sound logical conclusion with good data.
The next day, the boss tells me, that the marketing team says the logic circle fell short on one demographic. I now need reach another part of the base, who like triangle logic better. I take another original data plot from the pile, and erase all the data points around a triangle and then using just that real and genuine data, I subcontract a renowned Philosophy Professor, from Harvard, to apply the best logic in town, to my real and genuine data choices. How can anyone argue with his logic? His conclusion is deterministic and the consensus follows.
Logic, like math, is like a train horse that can be led anywhere you wish it to go; will and choice.
For example, say a scientist spent years collecting data for their medical research. The data is all over the place, but he averages the data and draws the best curve through the graph. He then reasons with this curve.
Next, say I was a writer for fake news. My job to push an alternate narrative or conclusion, specified by my boss on the propaganda team. The way I can do that, without using fake data or any logic tricks, is to erase some of the data points until my desired curve is a circle. This circle has all valid data points from the study, so I am technically using real and genuine data. But now I have a data circle, for a curve, all with solid data points. I am not lying in the sense of faking the date, but I am slack in terms of the full context of all the data; ignore incriminating data.
Next, I apply the determinism of logic to the round curve and get the circle conclusion. My fellow clan members are happy with my sound logical conclusion with good data.
The next day, the boss tells me, that the marketing team says the logic circle fell short on one demographic. I now need reach another part of the base, who like triangle logic better. I take another original data plot from the pile, and erase all the data points around a triangle and then using just that real and genuine data, I subcontract a renowned Philosophy Professor, from Harvard, to apply the best logic in town, to my real and genuine data choices. How can anyone argue with his logic? His conclusion is deterministic and the consensus follows.
Logic, like math, is like a train horse that can be led anywhere you wish it to go; will and choice.
Echogem222
Active Member
You're making the assumption that life must make sense, but life doesn't have to make any sense at all, which is why we must have faith that it does to believe that logic is real, because evidence cannot be evidence of itself, as that is circular reasoning. I do not believe in Solipsism.Nothing is 100% certain, I explained that in the last post, we are simply working with what offers the best possible explanation at any given point in time, that is the reality in which we live.
Again you seem to be a supporter of Solipsism, which to me is a pointless position because it is contradictive and meaningless.
Even if we don't exist, the reality of "not existing" is what you experience now and that is what you have to relate to. It doesn't matter if you call it existing or not existing or whether you can be certain about it or not. It doesn't change anything. Let's assume you are the only one existing and I merely exist within your mind. Then you still have to relate to me, by replying to these posts etc. So it doesn't matter, the difference between me not existing and me actually existing beyond you as my own mind, makes no difference.
So there is no reason to spend time on solipsism because it is a pointless thought experiment even if ultimately it is true. So the evidence for it is not only impossible because even the evidence would be made up in your own mind.
It is much more useful to spend time on one's reality because nothing is gained from this nonsense Solipsism.
This is what Solipsism is: Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.
I'm saying that even the mind isn't certain, and even nothing, which goes even further than Solipsism, however, I have faith we exist despite not knowing.
(Note: Believing that nothing does not exist means having knowledge surrounding that void, which allows us to know that void is there (like knowing where a hole in the ground is because of where the hole is not), but that would require knowing, which I do not believe is possible, which is why I can only have faith that nothing does not exist. However, it could be that knowing things is actually possible, so I am not actually certain that people cannot know anything, as I am uncertain of everything and even nothing)