Why we don't have free will using logic

[Echogem222]

Socrates famously proclaimed that he knew that he knew nothing. However, I disagree both with the notion that he knew that he knew nothing and with the idea that he knew that he knew anything at all. You might find this contradictory but allow me to explain. (Also, I am aware that Socrates never once meant that he thought that he knew nothing at all, when he said, "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance", he said so poetically, not literally.)

Our "awareness" may not actually be awareness at all; it could merely seem like awareness of the way things truly are. Even something as seemingly concrete as the math equation 1+1=2 could, in reality, equal 3, 500, or even 0, or perhaps something beyond our current comprehension. Just because we are not aware of it being anything else does not mean that no other possibilities exist. After all, we do not have full awareness of everything even if we know anything, as knowing everything would allow us to know if it's possible to be mistaken or not due to reality existing in a way that prevents our knowledge from being incorrect or correct.

So, how then do we believe we know anything? It's through faith that we believe we know things, as faith is belief in something without evidence. We lack evidence to assert that our awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything with 100% certainty, after all, it could just be a deception to make us think we have true awareness.

But why do we have faith in anything if our faith in logic is correct? If we began with uncertainty, not knowing anything or even nothing at all (requiring faith), we could not have reached this point if we had free will. Having free will would imply knowing (though faith) that knowing things is important before knowing anything... which contradicts logic. Therefore, we must have been influenced to learn things not by our own will, in other words, to gain faith in things without free will. So, how then would we conclude that it makes sense that we have free will when we didn't initially use free will to learn anything? It doesn't. The logic does not follow such a possibility. Of course, I assume that those of you reading this believe that logic exists through faith, since if that is not the case, then I guess I wouldn't be right within your faith (whatever that is).

In conclusion, for those who have faith in logic, my argument is that Socrates did not know that he knew nothing; he had faith that he knew nothing, whereas I have faith that he actually knew at least some things he thought he did not, because to know that you know nothing in any sense means you have enough knowledge surrounding that void of knowledge to say that you know nothing, but nothing is not truly nothing, though it is true that nothing describes the absence of something, it is not to say that something does not exist, it just does not exist in that context. So, when we say something becomes nothing or that something is nothing, we are actually saying that something no longer exists or does not exist in the context we're understanding. Therefore, nothing exists, just not in the context it doesn't. So, to say you know that you know nothing means that you actually know something, which is why I believe that every time Socrates said he knew nothing, he actually had faith he knew something, that is my faith regarding this matter in any case.

+++

Premise 1: If we began with uncertainty, not knowing anything or even nothing at all, we could not have reached this point if we had free will, as it would contradict logic.
Explanation: If we started without any knowledge or even the concept of nothingness, our ability to make meaningful choices (free will) would be paradoxical. Free will implies the ability to make choices based on knowledge or beliefs, but if we started without any knowledge or beliefs, there would be no basis for making any choices, undermining the concept of free will.

Premise 2: Having free will would imply knowing (though faith) that knowing things is important before knowing anything, which contradicts logic.
Explanation: If we had free will, we would have to know (either through direct knowledge or faith) that knowing things is important before we knew anything. This would create a logical contradiction because it would require a pre-existing knowledge or belief in the importance of knowledge, which contradicts the idea of starting from a state of complete ignorance or uncertainty.

Premise 3: We must have been influenced to learn things not by our own will, in other words, to gain faith in things without free will.
Explanation: Since we could not have started with free will due to the contradictions outlined in the first two premises, our acquisition of knowledge and beliefs must have been influenced by factors outside of our control. This suggests that our learning process is guided by external influences, rather than by our own free will.

Conclusion: We do not have free will.
Explanation: Given that our acquisition of knowledge and beliefs is not based on free will, and starting from a state of complete ignorance or uncertainty would make the concept of free will paradoxical, it follows that we do not have free will. Our learning and decision-making processes are shaped by external influences and do not stem from a truly autonomous free will.

+++

First Note:

To clarify, I do believe free will exists, but I do not believe we gain it until after death, and even then, we only have free will within ourselves. We already have a will, we are just not free to use it, it is restricted. To have a free will within yourself means that your body/mind is truly you, so the actions of your body/mind came from just you, but are limited by how things are around you, for if this were not true, our free wills would contradict each other.

Our freedom would allow us to not only have bodies/minds which are truly us, but also have knowledge which is truly us. We would each be unique in a way that others are not. The reason why I believe we don't have free will right now is because this world is not perfectly good, in that it would be irresponsible to give us free will in this situation, as it would be like telling us to figure out things ourselves.

Second Note:

I realize that some of you reading this may still be able to come up with counterarguments that we can know logic is real, that we don't need faith as I claim is true. But for one thing, if logic were truly like that, such absolute certainty, why am I able to doubt it? If it were truly so true, myself doubting it should not even be possible, I would have to be lying, yet to lie, seems strange, after all, who would I be trying to convince? Obviously not someone who "knows" logic, and yet, I stand firm that logic requires faith even now.

But to that, someone might argue that I just don't understand logic correctly, that's why I'm coming to such a conclusion. After all, I'm using logic right now to make this argument, aren't I? But if logic isn't actually real, that would mean that right now, I'm not actually using logic at all, I'm just using something that seems like logic due to our limited awareness.

Is it truly so bad to not know if logic, or if anything, or even nothing is true? For me, I feel freed after realizing that everything and nothing requires faith to believe is real, after all, fears come from knowing things exist which scare us, but to not know anything or nothing prevents such fear from taking hold as deeply as it would if we truly knew we knew anything.

So, in summary, not even nothing is certain, and therefore us, being in such a position of uncertainty, cannot possibly have free will.

 

[MikeF]

It's through faith that we believe we know things, as faith is belief in something without evidence.

But we do have evidence and therefore do not rely on faith. Our experience of the world around us, our history of interactions, provides the data upon which we form rational expectations. If the expectations continue to be met, we gain confidence in that expectation. If something does not fit with our expectations, we (hopefully) revise and adjust our expectations accordingly.

Faith not required. Blind faith, faith with no evidence, or worse, faith despite conflicting evidence can easily lead to problems. Faith is not a good thing, in my view.

 

[Echogem222]

But we do have evidence and therefore do not rely on faith. Our experience of the world around us, our history of interactions, provides the data upon which we form rational expectations. If the expectations continue to be met, we gain confidence in that expectation. If something does not fit with our expectations, we (hopefully) revise and adjust our expectations accordingly.

Faith not required. Blind faith, faith with no evidence, or worse, faith despite conflicting evidence can easily lead to problems. Faith is not a good thing, in my view.

And how do you know that your awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything? What if awareness isn't awareness at all? How can you say that evidence is evidence that evidence is real without using circular reasoning?

 

[Ponder This]

Our "awareness" may not actually be awareness at all; it could merely seem like awareness of the way things truly are.

Implicit to this statement is the perception of something real or imaginary. Whether or not the perception is real or imaginary, the awareness of the perception exists.

 

[Echogem222]

Implicit to this statement is the perception of something real or imaginary. Whether or not the perception is real or imaginary, the awareness of the perception exists.

If our awareness isn't actually awareness, then that means it just seems like awareness. So all you're saying is that because it seems like we have awareness is why you're using awareness to make this argument, and that's why you're wrong... do you understand the issue here?

 

[Kfox]

And how do you know that your awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything? What if awareness isn't awareness at all?

We have to assume that it is. When we experience something via our 5 senses, and this experience is consistent with what everybody else is experiencing with their 5 senses, we have to assume those experiences are right/correct otherwise life becomes unlivable.

 

[Valjean]

Free will strikes me as different from degrees of freedom in mathematics/logic. Will implies choice of action, which is fixed only by the laws of physics, so can vary a lot.
Rational thought or analysis, on the other hand, is a system of formal operations, so often allows only one logical possibility.

Logic gate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Explanation: If we started without any knowledge or even the concept of nothingness, our ability to make meaningful choices (free will) would be paradoxical.

Our ability to make meaningful choices is learned.

 

[Echogem222]

We have to assume that it is. When we experience something via our 5 senses, and this experience is consistent with what everybody else is experiencing with their 5 senses, we have to assume those experiences are right/correct otherwise life becomes unlivable.

Yes, assume, but it still requires faith since you don't know, and since you don't know, why would you assume if you have free will? What is motivating you to do so? Yes, motivating, not because of free will.

 

[wellwisher]

But we do have evidence and therefore do not rely on faith. Our experience of the world around us, our history of interactions, provides the data upon which we form rational expectations. If the expectations continue to be met, we gain confidence in that expectation. If something does not fit with our expectations, we (hopefully) revise and adjust our expectations accordingly.

Faith not required. Blind faith, faith with no evidence, or worse, faith despite conflicting evidence can easily lead to problems. Faith is not a good thing, in my view.

What is just as important as evidence, are the foundation premises behind what we believe. For example, say you were lost somewhere remote, and you had no modern science tools, and you could not rely on any foundation premises; socially accepted and learned bottom-lines, how would you prove the earth is spherical, using only the evidence of your eyes? The eyes will biased toward flat. You can build a boat to sail around the world to show it is spherical or maybe a rocket, after you develop all the needed tech steps.

It is not easy to see directly. We mostly have faith in others, who have had tools and who tell us what to think. Once you are told what to think, and the herd concurs, this creates sensory expectations, for what we think we see. What we see is not always based on our own direct evidence. That needs more free will and even thinking outside the box of the consensus. The consensus can only see what they are programmed to see. If this fits all together seamlessly, we see that we appear to see ,even without first hand data.

I have never seen DNA under a microscope in the first person. I have seen many photographs, many diagrams, chemical representations, but all that data is based on my faith in biology and chemistry, to give me good data, that has been doubled checked by others. But I never actually seen it first hand. There is faith involved. Faith is the belief in things not directly seen by you. Personally, I accept since it all appears logical and reasonable.

Direct data is one thing, while theory behind foundation premises is another. Learning theory requires someone setting a stage, so you can see the trick, better. Few theories stand the test of time, as new data appears and exceptions alter the theory. Most theories are temporal magic tricks, that need the audience to sit in certain seats, so their sensory expectations; what you expect see, is the magic of the theory, which the audience then accepts with faith. This makes it easier to see and accept.

Biology is still is strongly based on statistical models, even though healthy cells are dependent on order. Unhealthy conditions, such as cancer is more about disorder, yet all of the life science are still very dependent on foundation premises based on disorder; dice and cards. DNA works based on exact template relationships and not dice and cards. The disorder approach is not logical, but there are many faithful to that approach. That stage needed to be set a certain way to create a magic trick that still fools the audience. My guess is applied biology, that makes money, like medicine studies the exceptions of life; disease, more than they do the vast majority of healthy ordered situations. No money in health.

Socrates proclaimed he knew nothing, since there is difference between direct experience, unbiased by tradition and socially accepted foundation premises, obtained by school and by reading the work of others, who set the stage for how we need to think, so you can see, as they see, but not as you could see, if you started fro scratch without faith, but only direct with experience and knowledge.

 

[Ostronomos]

Socrates famously proclaimed that he knew that he knew nothing. However, I disagree both with the notion that he knew that he knew nothing and with the idea that he knew that he knew anything at all. You might find this contradictory but allow me to explain. (Also, I am aware that Socrates never once meant that he thought that he knew nothing at all, when he said, "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance", he said so poetically, not literally.)

Our "awareness" may not actually be awareness at all; it could merely seem like awareness of the way things truly are. Even something as seemingly concrete as the math equation 1+1=2 could, in reality, equal 3, 500, or even 0, or perhaps something beyond our current comprehension. Just because we are not aware of it being anything else does not mean that no other possibilities exist. After all, we do not have full awareness of everything even if we know anything, as knowing everything would allow us to know if it's possible to be mistaken or not due to reality existing in a way that prevents our knowledge from being incorrect or correct.

The only thing I know, is that I know nothing. Therefore, I should learn something.

Socrates erred in his original statement and over a thousand years later it took a genius of epic proportions to complete it, hence the above.

Awareness, like everything else, is governed by the mathematics inherent in reality. Consciousness, or mind, exists as a collective. Consciousness can be proven using binary logic. Which defeats the notion that it is an illusion, hence the false belief that it ends at death.

Second Note:

I realize that some of you reading this may still be able to come up with counterarguments that we can know logic is real, that we don't need faith as I claim is true. But for one thing, if logic were truly like that, such absolute certainty, why am I able to doubt it? If it were truly so true, myself doubting it should not even be possible, I would have to be lying, yet to lie, seems strange, after all, who would I be trying to convince? Obviously not someone who "knows" logic, and yet, I stand firm that logic requires faith even now.

But to that, someone might argue that I just don't understand logic correctly, that's why I'm coming to such a conclusion. After all, I'm using logic right now to make this argument, aren't I? But if logic isn't actually real, that would mean that right now, I'm not actually using logic at all, I'm just using something that seems like logic due to our limited awareness.

The atheist falls prey to a type of logic that resides in reality and believes that God isn't real.

Note the inherent logic in the above statement. This type of "meta-logic" corresponds to reality because it is what is known as a supertautology. Yet, atheists have faith that their logic is real. This is an error in their judgement as a group of hopelessly imperfect individuals. However, it takes a logic of an even greater kind to prove that the Global Identity Operator (as Christopher Langan call it) is real. Using logic.

 

[Nakosis]

Premise 1: If we began with uncertainty, not knowing anything or even nothing at all, we could not have reached this point if we had free will, as it would contradict logic.
Explanation: If we started without any knowledge or even the concept of nothingness, our ability to make meaningful choices (free will) would be paradoxical. Free will implies the ability to make choices based on knowledge or beliefs, but if we started without any knowledge or beliefs, there would be no basis for making any choices, undermining the concept of free will.

We are born with a basic knowledge of rudimentary things like how to breath, how to eat, how to cry. This may be very simple knowledge but from this basic knowledge we begin to learn about our environment.

Premise 2: Having free will would imply knowing (though faith) that knowing things is important before knowing anything, which contradicts logic.
Explanation: If we had free will, we would have to know (either through direct knowledge or faith) that knowing things is important before we knew anything. This would create a logical contradiction because it would require a pre-existing knowledge or belief in the importance of knowledge, which contradicts the idea of starting from a state of complete ignorance or uncertainty.

Like I said, we begin life knowing things. We may not have learned language yet to articulate our knowledge but we are never without some degree of knowledge since we are born with it.

Premise 3: We must have been influenced to learn things not by our own will, in other words, to gain faith in things without free will.
Explanation: Since we could not have started with free will due to the contradictions outlined in the first two premises, our acquisition of knowledge and beliefs must have been influenced by factors outside of our control. This suggests that our learning process is guided by external influences, rather than by our own free will.

If we have any freewill in the beginning it is probably not much. We are still in the process of gaining knowledge. The more knowledge we gain about ourselves and the environment the more choices we have available to us.

Conclusion: We do not have free will.
Explanation: Given that our acquisition of knowledge and beliefs is not based on free will, and starting from a state of complete ignorance or uncertainty would make the concept of free will paradoxical, it follows that we do not have free will. Our learning and decision-making processes are shaped by external influences and do not stem from a truly autonomous free will.

Since your first two premises are so obviously wrong the third doesn't follow. However I also don't agree that Our learning and decision-making processes are shaped by external influences. They are shaped by both external and internal influences.

First Note:

To clarify, I do believe free will exists, but I do not believe we gain it until after death, and even then, we only have free will within ourselves. We already have a will, we are just not free to use it, it is restricted. To have a free will within yourself means that your body/mind is truly you, so the actions of your body/mind came from just you, but are limited by how things are around you, for if this were not true, our free wills would contradict each other.

You can believe whatever you what about what happens after death since you have no experience with it. So whatever you believe happens after death doesn't hold any persuasive value in any argument.

Our freedom would allow us to not only have bodies/minds which are truly us, but also have knowledge which is truly us. We would each be unique in a way that others are not. The reason why I believe we don't have free will right now is because this world is not perfectly good, in that it would be irresponsible to give us free will in this situation, as it would be like telling us to figure out things ourselves.

Again, without knowledge of this afterlife how do you now such an afterlife, if it exists, would be any different than your existence now? Maybe in the afterlife all of your freewill is taken away. Your fantasy of an afterlife doesn't support any kind of logical argument.

Second Note:

I realize that some of you reading this may still be able to come up with counterarguments that we can know logic is real, that we don't need faith as I claim is true. But for one thing, if logic were truly like that, such absolute certainty, why am I able to doubt it? If it were truly so true, myself doubting it should not even be possible, I would have to be lying, yet to lie, seems strange, after all, who would I be trying to convince? Obviously not someone who "knows" logic, and yet, I stand firm that logic requires faith even now.

Freewill? You are free to doubt the reality you experience. You can deny it, seems like a lot of freedom to me.

But to that, someone might argue that I just don't understand logic correctly, that's why I'm coming to such a conclusion. After all, I'm using logic right now to make this argument, aren't I? But if logic isn't actually real, that would mean that right now, I'm not actually using logic at all, I'm just using something that seems like logic due to our limited awareness.

Logic can be useful but it is all based on you premises. So if your premises are wrong your logic can end up being nonsense.

Is it truly so bad to not know if logic, or if anything, or even nothing is true? For me, I feel freed after realizing that everything and nothing requires faith to believe is real, after all, fears come from knowing things exist which scare us, but to not know anything or nothing prevents such fear from taking hold as deeply as it would if we truly knew we knew anything.

So, in summary, not even nothing is certain, and therefore us, being in such a position of uncertainty, cannot possibly have free will.

Actually freewill requires a certain amount of ignorance. If you knew everything, that would include the future. Knowing what the future was would lock you into that future. You'd have no choice because you'd already know what you were going to do at any given moment.

 

[Echogem222]

We are born with a basic knowledge of rudimentary things like how to breath, how to eat, how to cry. This may be very simple knowledge but from this basic knowledge we begin to learn about our environment.



Like I said, we begin life knowing things. We may not have learned language yet to articulate our knowledge but we are never without some degree of knowledge since we are born with it.



If we have any freewill in the beginning it is probably not much. We are still in the process of gaining knowledge. The more knowledge we gain about ourselves and the environment the more choices we have available to us.



Since your first two premises are so obviously wrong the third doesn't follow. However I also don't agree that Our learning and decision-making processes are shaped by external influences. They are shaped by both external and internal influences.




You can believe whatever you what about what happens after death since you have no experience with it. So whatever you believe happens after death doesn't hold any persuasive value in any argument.




Again, without knowledge of this afterlife how do you now such an afterlife, if it exists, would be any different than your existence now? Maybe in the afterlife all of your freewill is taken away. Your fantasy of an afterlife doesn't support any kind of logical argument.





Freewill? You are free to doubt the reality you experience. You can deny it, seems like a lot of freedom to me.



Logic can be useful but it is all based on you premises. So if your premises are wrong your logic can end up being nonsense.



Actually freewill requires a certain amount of ignorance. If you knew everything, that would include the future. Knowing what the future was would lock you into that future. You'd have no choice because you'd already know what you were going to do at any given moment.

Your argument seems to be, "Well, we just gain free will because I said so, therefore you are wrong."

I add in my views of us gaining free will after we die because many have made the argument that since you don't believe free will exists, you can't argue that we don't have it now.

This is the main issue I see with people arguing that they do have free will, they just don't think about things, and that is reflected in their words, which is why they don't say much and just say it's ridiculous to think otherwise. But let's think about that for a moment, if we truly have free will, why am I saying we don't? Why am I able to doubt such a thing? If it's truly so obvious that we have free will, trying to argue against it doesn't make any sense. Yet I am, so am I lying? But to lie wouldn't make any sense, after all, just who would I be trying to convince? So, no matter what way you look at this, at the very least, it's obvious that you're not thinking about this topic enough, that you're just assuming many things are true which are not.

 

[Nakosis]

Your argument seems to be, "Well, we just gain free will because I said so, therefore you are wrong."

I wasn't making an argument for freewill, I was simply pointing out flaws in your argument. If you don't want to address those flaws, ok.

I add in my views of us gaining free will after we die because many have made the argument that since you don't believe free will exists, you can't argue that we don't have it now.

Um, ok? You don't believe free will exists and you can't argue that we don't have it now?
So you argue for it in the afterlife? Seems you're putting these limitations on.

This is the main issue I see with people arguing that they do have free will, they just don't think about things, and that is reflected in their words, which is why they don't say much and just say it's ridiculous to think otherwise. But let's think about that for a moment, if we truly have free will, why am I saying we don't? Why am I able to doubt such a thing? If it's truly so obvious that we have free will, trying to argue against it doesn't make any sense. Yet I am, so am I lying? But to lie wouldn't make any sense, after all, just who would I be trying to convince? So, no matter what way you look at this, at the very least, it's obvious that you're not thinking about this topic enough, that you're just assuming many things are true which are not.

What is ridiculous is the philosophy of determinism. Well at least when trying to apply it to humans. But that is another argument.

What do you think it is that I am assuming is true? So far all I have done was point out flaws in your original argument. None of which you've addressed so I don't think your are really thinking critically about this.

 

[Echogem222]

I wasn't making an argument for freewill, I was simply pointing out flaws in your argument. If you don't want to address those flaws, ok.



Um, ok? You don't believe free will exists and you can't argue that we don't have it now?
So you argue for it in the afterlife? Seems you're putting these limitations on.



What is ridiculous is the philosophy of determinism. Well at least when trying to apply it to humans. But that is another argument.

What do you think it is that I am assuming is true? So far all I have done was point out flaws in your original argument. None of which you've addressed so I don't think your are really thinking critically about this.

You can think whatever you want I guess, but to me, you haven't pointed out any flaws at all. But no, I'm not going to debate with you about this anymore since I don't feel like you're truly taking this debate seriously, in that I feel like you're using the strawperson argument. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't feel like it's worth my time to find out.

 

[Nakosis]

You can think whatever you want I guess, but to me, you haven't pointed out any flaws at all. But no, I'm not going to debate with you about this anymore since I don't feel like you're truly taking this debate seriously, in that I feel like you're using the strawperson argument. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't feel like it's worth my time to find out.

What debate? You're not debating. Just claiming you are right. A debate would require you to entertain the possibility you might be wrong.

 

[wellwisher]

Free will is innate, but it needs to be developed, similar to character. Like character, we have the capacity to develop free will and choice, but if we do not exercise this capacity, it never fully develops. You can have the knack to draw, but if you never doodle and practice, you will never know how far you could have developed as an artist.

Most people take the path of conformity, via various social collectives, thereby placing themselves where free will is not fully allowed free rein, via the collective rules of each herd. Rebels; free will, will never be promoted as high up as the yes men; deterministic. This avoidance of free will may be biblical genetic, since the first example of free will; Adam and Eve, ended in disaster; fall from paradise. One could get fired or shunned for doubting the elders of the herd.

For example, most people attach themselves to one of the main political parties. This, of itself, has some level of will and choice, relative to politics in general. However, within the each party choice, free will is much more limited or else you will not be as accepted or promoted. You must sacrifice your free will for any higher prestige in the group; good, better or best company man.

For example, the DEI push of the Democrat Party in America, says it is about diversity, equity and inclusion. This sounds honorable, but you will not see many Conservatives, White males, or religious people, within the chosen DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion. DEI only goes as far a their own clan; those who submit their will and choice for the back door reward. A conservative added via DEI, might use the extra power to promote more balance, which may free up some will and choice. Both/all parties are the same.

A consensus of science is also a sacrifice of will and choice, since a consensus is not fully objective. Consensus is subjective like taking at vote which soft drink, Pepsi or Coke, is better. Some people may have very refined tastes and based on their individual assessment, one of the two choices is objectively better for them, than the other. While others like one crowd or marketing scheme better and choose that way. But both are deterministic. In science, the data speaks for itself and does not need a consensus vote, like a marketing tool to sell soft drinks, for market share; deterministic induction that will point out the paths for success and/or persecution of free will thinking.

Free will and choice is more in line with questioning what is known, what is accepted, what is believed, and what is allowed. This places one outside all the collectives, where you will need to make choices, that have no group support and therefore are not predetermined by collective dynamics, which have many social and economic levers to control free will and choice.

I once had a potential lifetime career position decommissioning and reclaiming an historical facility connected to the US Nuclear Program. I was humorously called the Mercury Man, for my innovation with mercury and my quicksilver development style. However, I decided to pursue a simple life of menial jobs, where my mind could be free, so I could develop new ideas anyway I wanted; practice free will.

My helical idea development style, present ideas and then move on. It follows the helix and circle back. It avoids programing a deterministic path for others. It is more designed to allow others to peak outside the box, without making then linger in unconscious determinism. There is a way leftover to go back to the box. The helix soon brings me back, further along, for another peak outside the box.

 

[Balthazzar]

I certainly know something, although I may not understand what that something is entirely. I may have once known nothing, but I don't know that this has ever been true, so using logical lines of reason, I am required to admit that I at least know something and that the concept of ever being in a state of unknowing remains unknown to me. Question: Why would logic play a role in free will? Logic would dictate that our ability to reason garnered from our life experiences is what motivates our choices.

 

[Echogem222]

I certainly know something, although I may not understand what that something is entirely. I may have once known nothing, but I don't know that this has ever been true, so using logical lines of reason, I am required to admit that I at least know something and that the concept of ever being in a state of unknowing remains unknown to me. Question: Why would logic play a role in free will? Logic would dictate that our ability to reason garnered from our life experiences is what motivates our choices.

As I'm sure you're aware, people have a will, after all, you have to put at least a bit of willpower into any action you make. The issue is, all of our actions are based on knowledge, on certainty, but if all of our knowledge is faith based, and if the first knowledge we've learned we did not do so of our own will, then it would stand to reason that we don't have free will.

Think of it this way, if you were just "slapped in the face" with "knowledge", you would have to accept that knowledge is there because of how pain affects us. In other words, it's not a matter of choosing to experience pain, of sensations, of other things when we make choices. If we truly had free will, it would stand to reason that when we make a choice, we would also be able to make a non-choice, which does not result in anything at all. But even if we try to do this, our "non-action" still has an effect on the world around us. Like choosing to stop driving your car in the middle of the road, or just choosing to stand still in the middle of nowhere (because that would mean you would either be wasting time or not wasting time).

If we could make a true non-choice, then that would truly mean that knowledge does not affect our actions, because it would be out of sync with knowledge (because it would be a non-event/a non-memory/etc. which are all types of knowledge). But we can't do this, as I'm sure you understand. So if you say that free will is developed once we gain enough knowledge, you are saying that knowledge+knowledge+knowledge+etc. will just suddenly equal free will. The premise does not follow the conclusion, and even without relying on logic and instead just possibility, as I've said, we cannot make actions which are not based on knowledge somehow, which is what free will would have to be to truly be free will.

 

[Balthazzar]

As I'm sure you're aware, people have a will, after all, you have to put at least a bit of willpower into any action you make. The issue is, all of our actions are based on knowledge, on certainty, but if all of our knowledge is faith based, and if the first knowledge we've learned we did not do so of our own will, then it would stand to reason that we don't have free will.

Think of it this way, if you were just "slapped in the face" with "knowledge", you would have to accept that knowledge is there because of how pain affects us. In other words, it's not a matter of choosing to experience pain, of sensations, of other things when we make choices. If we truly had free will, it would stand to reason that when we make a choice, we would also be able to make a non-choice, which does not result in anything at all. But even if we try to do this, our "non-action" still has an effect on the world around us. Like choosing to stop driving your car in the middle of the road, or just choosing to stand still in the middle of nowhere (because that would mean you would either be wasting time or not wasting time).

If we could make a true non-choice, then that would truly mean that knowledge does not affect our actions, because it would be out of sync with knowledge (because it would be a non-event/a non-memory/etc. which are all types of knowledge). But we can't do this, as I'm sure you understand. So if you say that free will is developed once we gain enough knowledge, you are saying that knowledge+knowledge+knowledge+etc. will just suddenly equal free will. The premise does not follow the conclusion, and even without relying on logic and instead just possibility, as I've said, we cannot make actions which are not based on knowledge somehow, which is what free will would have to be to truly be free will.

Interesting that you would target me as the receiver of your thoughts, given that I'm a determinist and view free will as a nearly moot concept. What I do acknowledge is the process in which we develop our decision-making abilities. This happens over time and through the many experiences that shape us into who we become, through which is the pool from which our choices are made.