Why we don't have free will using logic

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

If we know everything about everything, then we would be omniscient and not have free will.

We know that what we experience can be tested, compared and contrasted with prior experience and the experience of others.

Do we have to know absolutely in order to have free will and, again, wouldn't that absolute knowledge eliminate free will?

 

[Echogem222]

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.

And exactly how am I supposed to know that beforehand? So many people reply to me saying things which imply they believe in free will, only to say later that they actually don't, and it's ridiculous that I would assume that. I mean, really, are you all just that oblivious to how a person might understand your words?

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.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying is true.

 

[Echogem222]

If we know everything about everything, then we would be omniscient and not have free will.

We know that what we experience can be tested, compared and contrasted with prior experience and the experience of others.

Do we have to know absolutely in order to have free will and, again, wouldn't that absolute knowledge eliminate free will?

Absolute knowledge doesn't eliminate free will because either, our choices come from us, or they don't, the latter meaning that we don't have free will. True free will is to make choices which are not based on knowledge that does not come from the self, choices which are not influenced by what's around us. It's pretty straightforward.

 

[We Never Know]

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.

"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?"

Free will is simply the ability to act/choose at one's own discretion.

Are you using free will to to say we don't have free will?

Sounds like a paradox.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Absolute knowledge doesn't eliminate free will because either, our choices come from us, or they don't, the latter meaning that we don't have free will. True free will is to make choices which are not based on knowledge that does not come from the self, choices which are not influenced by what's around us. It's pretty straightforward.

If you have absolute knowledge, then you would not need to choose would you? You would know the correct choice. Otherwise, you would have to purposefully choose the wrong answer, wrong move, wrong path, etc. And even then, you would know the result.

Absolute knowledge would come from the self.

 

[Balthazzar]

And exactly how am I supposed to know that beforehand? So many people reply to me saying things which imply they believe in free will, only to say later that they actually don't, and it's ridiculous that I would assume that. I mean, really, are you all just that oblivious to how a person might understand your words?


Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying is true.

I assumed you read my post. My apologies.

 

[blü 2]

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.

We can sometimes have free will in the sense that we can sometimes make decisions free of external demands, threats and pressures.

But we can't have "true" free will since there's no way we can make decisions independently of our brain's evolved decision-making processes, which are complexes of bioelectrical and biochemical interactions.

(I'm a materialist; but regardless, I've never heard any dualist advocate of free will explaining the processes by which the purported immaterial part of the brain (a) obtains its information and (b) processes it such that it can make decisions based on it.)

 

[Echogem222]

I assumed you read my post. My apologies.

Ok?

 

[Ponder This]

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?

Descartes famously wrote, "Je pense, donc je suis." (I think, therefore, I am)
He pointed out that you cannot doubt your existence while you doubt.

What I'm saying here is similar. You may doubt your perceptions, but you can't doubt that you perceive.
Do you understand the issue here? You argued that awareness may not be what it seems to be. But it doesn't matter if it is what it seems to be or if it is something other than what it seems to be.

 

[Echogem222]

Descartes famously wrote, "Je pense, donc je suis." (I think, therefore, I am)
He pointed out that you cannot doubt your existence while you doubt.

What I'm saying here is similar. You may doubt your perceptions, but you can't doubt that you perceive.
Do you understand the issue here? You argued that awareness may not be what it seems to be. But it doesn't matter if it is what it seems to be or if it is something other than what it seems to be.

Uh, no. I think therefore I am, is the assumption that having awareness means that you exist, but if awareness is not awareness, it may not have that effect, you must just think you exist but actually don't.

 

[wellwisher]

Descartes famously wrote, "Je pense, donc je suis." (I think, therefore, I am)
He pointed out that you cannot doubt your existence while you doubt.

What I'm saying here is similar. You may doubt your perceptions, but you can't doubt that you perceive.
Do you understand the issue here? You argued that awareness may not be what it seems to be. But it doesn't matter if it is what it seems to be or if it is something other than what it seems to be.

What gives an aspect of free will is connected to humans thinking in terms of verbal/written language. Language is not objective in any natural sense. There is no cause and effect in terms of the audio sounds and the associations within human languages. I have never heard a cat say the sound cat, so why is the cat called that sound? There are currently about 6000 human languages on earth, which tells us that sound associations of human language are totally subjective. It is objective/subjective, based on any given system where all sort of agree.

As such, since we use a subjective matrix for thought, as well as for logic, how can even logic be fully objective, since the sounds used for data imagery and meaning are arbitrary and subjective and not natural? The fuzzy dice for the matrix of thought, makes even sound logic fuzzy, and leads to deviation from pure determinism; new and unexpected conclusions. This deviation, by default, is not purely deterministic but reflects an default aspect of natural will.

A good example on this site is the on-off debate about Socialism. What I noticed is that each side defines Socialism in a different way. One side language perceives utopia and other side language perceives disaster, with both sides providing data and logic for their subjective definition. For most people, a level of will and choice occurs by subjective default. This is not free will, but it still can create unique POV's implicit of will.

I think therefore I am, can be understood as being the result of the subjective matrix of language, which adds fuzzy dice to our unique POV of all the sensory perception association that makes us unique. The process of thinking about memory with language, that itself is not objective, adds unique fuzzy dice feelings that creates feedback to our own uniqueness; I really am.

Michael Jackson, the late pop music star, has a song called "Bad". This definition of "bad", meant good in the sense of street prestige. This initially created debate, when his new definition of bad was first "coined". One group thought MJ was "bad" in the street sense, while the other group said he was "good" or a nice guy, even though they both meant almost the same thing. Since a dividing line formed based on the new subjective coin, then good now had to mean bad in the more classic sense. No matter how good or bad the logic, people stumbled out of line into the land of perceptive and creative will and choice.

This effect has to do with our secondary center of consciousness or the ego, which is separated from the primary center or the inner self. The inner self is more natural and based on evolution and DNA. The natural human used natural sound associations and a visual langage. Our sight catalog is defined by the photon combinations, reflected off objects, that the eyes absorb and various ways. This data goes into the brain and the visual memory can interpret and reproduce with accuracy.

The invention of subjective spoken and written language; Tower of Babel, added a matrix of fuzzy dice to visual memory perception, based on the subjectivity of the sounds associations of audio language mixed with natural objective sight. This caused deviation from both nature and each other; collective and individual. It added not so free will and choice. It is will, but will with a price; not free. Free will, will have no cost or price, since it uses the natural visual language of the inner self as its matrix. Life is not a stone; unchanging, but is flesh that evolves and can grow new branches and even news species of thought; free or natural will of life.

 

[Balthazzar]

Ok?

Yeah, it's ok. You should read my post first next time, though.

 

[Echogem222]

Yeah, it's ok. You should read my post first next time, though.

You DO realize that the post in this thread is my own, NOT yours??

 

[Balthazzar]

You DO realize that the post in this thread is my own, NOT yours??

I may realize this, or I may not, but to get back to point ... Free will is determined by many factors, which equates to determinism. You had suggested I took a very different position, and I simply informed you of the correct position as I understand it. In other words, you misrepresented my post, me, and my views.

 

[Echogem222]

I may realize this, or I may not, but to get back to point ... Free will is determined by many factors, which equates to determinism. You had suggested I took a very different position, and I simply informed you of the correct position as I understand it. In other words, you misrepresented my post, me, and my views.

"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."

This is the only reply you gave me in this thread before you started saying I was wrong about your views, and if you respond to me one more time with something along the lines of, "You should have known better" then I will consider you a troll and block you.

 

[blü 2]

Uh, no. I think therefore I am, is the assumption that having awareness means that you exist, but if awareness is not awareness, it may not have that effect, you must just think you exist but actually don't.

When, in your view, is "awareness not awareness"?

For example, is it fair to attribute awareness to you since you're posting here?

 

[Echogem222]

When, in your view, is "awareness not awareness"?

For example, is it fair to attribute awareness to you since you're posting here?

I have faith that awareness is awareness, as that seems to allow me to do things like post in this forum. But to say that what I seem to be aware of is all there is would just be arrogance on my part, it would be to say that I know everything there is I need to know to say anything is true.

 

[F1fan]

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?

What other alternative to awareness can you present?

And your criticism here applies to everything you wrote.

 

[F1fan]

I have faith that awareness is awareness, as that seems to allow me to do things like post in this forum. But to say that what I seem to be aware of is all there is would just be arrogance on my part, it would be to say that I know everything there is I need to know to say anything is true.

Why have faith when it is questionable? Why can’t being self-aware adequate as it is?

Faith is subject to error and if you have faith then awareness is a given. To my mind you are seeking a way to make faith more reliable than it is in general use.

 

[Kfox]

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.ow are

How are you defining free will?