Free will and determinism

[MassimoTheChristian]

So now we ask what would be the reason for eating something you disliked. Which would be?

Mental illness or being forced to by someone which I know are uncommon.

 

[Bradskii]

Mental illness or being forced to by someone which I know are uncommon.

Being forced to do something is hardly a free will action. And I think that we have to accept that your mental state is such that you can make reasonable decisions.

 

[Neogaia777]

You would eat the salad because something changed your preference, or what you chose to prefer in that very moment, and you can't ever do anything against what you choose to prefer over another, which is not actually a choice made by you, but is all caused, and is part of what you were meant to choose or prefer in those very moments, etc. But and/or again, not an actual choice made by you actually, etc. Because nothing is, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Someone says "I did something that I didn't want to do", etc.

Both right and wrong, etc.

Because God's knowledge is such, or is so extensive about you, that if you had the choice to do it or not, it's what you would have chose to do anyway.

Wisdom in knowing yourself, and how/why this is, or how you were made, etc, is fully exploring and knowing the why of all of this, etc.

God Bless.

 

[rjs330]

So now we ask what would be the reason for eating something you disliked. Which would be?

Because you chose to do so. I would prefer to stay home and not go to work today, but choose to go anyway.

I would prefer not to refurbish my deck, because it's hot outside, but I choose to do it anyway. I have free will. And I've use it everyday. Because there are days when I don't go to work and days I haven't worked on my deck.

The word discipline comes to mind.

Once again if there is no free will then one cannot be held accountable for one's actions. There can be no justice. It would be Unjust to hold anyone accountable for the actions that are out of their control.

 

[Neogaia777]

Because you chose to do so. I would prefer to stay home and not go to work today, but choose to go anyway.

I would prefer not to refurbish my deck, because it's hot outside, but I choose to do it anyway. I have free will. And I've use it everyday. Because there are days when I don't go to work and days I haven't worked on my deck.

The word discipline comes to mind.

What we all choose to do, every single bit of it, is all just a calculation based on prior information, that was based on prior information before that, that was not at all chosen by you, but is all deterministic, going all the way back to the very first prime mover, or uncaused cause. It's all been deterministic since then, and there is no such thing as choice, and there is not multiple possibilities of any kind of other way is can ever go in reality.

Ultimately, the kind of things we say like "we choose but do not prefer", it is still what we wanted/desired in reality, and based on some very very selfish reasons most of the time too, but that are all forced upon us by the rest of this world, etc. Those guide/dictate our choices most of the time mostly, and are all ultimately deterministic ultimately. The preservation instinct/program being one of the most powerful/basic ones, etc. It's a part of who we are, etc. The way we were made also, etc.

But, the Bible says we are going to a place, or are going to enter into a kingdom, where we won't have to worry about some of our instincts bothering or pestering us anymore, etc. Like some of the ones that can cause sin, etc.

All of the ones that cause us such great worry/anxiety right now are all going to be gone in an instant one of these days, "in the twinkling of eye", one of these days, etc. The ones that so dominate a lot of us now, and dictate a lot of our choices right now, are all going to be gone one day, and no longer be a part of us one day, etc.

Once again if there is no free will then one cannot be held accountable for one's actions. There can be no justice. It would be Unjust to hold anyone accountable for the actions that are out of their control.

In this world, while we are all still here, we still have to punish/have consequences for actions that the majority of our societies think are wrong, to keep and maintain and have social order, that kind of thing, etc.

But we are not to see them as unsavable, or beyond redemption, or judge just exactly how things are between that person and God right now currently, or what might happen in or by the end of that for some other person right now currently. But we still have to have some consequences for wrongdoing in our societies still, imperfect as it may be, etc.

And as far as predestination when it comes to God and someone's eternity, etc, I think having some bad ones, was necessary, etc, but when it comes to those one's having a purpose beyond that? I just don't think, or rather I don't know, etc, that some were maybe just not ever meant for having a purpose other than just only more of this, etc.

God Bless.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Suggesting that culpability is separate from the concept of rational freedom entirely undermines the very meaning of the word culpability.

I don't recall mentioning 'rational freedom'. I said that neither reason nor feelings require free will. Are you suggesting that they do?

If not, I don't follow your argument.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Once again if there is no free will then one cannot be held accountable for one's actions. There can be no justice. It would be Unjust to hold anyone accountable for the actions that are out of their control.

That's right. Acknowledging a lack of free will means rethinking how to deal with the consequences of undesirable actions. Blame and punishment would no longer be appropriate, so a more utilitarian approach, involving harm reduction, would be needed.

This would be a major change of viewpoint, making moral responsibility a redundant concept, but perhaps seems less far-fetched when you consider that we already treat some sections of the population as lacking moral responsibility for their actions, so we already understand this idea and have ways of handling it (imperfect though they may be). Such a change would be generational, but is possible, as Norway's rehabilitative rather than punitive & retributive approach suggests.

Hume said, "reason is slave to the passions", Schopenhauer said, "a man can do what he wants but not want what he wants", i.e. he cannot will his desires, and Bashevis Singer said, "we must believe in free will, we have no choice". I think free will is a stubbornly persistent illusion (apologies to Einstein)

Whether the world is deterministic or random should not affect arguments for or against free will. As it happens, our world appears stochastic not deterministic at its lowest level, although it is, by and large, effectively deterministic at human scales.

 

[partinobodycular]

Hume said, "reason is slave to the passions", Schopenhauer said, "a man can do what he wants but not want what he wants", i.e. he cannot will his desires, and Bashevis Singer said, "we must believe in free will, we have no choice". I think free will is a stubbornly persistent illusion (apologies to Einstein)

But doesn't this depend upon how one defines free will?

If one simply defines free will as the capacity for reason to supersede all other impulses, then in such a case, hasn't the will, at least in part, acquired the freedom to act according to its own volition in direct opposition to all other causes?

This isn't to suggest that everyone will always be perfectly rational and reasonable, but once one attains that capacity, one begins to lose the right to blame causes outside of oneself for the things that they choose to do.

Is free will simply a byproduct of a being's capacity for reason... and within that capacity for reason do we not possess the knowledge of good and evil? And within those two things... the capacity for reason... and the knowledge of good and evil, do rational beings attain culpability?

 

[Bradskii]

But doesn't this depend upon how one defines free will?

If one simply defines free will as the capacity for reason to supersede all other impulses, then in such a case, hasn't the will, at least in part, acquired the freedom to act according to its own volition in direct opposition to all other causes?

So you do what you prefer to do. You always will. You can't will yourself to want something. You have no control over that.

 

[partinobodycular]

You can't will yourself to want something. You have no control over that.

If by 'want' you mean have an emotional predilection toward something, then this is quite often true. But that doesn't stop 'reason' from overriding one's emotional predilection and making a rational choice rather than an emotional one. Once one attains the capacity to supersede emotional responses with reasoned ones then what's 'good' stops being something imposed upon them by psychological precursors, and starts being something over which they have conscious control. "I choose what good is"... even if that choice is based upon a less than optimal set of information... it's still the product of reason... it's still my deliberative choice.

This doesn't mean that reason will always supersede emotions, nor be divorced from them, but it does mean that one will be aware of the consequences of acting in accordance with them, and therein lies culpability.

This raises a question however: what determines one's capacity to override emotions with reason? And is culpability commensurate therewith?

 

[Bradskii]

If by 'want' you mean have an emotional predilection toward something, then this is quite often true. But that doesn't stop 'reason' from overriding one's emotional predilection and making a rational choice rather than an emotional one.

It may well be an emotional decision - over which you have no control. Or you may be persuaded by arguments to act more rationally. And you either are persuaded or you are not. But you can't decide to be one or the other.

 

[partinobodycular]

...you either are persuaded or you are not. But you can't decide to be one or the other.

Indeed you can't... just as you can't 'decide' to prefer coffee over Earl Grey, but that doesn't mean that you can't recognize this predisposition and choose to act in opposition to it. It's that ability to recognize your predispositions and act in opposition to them that's the cornerstone of free will.

 

[Bradskii]

Indeed you can't... just as you can't 'decide' to prefer coffee over Earl Grey, but that doesn't mean that you can't recognize this predisposition and choose to act in opposition to it. It's that ability to recognize your predispositions and act in opposition to them that's the cornerstone of free will.

So you don't like Earl Grey (and I don't either - I just made a coffee for myself and that tea for my wife). So why would you drink it? You may not like it, but you are drinking it for a reason. So give me a reason that you think involves free will.

 

[rjs330]

It's all been deterministic since then, and there is no such thing as choice, and there is not multiple possibilities of any kind of other way is can ever go in reality.

You have no evidence for that. You are making nothing but an assumption. It's lazy thinking. It's based upon the ease of stating I made a decision and it's rhe only one I was going to make no matter what.

There are ALWAYS multiple possibilities. And the choice we make is based upon us thinking about it and making a decision. Weighing the possibilities and choosing. Sometimes is a bad choice sometimes it's a good choice and somwtimes its just neutral.

I can wake up in the morning and not feel like going to work. I could call in with no consequences or I could go to work for the same. There are benefits to each.

The lazy process would be to say I was going to do what I was going to do no.matter what.

Ultimately, the kind of things we say like "we choose but do not prefer", it is still what we wanted/desired in reality,

You have somewhat of a point. When it becomes rhe choices we make regarding sin within ourselves. According to scripture we are slaves to sin. However in the realm of life where sin isn't an issue our choices become clear. We can absolutely overcome our desires and make choices. As Christians it becomes even more clear.

The commands of scripture are clear evidence that we do have choices. Jesus could not have told us to love our neighbors. Why would he command us to do something if we had zero choice on whether or not we would.or would not do it?

Jesus said,

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Commandments are irrelevent if we have no choice in obeying or disobeying them.

If you lust after a woman you have committed adultery in your heart. How can you be guilty of adultery if you will.always have determined to commit adultery because you had no choice in the matter.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Why would Jesus command rhat of us if we have no choice in giving or not giving. It's nonsensical.

In fact all commands made of us are nonsensical.

Scripture tells us God is just. It is an Unjust God that punishes those who do things that they have no choice over and no decision making power. A command in and of itself is irrelevant if we were always going commit the act regardless. We could never follow a command if we were never going
to follow the command, Making the command irrelevant and the justice of God irrelevant as well.

This day choose whom you will.serve. we cannot do that if we don't actually have a choice.

In fact scripture is entirely unnecessary if rhere is no free.will. Christ's death and resurrection is unnecessary if there is no free will.

Christ's own prayer in the garden is evidence, not my will by thine be done.

Christ's own temptations are irrelevant if he was always going to choose the right way. They are meaningless to us.

Him being without sin is meaningless. The message is meaningless.

 

[rjs330]

So give me a reason that you think involves free will.

The fact that reason itself is involved is free will based. The fact that one can reason things out is free will based. We like coffee want coffee and would rather have coffee but choose Earl Grey for a reason that is based upon reasoning things through.

 

[Neogaia777]

You have no evidence for that. You are making nothing but an assumption. It's lazy thinking. It's based upon the ease of stating I made a decision and it's rhe only one I was going to make no matter what.

There are ALWAYS multiple possibilities. And the choice we make is based upon us thinking about it and making a decision. Weighing the possibilities and choosing. Sometimes is a bad choice sometimes it's a good choice and somwtimes its just neutral.

I can wake up in the morning and not feel like going to work. I could call in with no consequences or I could go to work for the same. There are benefits to each.

The lazy process would be to say I was going to do what I was going to do no.matter what.

You have somewhat of a point. When it becomes rhe choices we make regarding sin within ourselves. According to scripture we are slaves to sin. However in the realm of life where sin isn't an issue our choices become clear. We can absolutely overcome our desires and make choices. As Christians it becomes even more clear.

The commands of scripture are clear evidence that we do have choices. Jesus could not have told us to love our neighbors. Why would he command us to do something if we had zero choice on whether or not we would.or would not do it?

Jesus said,

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Commandments are irrelevent if we have no choice in obeying or disobeying them.

If you lust after a woman you have committed adultery in your heart. How can you be guilty of adultery if you will.always have determined to commit adultery because you had no choice in the matter.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Why would Jesus command rhat of us if we have no choice in giving or not giving. It's nonsensical.

In fact all commands made of us are nonsensical.

Scripture tells us God is just. It is an Unjust God that punishes those who do things that they have no choice over and no decision making power. A command in and of itself is irrelevant if we were always going commit the act regardless. We could never follow a command if we were never going
to follow the command, Making the command irrelevant and the justice of God irrelevant as well.

This day choose whom you will.serve. we cannot do that if we don't actually have a choice.

In fact scripture is entirely unnecessary if rhere is no free.will. Christ's death and resurrection is unnecessary if there is no free will.

Christ's own prayer in the garden is evidence, not my will by thine be done.

Christ's own temptations are irrelevant if he was always going to choose the right way. They are meaningless to us.

Him being without sin is meaningless. The message is meaningless.

Sorry you see it that way.

God Bless.

 

[partinobodycular]

So you don't like Earl Grey (and I don't either - I just made a coffee for myself and that tea for my wife).

FYI, I never drink coffee or Earl Grey. I mentioned them only in reference to a previous post of yours.

Here's the problem as I see it, you think that your choice of coffee is based mainly upon the fact that you prefer coffee over Earl Grey, and since you have no conscious control over what you prefer, you have no real control over your choice either. Hence no free will.

In the everyday world our choices are generally quite simple and straight forward, such as choosing coffee over Earl Grey, hence no real need for deep intellectual or moral contemplation... you choose coffee simply because you like coffee. But what if the choice isn't quite so obvious. For example, what if your wife routinely chides you about never trying anything different, so every once in a while you'll choose to drink Earl Grey just to make her happy. But why did you choose to make her happy this time, and not all the other times? Or as you put it... what 'persuaded' you this time but not the other times?

I mean you're consciously weighing these two things in your head... to make her happy or to not make her happy, and yet you're arguing that this process of consciously assessing these two choices has nothing to do with your final decision. I would argue that this process of reasoning things out in your head has everything to do with your final decision. In fact it's the very means by which you make a decision. It's just that for the most part our choices don't rise to the level of requiring contemplation, they're not morally or ethically significant enough to require our attention... at least until such time as they involve more than just... do I prefer coffee or Earl Grey.

 

[Bradskii]

FYI, I never drink coffee or Earl Grey. I mentioned them only in reference to a previous post of yours.

Here's the problem as I see it, you think that your choice of coffee is based mainly upon the fact that you prefer coffee over Earl Grey, and since you have no conscious control over what you prefer, you have no real control over your choice either. Hence no free will.

In the everyday world our choices are generally quite simple and straight forward, such as choosing coffee over Earl Grey, hence no real need for deep intellectual or moral contemplation... you choose coffee simply because you like coffee. But what if the choice isn't quite so obvious. For example, what if your wife routinely chides you about never trying anything different, so every once in a while you'll choose to drink Earl Grey just to make her happy. But why did you choose to make her happy this time, and not all the other times? Or as you put it... what 'persuaded' you this time but not the other times?

I mean you're consciously weighing these two things in your head... to make her happy or to not make her happy, and yet you're arguing that this process of consciously assessing these two choices has nothing to do with your final decision. I would argue that this process of reasoning things out in your head has everything to do with your final decision. In fact it's the very means by which you make a decision. It's just that for the most part our choices don't rise to the level of requiring contemplation, they're not morally or ethically significant enough to require our attention... at least until such time as they involve more than just... do I prefer coffee or Earl Grey.

You try it because she has persuaded you. It really is that simple.

You don't change; you are changed. You don't decide; you are persuaded. All this long contemplation over difficult decisions is simply weighing the options that have been presented to you. And which one do you go with? The one that you prefer. And you can't decide to prefer it.

 

[Neogaia777]

To approach this from a religious perspective, if there is a God who knows what your choices are all already going to be, or the very thoughts that you are going to have next, or knows where everything, and every single particle/cell/molecule/person/place/thing is going to be, and always what it is going to be doing next, and knows all of this from beginning to end, and knew this all from the very beginning, etc, then I don't see how you can't conclude that the universe is not deterministic, and that there is no such thing as free will, etc.

And the other thing you need to try and follow here, from a religious perspective, etc, is that this was not Jesus, or God in the OT, etc. Because if it is/was God in the OT, then a lot of people were lying about Him, and didn't actually hear His voice, or know Him, or what He was actually saying, or was this one was truly like, etc. Because if He is as He is described, then He was not always fully omniscient, etc. And that fact is pretty obvious when you take off the religious blinders, etc. And Jesus also knew this also, or came to know this about God in the OT also, etc. Which is why I believe that Jesus claimed to be equal to God in the OT, but at the same time, not as great or as high as the "Heavenly Father", which he was trying to introduce us to in this "new theology" of his, etc.

God in the OT became God the Holy Spirit in the New under this new theology, and this God the Heavenly Father was actually the greatest, and was the only One who was always fully omniscient, and who was the prime mover, or was the only One who was the primary first cause, of all of this that happened after, etc. This is also part of the reason why Jesus had to die for this, etc. This would be blasphemy if not true, and Jesus knew this, etc.

This Heavenly Father is not like a man or a person, like the other Two are, but is way, way high above and way beyond that, etc. This one cannot be explained in human terms without having others who were less than Him, or that could exist in the flow of time apart from Him, etc, which is just exactly why I think we have the other Two, etc. Either that, or everybody in the OT was lying, and everyone else who came after that was deceived by a lie that was just continued, etc.

Jesus reasoned this, and was part of why he had to die, etc. He took God in the Ow's wrath upon himself fully, etc, and after that, God in the OT changed in how he would now deal with men who were now believers in Jesus Christ from that point onward, etc. And He became God the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of Jesus Christ, in the NT, and after that, etc.

Jesus went to where that Highest Father is and always was supposedly, with the promise to return from there one day with true judgement in hand one day, but God in the OT, or now God the Holy Spirit, has always been here, and continues to be here with all of us now, until Jesus returning, etc. And I'll bet He's waiting on Jesus judgements just as much as the rest of us are right now currently, etc.

From a non-religious standpoint, if everything is deterministic from the beginning of the universe, then there is only one way it can ever go, and there are not multiple possibilities of such, and all of your "thinking" is even so, etc, and so is everything you decide to do, or choose, etc. And from a religious standpoint, all easily fully knowable by a truly all-knowing God, etc. This was not Jesus or God in the OT though. And if Jesus was not right about this, then it would be the primary reason why he had to die, if he was not right about this, etc.

And I'll chose to gamble with him in hoping he was right about this, etc.

Since he was resurrected, then it shows he was at the very least forgiven when it came to this, etc, but whether he was right about it or not...?

Well, I guess if we all get to see him coming back from there one day, then we'll all know, right.

God Bless.