Free will and determinism

[Jo555]

If i understand you correctly, i agree to an extent.

As a Christian from what i know of freewill, or the ability to choose, before conversion, is an illusion ... But i can elaborate more on your thoughts because i think we are kinda on the same page there. And excuse me if I'm not fully understanding you. I feel like I'm struggling in French class all over again.

Merci Beaucoup.

The apostle Paul covers this in the book of Romans, chapter 7:

14 So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. 15 I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate. 16 But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. 17 So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[d] I want to do what is right, but I can’t. 19 I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway. 20 But if I do what I don’t want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

21 I have discovered this principle of life—that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. 22 I love God’s law with all my heart. 23 But there is another power[e] within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. 24 Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death? 25 Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey God’s law, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin.
---------
In this chapter, and elsewhere in the book, Paul is speaking of the ineffectiveness of the law to change us because of spiritual properties at work. These spiritual properties are greater than our knowledge of good and evil and wanting to choose good over evil. This is the state of man before faith in Christ. More to it that i can go into later, but yes, prior faith the ability to choose is illusionary. The point of bringing choice in, and the law, was never to redeem us, but to show us our inability of our own.

As i like to tell others, you can test it. Life itself confirms these things.

Like i used to smoke. I tried to quit, but i just kept going back to it because knowing it wasn't good for me and just telling myself not to smoke just made the desire for a cigarette even greater. This is how partaking if the knowledge of good and evil works, or the law. It doesn't change you within; doesn't change the spiritual property at work. In other words, it doesn't change the heart.

It was brought in as a temporary measure to show us ourselves apart from the Lord's Spirit, given to those who believe in Father's God's work through Christ.

Whether you believe in God or not, it is hard to deny the depth of wisdom in there regarding human nature and properties at work.

So i would say that prior to faith, you premise is correct. I don't necessarily believe that is the case after faith, but not sure how affectively i can debate that because I'm still learning your language.

I ended up dropping french. Hopefully i can do better here.

Forgot to finish my smoking story.

So the knowledge that smoking wasn't good for me and trying to quit on that knowledge had no power to overcome my desire. Not only that, but just thinking about quitting smoking apart from love just strengthened my unhealthy desires. It doesn't have the power to birth love, but strengthens unhealthy desires in me. I didn't love myself enough to quit for my benefit either.

When i began to live with others i refused to subject them to second hand smoke out of love for them so i smoked outside (although they never forbid smoking inside).

Eventually, i found myself going out there less until i had no desire for it any longer. The Spiritual force of love won out over knowledge because knowledge has no life. It can only uncover the unhealthy desires that arise in me when i am not in love.

Sometimes i still buy a pack. Maybe once a year with the intent of smoking a few cigs. I can't get past two as i find myself wondering what i ever found in them.

This is a simple example of knowledge verses spiritual properties at work.

As Christians these properties, or spiritual forces, are seen as God's love gifted in Christ, by grace through faith, versus lust rooted in the self life; lust as the result of going at it apart from God.

How's my bilingual?

 

[Jo555]

Forgot to finish my smoking story.

So the knowledge that smoking wasn't good for me and trying to quit on that knowledge had no power to overcome my desire. Not only that, but just thinking about quitting smoking apart from love just strengthened my unhealthy desires. It doesn't have the power to birth love, but strengthens unhealthy desires in me. I didn't love myself enough to quit for my benefit either.

When i began to live with others i refused to subject them to second hand smoke out of love for them so i smoked outside (although they never forbid smoking inside).

Eventually, i found myself going out there less until i had no desire for it any longer. The Spiritual force of love won out over knowledge because knowledge has no life. It can only uncover the unhealthy desires that arise in me when i am not in love.

Sometimes i still buy a pack. Maybe once a year with the intent of smoking a few cigs. I can't get past two as i find myself wondering what i ever found in them.

This is a simple example of knowledge verses spiritual properties at work.

As Christians these properties, or spiritual forces, are seen as God's love gifted in Christ, by grace through faith, versus lust rooted in the self life; lust as the result of going at it apart from God.

How's my bilingual?

Lastly for now, these questions that arise in your heart may just be God putting them there.

You may have come here looking to dispute the existence of God by your questions and reasoning (and don't know if that is the case, just saying for those that may have), but don't be surprised if He shows up.

Romans 10:

20 And Isaiah boldly says,

“I was found by those who did not seek me;
I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”[k]
21 But concerning Israel he says,

“All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people.”[l]

---------

Keep asking, seeking, knocking.

 

[partinobodycular]

How you make a decision is a mystery? How on earth can that be? How can it possibly be that you don't know how you chose something? I'm not looking for some esoteric, hard to comprehend neurological process. I just want to know the steps that you go through to decide something. How you a make a choice. You can pick anything that you like. It can be an actual choice that you made or you can invent one. The job that you have. The place that you live. Where you last went on holiday and how you got there. Anything. Anything at all.

How about this... you explain how those deterministic laws give rise to consciousness, and then I'll explain how that same process gives rise to free will.

Otherwise it seems to me that you're relying on magic just as much as defenders of free will are.

 

[Jo555]

I agree. I don't know any religion where it's not an absolute requirement. That we must be held responsible for our actions. That, coupled with the fact that it's virtually impossible not to think that we have it maintains the belief that it exists. I have to admit that emotionally I find it difficult to come to terms with it myself.

I te

The problem is, when you have a god that sends his finite little creations to be tortured in a place that he created...
You have to come up with some sort of get out of jail free card under the guise of "freewill" That way you can say stuff like "God doesn't send anyone to hell... they choose to go there"

Free will is a functional doctrine, but certainly not a scriptural one.

I tend to see hell as existence devoid of God. It's total darkness and a thirst within that is like fire.

It's the removal of light and all that is good. All that is left is total depravity. That, to me, is hell.

Think of a depraved soul. For instance, a serial killer or rapist gets gratification out of it. I think this is what hell is like and God is just giving them their own island to live on.

But l never did the scriptural study because it just wasn't a priority. It doesn't change my heart regarding knowing God is good.

 

[Jo555]

I tend to see hell as existence devoid of God. It's total darkness and a thirst within that is like fire.

It's the removal of light and all that is good. All that is left is total depravity. That, to me, is hell.

Think of a depraved soul. For instance, a serial killer or rapist gets gratification out of it. I think this is what hell is like and God is just giving them their own island to live on.

But l never did the scriptural study because it just wasn't a priority. It doesn't change my heart regarding knowing God is good.

Sorry, submitted before I finished.

When we have made up our minds that someone is a jerk there isn't much they can say to prove to you that they aren't a jerk because what you really need is to get to know them. If you don't know them and you have judged them as a jerk, all, or most of what they say will be filtered through that.

Sometimes God doesn't answer all our questions because He knows we have yet to fully know Him, and ourselves. His answering a question will only lead to more questions to undermine his goodness, or just even to just try and understand on our own.

You don't give meat to babies, otherwise they will choke.

It is not an excuse. It is the truth as i know and believe it, and have experienced it.

Some questions He leaves unanswered, at least for the time being, until we are more intimately acquainted with Him. and ourselves.

 

[Bradskii]

If i understand you correctly, i agree to an extent.

Tres bien...

 

[Jo555]

Tres bien...

Oh.

Parlez vous francais?

I'm impressed. Just don't expect me to say that in french .

 

[expos4ever]

@Bradskii + @Mark Quayle: it appears that you both are highly skeptical of the claim that there can be a "me" somehow embedded inside the human person that can make decisions that are not otherwise determined. So when someone claims that they can make a decision that is, at least in some measure, not determined, you understandably ask for an account as to how that decision was arrived at. And, when other posters claim it is a mystery, you suggest, if I understand you correctly, that such an appeal to mystery is not legitimate.

Are you sure this is fair? My current position on all this is that the evidence leans very strongly in the direction that all our actions and decisions are fully determined. Or, they are the result of deterministic forces supplemented by randomness. Either way, I see no "place" for free will, at least based on the current mainstream "scientific" understanding of the world.

However, I wonder whether you are assuming that it is in principle impossible for there to be a "me" that is, at least to some degree, free to make decisions.

I see no reason for ruling out the a priori possibility that inside each of us there dwells a "me" that is indeed free to, for example, decide whether or not to steal a candy bar. Let's say I see a candy bar that I want to eat, but I have no money. Is it not at least possible that there is a "me" that feels the lure of the candy bar but is able to choose, on the basis of moral principles, to not steal it.

I want to end by emphasizing something really important. It is one thing to say that the scientific evidence strongly supports the idea that my choice to not steal the candy bar is, in fact, determined. But it is quite another to rule out, a priori, repeat a priori, the possibility that there is a "me" that can, through some means that we do not understand (and hence can be called a mystery) "freely" elect to not steal it.

 

[Bradskii]

How about this... you explain how those deterministic laws give rise to consciousness, and then I'll explain how that same process gives rise to free will.

Otherwise it seems to me that you're relying on magic just as much as defenders of free will are.

How is making a choice based on your preferences of the options available 'magic'? It's not a mystery. It's not magic. It's what all of us do every minute of every day. It's so obviously how we operate that it is absolutely beyond me how anyone can possibly deny it. It's how we operate even if we all agreed that free will existed. And all anyone has to do to disprove it is give an example of someone making a decision that either wasn't based on antecedent conditions or wasn't what they preferred.

What actually is a mystery, what really is magic is dualism. And you might take note that absolutely no-one, in nearly 3,000 posts in a thread about free will where the only two choices are effectively that we don't have it or there's a form of dualism at work, has made the slightest attempt to support it.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh.

Parlez vous francais?

I'm impressed. Just don't expect me to say that in french .

Schoolboy French. Enough to get me into trouble. But not enough to get me out of it.

 

[Bradskii]

But it is quite another to rule out, a priori, repeat a priori, the possibility that there is a "me" that can, through some means that we do not understand (and hence can be called a mystery) "freely" elect to not steal it.

Well, we can kick that can down the road for a while to see where it ends up. Let's give that 'me' another name so we can differentiate it from the other 'you'. Why not 'soul'...

This is the way I see things. There's an expos that's hungry and broke and he sees a candy bar and he wants it. It's a first order desire. But...he's worried about getting caught stealing. And he is the type of person who is generally honest. So his preference, his second order desire, is that he doesn't want to risk the ignominy of being caught stealing and he wants to remain an upright citizen and so he doesn't steal it. So those antecedent conditions have determined that he doesn't. What he prefers outweighs what he wants. That's all pretty straightforward.

Here's the other way, to incorporate a soul. There's an expos that's hungry and broke and he sees a candy bar and he wants it. It's a first order desire. But...his soul is worried about expos getting caught stealing. And his soul wants expo to be generally honest. So his soul's preference, a second order desire, is that it doesn't want expos to risk the ignominy of being caught stealing and he wants expos to remain an upright citizen and so he tells him not to steal it. So those antecedent conditions have determined what his soul tells him. His soul's preference outweighs what expos wants.

So it then becomes the soul's preference. The soul has made a decision which has been determined by the antecedent conditions.

But you have said that, by some means which we do not understand, that it could 'freely' elect not to steal it. Free from what? Free from the reasons that determined its decision? Could it choose? If not, then there's no free will involved. If so, then on what basis did it choose?

 

[partinobodycular]

How is making a choice based on your preferences of the options available 'magic'? It's not a mystery. It's not magic. It's what all of us do every minute of every day. It's so obviously how we operate that it is absolutely beyond me how anyone can possibly deny it. It's how we operate even if we all agreed that free will existed. And all anyone has to do to disprove it is give an example of someone making a decision that either wasn't based on antecedent conditions or wasn't what they preferred.

Thanks for the non-answer. Apparently you're admitting that you can't explain the existence of consciousness, unfortunately... unlike with free will, you can't simply deny that it exists. So instead you're going to rely on the fact that it's existence is self-evident. Yet you refuse to make the same concession for free will. Instead you're going to rely upon the rather nebulous qualia of 'preference'... never mind that 'qualia' is a characteristic of consciousness, which you seemingly have no explanation for.

So if you can't explain the existence of consciousness and its attendant 'qualia', then how can you dismiss them, when those qualia are the very things that our choices are supposedly based upon?

You keep claiming that proponents of free will deny the existence of determinism... yet I for one, don't. I'm simply arguing for the existence of an emergent property that we recognize as 'consciousness', and that concomitant with consciousness is 'qualia', and it's that qualia that lies at the heart of our choices.

Which is why I previously asserted that if you'll explain the existence of consciousness, then I'll explain the existence of free will. Until then we're both in the dark, with an ultimate explanation of 'magic'.

 

[Bradskii]

You keep claiming that proponents of free will deny the existence of determinism... yet I for one, don't.

That's good.

I'm simply arguing for the existence of an emergent property that we recognize as 'consciousness'...

I could accept that.

...and that concomitant with consciousness is 'qualia'

Yes, that's a given.

...and it's that qualia that lies at the heart of our choices.

I have no idea what that means. Or how it's meant to work. Or how it affects the fact that we base our decisions on antecedent conditions. Which we can then say determined our choice. And I have no idea why we need to explain consciousness to recognise the process that conscious agents go through in making decisions. Please explain that. In all the time I've been reading about free will I've never come across anyone saying that it's connected with qualia.

 

[Jo555]

You?

I don't believe it.cheesy smile.

 

[Bradskii]

Thanks for the non-answer. Apparently you're admitting that you can't explain the existence of consciousness, unfortunately... unlike with free will, you can't simply deny that it exists.

I should have addressed this in the last post. Of course I'm admitting that I can't explain consciousness. It's not called the hard problem for nothing. If you know of anyone who claims that they can explain it, then let's go and see what they have to say.

And I am most definitely not 'simply denying' that free will exists. As opposed to almost everyone who has simply been claiming that it exists. It's a logical extrapolation of the fact that the universe is deterministic. The OP laid that out in simple terms. What it didn't say was 'hey, I've got this funny feeling that we somehow don't have free will. Whaddya think?'

 

[partinobodycular]

In all the time I've been reading about free will I've never come across anyone saying that it's connected with qualia.

Well, you invoked the concept of preference. Preference is a subjective mental state. Subjective mental states are qualia. Qualia is the product of a conscious mind. Conscious minds are the product of... ?

In a nod to determinism I'll just stick 'antecedent conditions' in there. Happy?

I have no idea what that means.

See above.

Or how it's meant to work.

Me neither. Which is why I said, you explain how consciousness works, then I'll explain how free will works.

Or how it affects the fact that we base our decisions on antecedent conditions. Which we can then say determined our choice.

Again, see above.

And I have no idea why we need to explain consciousness to recognise the process that conscious agents go through in making decisions. Please explain that.

Well the reason that we need to explain it is because you invoked 'preference' which only a conscious mind can possess. So it would seem to be rather important to the whole 'antecedent conditions' scenario to have some idea as to just what the heck that conscious mind is doing. I mean in the whole chain of antecedent conditions that would seem to be a pretty important link.

Up until then determinism and antecedent conditions would seem to be a pretty reasonable explanation, but if you get to that last link and you have to go... "I don't have a clue", then maybe your explanation isn't quite as air tight as you think it is.

After all, if consciousness is indeed an emergent property... then what precedence do we have for how emergent properties behave? Well historically, and pretty much by definition, they behave in a manner here-to-fore unobserved.

Like maybe having the capacity for self-reflection. I'm not saying that it's true, but I'm not saying that it isn't either.

 

[Bradskii]

Well the reason that we need to explain it is because you invoked 'preference' which only a conscious mind can possess. So it would seem to be rather important to the whole 'antecedent conditions' scenario to have some idea as to just what the heck that conscious mind is doing.

No, we don't.

'I prefer to not get shot in the head'.

That statement stands on its own. We all know what it means. We all understand why it makes sense. We all know that it would be a pretty big consideration if I'm making a decision that includes that as an option. That's it. We don't need to dig any deeper into the mysteries of the mind to understand the process of choosing whether to get shot or get a pizza.

You want anchovies with that? Well gee, I don't know. I haven't contemplated the hard problem of consciousness as yet and whether it's an emergent property of the mind so I have no idea what my preferences are...

Bulldust.

You don't like anchovies? Then I don't need a degree in molecular biology, neurobiology, chemistry, psychology, philosophy, gastronomy, ichthyology or any other -ology to understand that 'pizza - hold the anchovies' is your preference and has been determined by your dislike of small salted fish.

We need dig no deeper.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The simple logic of causation?

I gave you an example of a situation where it would be extremely difficult to find a unique cause for a unique choice....and you simply asserted it must be there.

If I gave you that impression I did so by mistake. I do not claim there is any single cause for any unique choice. I am curious where you found me asserting that.

That's faith, not logic, not evidence. You can claim whatever you like without any shred of evidence....but there's nothing remotely logical about it.

Maybe if you can see what I'm saying above this, that there are multiple causes, and not "a single cause", this objection can be dismissed.

Again, I don't claim to know all the causes, but I do know, through the fact of prevalent causation, upon which logic is drawn, that there are always causes for all effects, and all things are effects, (except that first cause is not an effect).

 

[Oompa Loompa]

There is no way that existence cannot be described other than determined.

By whom? I thought you weren't a theist.

 

[Bradskii]

By whom? I thought you weren't a theist.

It's been determined at least back to the Big Bang. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be able to work backwards to that point (what caused this, and then what caused that, and what then caused that etc etc). Unfortunately we can't go back past Planck time so we don't know what cause(s) existed before that time. I assume that you think it was God. We'll agree to disagree on that point.

Either way, it has no input on how you make decisions.