Free Will

Neogaia777 · Sep 27, 2022

sjastro said:
That's most unfortunate as you might have learnt something regarding randomness.
Scientists need to be very careful to not fall for the three card trick of mistaking randomness or statistical noise with a real signal.
For example tossing a coin is an unbiased experiment producing random results.
If we toss the coin once there is 1 in 2 chance of heads, twice a 1 in 4 chance of 2 heads, and ten times a 1 in 1024 chance of 10 heads in a row.
If we tossed the coin ten times and got 10 heads in a row we might start to suspect the experiment is biased but a 1 in 1024 chance are not astronomical odds for being purely random.
Tossing the coin 20 times resulting in 20 heads is a 1 in 1,048,576 chance making it unlikely this is a random occurrence.

Scientists in fields such a particle physics base discoveries on five sigma which is approximately a 1 in 3,500,000 chance of the signal being random and not real.

I'm not talking about chances, or odds, but predictability based on knowing absolutely all of the factors down to even every single atom, or even every sub-atomic particle, etc, and by those being based "in time", which is also predictable, etc...

Anyway, I'm going to bed, been up for a while, and maybe I'm just a little irritable right now, etc, I don't know, etc, and if that is my "reason" that "caused" my "reaction/response", that was fully "predictable", etc, then I do 100% sincerly apologize, ok, etc...

You might be happy to know that I am always learning more however, and will never give up on that ever, etc...

I might be back later, or tomorrow maybe, I don't know yet, etc...

Anyway, goodnight all!

God Bless.

Neogaia777 · Sep 27, 2022

Oh, and my cat is doing well BTW...

Anyway, Goodnight.

God Bless!

AV1611VET · Sep 27, 2022

Neogaia777 said:
Oh, and my cat is doing well BTW...

The happy Objectivist · Sep 27, 2022

durangodawood said:
I dont see an argument for free will there. Just a statement of intuition or possibly faith.

How do you deal with the objection raised earlier?:

Sorry for my absence. I have very little free time right now.

I wasn't trying to make an argument in what you quoted. I was asked if there are material preconditions of thinking and I answered that question.

If Thinking requires selective attention, then free will exists. Attention is a function of the will or consciousness. So if we have the ability to selectively employ our will, then it is free. No argument is necessary for that which is self-evident. Anyone can introspect and observe themselves directing their own attention, selectively. Any argument for free will would require us to exercise the very thing we are called upon to prove. Argumentation presupposes free will. If it's all just chemicals doing their thing then I am determined by my molecules to believe that we have free will and someone else's molecules are determining that he does not believe in free will. But we have the ability, as humans, to look at all the evidence, judge it, draw conclusions, integrate those conclusions with previous knowledge, and change our minds if we discover an error.

Now if you hold an identity-based view of causality, in which a thing's nature determines its actions, then the choice is not a breach of causality but an instance of it. If one holds a flawed Humean view of causality, I.e., an events-based view, then, of course, free will can't exist because the choice is determined by antecedent events and not by the nature of the thing making the choice.

If A exists, it must be A and not something other than A. The corollary to this is that if A acts, it must act as A and not something other than A. There is the necessity that Hume was looking for but couldn't find given his flawed metaphysics.

Neogaia777 · Sep 27, 2022

Before I go to bed, I would just like to add that, in order for anything, and not just choices, but everything in this entire universe/world/reality/universe, etc, to be truly random, or arbitrary, etc, it cannot ever have any reason or cause at all, etc.

But everything has a reason, or a cause, etc, and is all fully knowable and predictable because of that/this, etc, and this goes all the way; way, way back to, "In the beginning", etc.

Anyway, goodnight.

God Bless!

The happy Objectivist · Sep 27, 2022

durangodawood said:
How do you deal with the objection raised earlier?:

If you are tailing about Bradski's quote, then I'd say that objection is answered by the identity-based view of causality. If in fact, I made choices the first time around, then I made choices. Since we can never go back and do everything over again then I don't see that this is a question that can be answered. And, I don't think we need to conduct this impossible experiment in order to validate free will. Again, it is self-evident through introspection.

sjastro · Sep 27, 2022

Neogaia777 said:
I'm not talking about chances, or odds, but predictability based on knowing absolutely all of the factors down to even every single atom, or even every sub-atomic particle, etc, and by those being based "in time", which is also predictable, etc...

Anyway, I'm going to bed, been up for a while, and maybe I'm just a little irritable right now, etc, I don't know, etc, and if that is my "reason" that "caused" my "reaction/response", that was fully "predictable", etc, then I do 100% sincerly apologize, ok, etc...

You might be happy to know that I am always learning more however, and will never give up on that ever, etc...

I might be back later, or tomorrow maybe, I don't know yet, etc...

Anyway, goodnight all!

God Bless.

Then you missed the point of my post.
The odds are based on randomness behaving like a non random process.
Randomness clearly exists like tossing a coin which produces a binomial distribution for random variables without underlying factors, unlike chaotic systems where underlying factors are defined which makes the system initially predictable but eventually appears to be random.

Good to hear about your cat; cats form part of the family unit but their behaviour can be very unpredictable and random compared to the human members.

Bradskii · Sep 28, 2022

The happy Objectivist said:
Now if you hold an identity-based view of causality, in which a thing's nature determines its actions, then the choice is not a breach of causality but an instance of it. If one holds a flawed Humean view of causality, I.e., an events-based view, then, of course, free will can't exist because the choice is determined by antecedent events and not by the nature of the thing making the choice.

Why are we taking the person as being separate from the environment? Our nature is part of the conditions. And as you say, if it's in a person's nature to make a decision, then that will always be so. It is indeed an example of causality as is everything else.

We shouldn't just consider antecedent events but all relevant criteria. And that includes our nature.

SelfSim · Sep 28, 2022

Bradskii said:
This is abject nonsense. My wife is not going to the gym this morning. She didn't say why but I know as sure as God made little green apples that she has a reason for not going. Whether I know what the reason is or not, it still exists.

Its not until she tells you her reason that her reason becomes part of your updated capacity for knowledge. Prior to that, her reason may or may not exist at all, despite your belief that it does. You have a belief that it does, but until the test results are in and verified, you will not know whether her reason exists or not.

SelfSim · Sep 28, 2022

Bradskii said:
Why are we taking the person as being separate from the environment? Our nature is part of the conditions. And as you say, if it's in a person's nature to make a decision, then that will always be so.

Even a likely outcome is never a sure thing .. unless one believes 'the truth is out there' .. (and the quest to find it, gives the meaning to 'truth-seeking').

Bradskii said:
We shouldn't just consider antecedent events but all relevant criteria. And that includes our nature.

What about the criteria we don't consider relevant? We just toss that away? How do we know for certain that its not relevant?
Lorenz etal originally thought minor differences in starting conditions would not produce different outcomes from their well defined non-linear equations. They were surprised when they did.

Bradskii · Sep 28, 2022

SelfSim said:
Its not until she tells you her reason that her reason becomes part of your updated capacity for knowledge. Prior to that, her reason may or may not exist at all, despite your belief that it does. You have a belief that it does, but until the test results are in and verified, you will not know whether her reason exists or not.

She has a reason or she's making a random decision. My knowledge of that is utterly irrelevant.

Bradskii · Sep 28, 2022

SelfSim said:
What about the criteria we don't consider relevant? We just toss that away? How do we know for certain that its not relevant?

You keep talking as if our knowledge of causes and relevant criteria are somehow pertinent. They aren't. We can't possibly fathom all that is relevant. Which doesn't change the fact that decisions are either random OR based on reasons which are obviously determined by conditions. By the environment. Which will include our nature.

Can we list what those are? Of course not. It's literally impossible. Does that mean that they don't determine our decisions? Obviousy not.

If a non random event occurs then it was caused by something or some things. That's idiomatic. Undeniable. It's not possible to challenge that in any way. If I don't know what the cause was, does that mean there wasn't one? Very obviously not. My lack of knowledge of the causes is irrelevant to the fact that they exist.

renniks · Sep 28, 2022

Bradskii said:
Then give me a decision you made for no reason.

Whoosh!
There's a lot of reasons pro and con for most every decision.
The reasons don't cause the decision.

renniks · Sep 28, 2022

Bradskii said:
And what do you base your choice on?

What my brain, heart, and body decide to do.

The happy Objectivist · Sep 28, 2022

Bradskii said:
Why are we taking the person as being separate from the environment? Our nature is part of the conditions. And as you say, if it's in a person's nature to make a decision, then that will always be so. It is indeed an example of causality as is everything else.

We shouldn't just consider antecedent events but all relevant criteria. And that includes our nature.

I'm not. We don't make choices in a vacuum and the environment definitely is a part of every choice. What I'm saying is that I don't think free will is defined as making choices randomly or arbitrarily. I think free will is the fundamental choice to think or not, to recognize reality or evade it, to drift through life reacting to the spur of the moment or to focus one's mind and plan and act toward a long
range purpose. Thinking is the essence of living. It's the first thing we have to do. If there were such a thing as a moral commandment, it would be thou shalt think. And, thinking has to be done by choice. You have to care about the truth. You have to study and learn how to think properly. No one is born with the principles of logic dwelling in their brain. We do learn some things automatically, just by perceiving, such as the fact that existence exists, that we are aware of it, and that things are what they are independent of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing or wanting. These things we learn automatically through the senses but higher knowledge such as how to farm, how to fish, how to make clothes, how to start a fire, and how to make an internal combustion engine or a space probe, is all the product of a volitional process called reasoning with logic.

I would say that it is in a person's nature to have to make decisions based on the meeting of his environment and his values, which values he has to discover by a volitional process. I would say that it is causality just like everything else, some entity acting according to its nature. The law of causality, as I understand it, holds that all actions are caused....by some entity, not that all entities have a cause.

If you understand that causality is the identity of action, then the so-called problem of free will in a deterministic universe vanishes. All of our actions, including thinking, are determined not by antecedent events but by our nature. So our actions are determined and at the same time free.

Bradskii · Sep 28, 2022

renniks said:
Whoosh!
There's a lot of reasons pro and con for most every decision.
The reasons don't cause the decision.

I still want you to give me a choice you made for no reason.

Bradskii · Sep 28, 2022

renniks said:
What my brain, heart, and body decide to do.

In a vaccuum? In total isolation from everything? Obviously not.

Your decision is the output. Tell me what you think comprises the totality of the input.

Bradskii · Sep 28, 2022

The happy Objectivist said:
If you understand that causality is the identity of action, then the so-called problem of free will in a deterministic universe vanishes. All of our actions, including thinking, are determined not by antecedent events but by our nature. So our actions are determined and at the same time free.

Our nature is part of the 'antecedent'. We are part of the environment. We have been formed by the environment. That's the purpose of this thread - we cannot extract ourselves from the environment and treat ourselves as being separate from it. If you do follow that line of reasoning you get to what some describe as a soul. Something that operates outside of, not just us, but of the environment itself. Something that can observe from a third party perspective what is going on and what we should do.

There's no such thing.

SelfSim · Sep 28, 2022

Bradskii said:
In a vaccuum? In total isolation from everything?

No .. but the choice can still be made on the spur of the moment, for no reason and in isolation from other local minds .. and thereby, not articulated.
(Which means that a reason doesn't exist beyond only the decider's perceptions of what 'existence' means to only them).

Bradskii said:
Your decision is the output. Tell me what you think comprises the totality of the input.

Articulated inputs falsify: 'no reason'.
Such a tactic is otherwise referred to as leading the witness, in spite of it being known to the decider that there was 'no reason'.

Bradskii · Sep 28, 2022

SelfSim said:
No .. but the choice can still be made on the spur of the moment, for no reason and in isolation from other local minds .. and thereby, not articulated.
(Which means that a reason doesn't exist beyond only the decider's perceptions of what 'existence' means to only them).

They're either making it for no reason (as you said) OR input from any or all sources are being used. And note that I didn't repeat 'in isolation' because we are part of the environment and cannot be separated from it. You cannot make a decision with zero input. It can be random but it cannot be zero.

Free Will

Old Soul

Old Soul

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

A non "-ist"

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Similar threads