Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

A dual kind of argument that assumes physical determinism and argues to a logical position of semi-decidability is given in my version of this argumentation about self-referencing logic in the above link.

First up, kudos on presenting an argument for free will, as opposed to what we normally get. But firstly...this, from the link:

'MacKay's argument might appear to assume deterministic predictions and conclude free will for the agent. Instead it argues from free will by allowing the agent, who is assumed free to choose, to respond to the predictions. It is up to the agent to believe a prediction or not, and such an act of free will determines the truth-value of the prediction. The physical outcome depends on the choice of the agent.'

It is not up to the agent to believe anything. He cannot make a conscious decision to believe something. All he can do is decide whether to accept the evidence for a given proposal or not and then belief, or disbelief, will follow automatically. Let's say that someone says that your wife is being unfaithful because they saw her having coffee with a male work colleague. You probably wouldn't accept that as evidence so therefore wouldn't believe the claim. But if you were shown a video of her in flagrante delicto then you probably would accept that evidence and therefore believe the claim. But you can't accept the evidence and not believe or reject the evidence and believe.

In any case, making a choice (in this case choosing to believe something) is not an example of free will. You make choices whether free will exists or not. The deciding factor is whether the choice was determined by antecedent conditions or not . Not the act of choosing.

The second point is that predicting a choice that someone will make is one of the antecedent conditions that determines your choice. Whether you believe it or not (and you have no choice in believing it or not - it either convinces you or it doesn't) it will determine your decision.

And this from the 'Closure':

'MacKay recognized that we think and behave as though we are free; and he argued that physical determinism does not deny this basic fact of our personal experience.'

I completely agree with that. But...

'The kind of physical determinism that MacKay's argument allows is limited to what can be predicted about A without interacting with A.'

Prediction is not relevant to determinism.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You use a dog?
Can a dog decide to go lounge by a pool, instead of fetch the paper, knowing that if he does, he will likely not get fed?
How can you use a dog as an example in a discussion on free will?

I'm guessing you commented on that before continuing further. I used the will of the dog to compare to the will of human, so that one might see that the differences --degree of intelligence, sentience, abstract thought, suppression of instinct, and other things-- are all still causal, no matter the degree of willingness, cheerfulness, obligation, compulsion and the other things you seem to think defeat the principle of causation concerning the will and choices.

Mark Quayle said:
The question here isn't what option each one does, nor what he should do, even whether what he does is under obligation or compulsion, but WHY they choose whatever they finally choose. What the OP suggests fits Scripture perfectly (other than failing to give credit to God as the first cause of all long (or short) chains of causation).

So, does that mean you would tell your wife and children, you preferred to be on the battle field than be with them?

How in the world do you come up with that from what I said? --and, WHY? Are you mocking a larger point, in a diversion from directly answering my comments?

Mark Quayle said:
It is said that only philosophers and theologians have a problem defining free will. There is a truth to that, but it doesn't mean that anyone else's definition is valid. It only means they don't really try for accuracy, but instead assume that their point-of-view is valid, because it is how things seem to them.

Does that mean you agree that free will exists?

I assume you are referring to the above quote. No, It doesn't mean that I agree that free will exists. Particularly if that free will is what the posts in this thread usually mean by it. It is only a humorous note on the fact that a common agreement should be reached before the arguing makes any sense. Here we are, more than 3,000 posts, and you're still conflating the one with the other.

How can I agree with the OP, when free will is not made obsolete, because there are reasons, involved in decision making?

I don't think I mentioned that you should agree with the OP, but, oh well. If free will only means that there are "reasons involved in decision making", then I'm thinking the OP could agree with that, since he's been claiming there are reasons involved in decision making for many posts, now. (In fact, in a way, that is the very thesis of the OP.) You, rather obviously, though, think that terminology implies things he does not.

Are you not asking that I take a philosophical worldview, and accept it simply because persons want to believe it?

Hardly. I am asking that you accept the simple logic that all things are caused, except first cause, and thus that the will and choices of creatures are caused.

 

[Bradskii]

Good point.

Poking around Google looking at Mackay I found this which might be of interest:

On the modal indeterminacy of a free choice

The relationship between determinism and free will is still vigorously debated. However, despite the activity one contribution from around 70 years ago has been largely ignored. In the 1950's Donald M. Mackay presented a position he called

www.academia.edu

However, it requires a decent understanding of modal logic, which I don't have.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Poking around Google looking at Mackay I found this which might be of interest:

On the modal indeterminacy of a free choice

The relationship between determinism and free will is still vigorously debated. However, despite the activity one contribution from around 70 years ago has been largely ignored. In the 1950's Donald M. Mackay presented a position he called

www.academia.edu

However, it requires a decent understanding of modal logic, which I don't have.

Modal logic, by those who consider it valid, (and whether they realize it or not), operates on the mistaken notion that 'IS' can be used to find 'ought', but worse, that speculation can be used to prove indeterminacy. The modalist assumes it valid, and can't be shaken from his position because, after all, to him it is valid.

This, like the worst of several disciplines, considers the human perspective in and of itself valid.

--At least, that is the way I understand it.


In Christian circles, the notion implies that God is not after all Omniscient, and that there are principles or fact that exist apart from him or his intentions --that is, that God is not, then, after all, first cause. I can't abide such a notion. That is a mere superhuman.

The Christian modalist ("middle knowledge") will disagree with that assessment, claiming that God 'invented' (to use my word) an indeterminate system, (and thus they run afoul of simple logic.)

But this is hardly, in my opinion, any different from the majority of Christians nowadays, who consider 'libertarian' (uncaused) free will a valid concept. In fact, if anything, the modalist has at least claimed something that works for them, since, to them, God is not quite the same omnipotent God that the Christian Freewiller generally claims to believe in.

 

[Jo555]

Ééé

I was going to say it's simpler than that. But you are right in some circumstances. Obviously there's no conscience involved in me having tea as opposed to coffee or deciding not to go to the beach because it's raining. But there may well be times when your conscience plays a part in your decisions.

To use an example that's already been raised, you might not want to put yourself in harms way and get shot at in a war situation. So you'd want to avoid that. But others are going to war in effect to protect you and your family. So...guilty conscience? Quite possibly. So you might prefer to 'do your duty' as opposed to wanting not getting shot at.

You guys been busy without me. I agree with you Bradskii. If freewill is defined as making a choice without prior influencing factors, then freewill doesn't exist.

If one defines freewill as the capacity to make a choice regardless of prior influences, then i do believe in certain circumstances, freewill exists.

Corey, from what I know of scripture, one main reason God brought in the law was to show us, at heart where it counts, we are not free to choose because we are imprisoned to the carnal nature. The carnal nature is the influence we are imprisoned to. Determinism.

I see no contradiction to scripture in regards to what Bradskii is saying.

After conversion, we are liberated from the carnal nature, and are called not to heed its call, but to continue after Christ where his Spirit guides by his love. In this case i see a choice, but it is still influenced by wanting to obey God.

Now here is where i see the difference between morality and "Spirituality based on God's Spirit".

Morality is based on the knowledge of good and evil - guilty conscience, obligation out of shame - to use some influencers that can be seen in Bradskii's war example.

Believers are not to be led by morality, but God's Spirit that leads us by his love. For an atheist this "God's love" may be seen as a faculty of the conscience. For a Christian we believe it is a Spiritual force that resides in the human spirit of every believer, or their heart if you will, but it is still an influencer.

It helps one to understand why the commands. In submitting to God, not out of a guilty conscience and fear of punishment (legalism) but out of love, we allow his Spirit to take the driver's seat in our lives.

He already proved we would not choose well if we are left to our own devises. Yet, now we can choose to obey God out of love and faith in Him, but his love and faith are still the influencer, therefore, if freewill is defined as a choice without ANY influencers, then in that box, there is no freewill.

 

[Jo555]

Now someone tell me where the room called, "Theology and Philosophy for Dummies" is because i needed a long nap after thinking i may do better amongst my fellow Christians regarding theology today, only to find myself with a splitting headache.

Someone even told me my food stinks the other day. LOL.

Thanks God i have a sense of humor, and ...

I know better.

Yes. That's right. I said it. I know better. They have no taste.

Works for me.

I bid you adieu for now.

And thanks for not insulting my food. Believe you can call it an acquired taste. I'm really starting to like it here, even if i keep getting lost.

 

[Bradskii]

If freewill is defined as making a choice without prior influencing factors, then freewill doesn't exist.

If one defines freewill as the capacity to make a choice regardless of prior influences, then i do believe in certain circumstances, freewill exists.

I'm having difficulty in differentiating between those two sentences. The first 'without prior influences' effectively means the same as the second 'regardless of prior influences'.

The only difference I see is between 'making a choice' and 'the capacity to make a choice'. But making a choice is relevant to both free will and no free will situations. 'The capacity to make a choice' simply infers an ability to do so. Which we assume whether free will exists or not. You could add it to the first sentence and it doesn't change the meaning.

 

[Jo555]

I'm having difficulty in differentiating between those two sentences. The first 'without prior influences' effectively means the same as the second 'regardless of prior influences'.

The only difference I see is between 'making a choice' and 'the capacity to make a choice'. But making a choice is relevant to both free will and no free will situations. 'The capacity to make a choice' simply infers an ability to do so. Which we assume whether free will exists or not. You could add it to the first sentence and it doesn't change the meaning.

I think you are right Bradskii, but I'm not sure as my head is about to explode. Think it is a case of poor choice of words, but I'll have to get back with you on that.

 

[partinobodycular]

I'm having difficulty in differentiating between those two sentences. The first 'without prior influences' effectively means the same as the second 'regardless of prior influences'.

The only difference I see is between 'making a choice' and 'the capacity to make a choice'. But making a choice is relevant to both free will and no free will situations. 'The capacity to make a choice' simply infers an ability to do so. Which we assume whether free will exists or not. You could add it to the first sentence and it doesn't change the meaning.

That's because your definition of free will renders the term meaningless. It's like saying that water chooses to flow downhill. According to your definition, neither you nor the water have any choice in the matter.

 

[Bradskii]

That's because your definition of free will renders the term meaningless. It's like saying that water chooses to flow downhill. According to your definition, neither you nor the water have any choice in the matter.

It's the standard definition of free will. It was set out in the OP, nine months, 150+ pages and 3,000+ posts ago. If you can't refute it, it's a little late in the day to start arguing to change it. Notwithstanding that compatibilists would argue with you that you have no choice. It's just that no-one has managed to attempt to present a compatibilist position.

And you've been arguing that we have a choice. But haven't presented anything that backs it up.

 

[partinobodycular]

It's the standard definition of free will...

Nowhere in the OP did you cite a source for this 'standard' definition. But please cite a definition that contains the following:

...and we could rerun the last hour exactly as it happened and make a different decision,

That wouldn't constitute a free will decision, it'd constitute a random one. Making the same decision demonstrates nothing as far as the argument for free will is concerned, in either case the outcome would be the same. What makes you think that free will is so haphazard as to be indistinguishable from mere chance. The will entails the existence of intent, and if the circumstances are the same, then the intent should be the same as well.

And you've been arguing that we have a choice. But haven't presented anything that backs it up.

And as of now you haven't presented any evidence that we don't. The argument that decisions are influenced by past events doesn't refute the existence of free will, in fact the outcome of those past events can only be explained by the presence of a will... try removing it and see what happens.

 

[Jo555]

I'm having difficulty in differentiating between those two sentences. The first 'without prior influences' effectively means the same as the second 'regardless of prior influences'.

The only difference I see is between 'making a choice' and 'the capacity to make a choice'. But making a choice is relevant to both free will and no free will situations. 'The capacity to make a choice' simply infers an ability to do so. Which we assume whether free will exists or not. You could add it to the first sentence and it doesn't change the meaning.

So it was a poor choice of words. To differentiate between the two, instead of "regardless", i should have said, if one defines freewill as the capacity to choose even while "under the influence", then freewill does exist.

Although don't be surprised if you are pulled over and given a ticket for driving under the influence by the "no freewill" police.

By Bradskii's definition of freewill, it, imo, does not exist.

 

[Bradskii]

...in fact the outcome of those past events can only be explained by the presence of a will... try removing it and see what happens.

You will still decide what to choose. Except it won't be based on anything. It will be dualism. Rather than deny what is being presented, why not take the opportunity to present an alternative?

No-one has yet. Although @DennisF had a shot at it. He's the exception. You are the rule.

 

[Bradskii]

By Bradskii's definition of freewill, it, imo, does not exist.

It's not mine. I just agree with it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

See here.
Can a person have a negative and positive influence, and can the person choose between those, or ignore both and choose a path of their own making?

Do you mean, "Can a person be influenced in both positive and negative ways, or do you mean, "Can a person influence other persons (or things) in both positive and negative ways?", or the more absurd, "Can a person possess both positive and negatives influences within and of themselves?"

What does "...choose a path of their own making" mean? How is that not begging the question? At best it only asserts that there is such a thing.

A person may choose to ignore influences, but that doesn't mean (s)he is not influenced by them.

--But I'll take a look at what is linked and see if there is something there than makes a difference so that I can understand your assumptions here.

Later: Nope. Your post here still doesn't add up, to me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ééé

You guys been busy without me. I agree with you Bradskii. If freewill is defined as making a choice without prior influencing factors, then freewill doesn't exist.

If one defines freewill as the capacity to make a choice regardless of prior influences, then i do believe in certain circumstances, freewill exists.

Corey, from what I know of scripture, one main reason God brought in the law was to show us, at heart where it counts, we are not free to choose because we are imprisoned to the carnal nature. The carnal nature is the influence we are imprisoned to. Determinism.

I see no contradiction to scripture in regards to what Bradskii is saying.

After conversion, we are liberated from the carnal nature, and are called not to heed its call, but to continue after Christ where his Spirit guides by his love. In this case i see a choice, but it is still influenced by wanting to obey God.

Now here is where i see the difference between morality and "Spirituality based on God's Spirit".

Morality is based on the knowledge of good and evil - guilty conscience, obligation out of shame - to use some influencers that can be seen in Bradskii's war example.

Believers are not to be led by morality, but God's Spirit that leads us by his love. For an atheist this "God's love" may be seen as a faculty of the conscience. For a Christian we believe it is a Spiritual force that resides in the human spirit of every believer, or their heart if you will, but it is still an influencer.

It helps one to understand why the commands. In submitting to God, not out of a guilty conscience and fear of punishment (legalism) but out of love, we allow his Spirit to take the driver's seat in our lives.

He already proved we would not choose well if we are left to our own devises. Yet, now we can choose to obey God out of love and faith in Him, but his love and faith are still the influencer, therefore, if freewill is defined as a choice without ANY influencers, then in that box, there is no freewill.

Nicely put. Though I would say a few things differently, they are not significant, but you did leave out the fact that among the influences of those 'imprisoned' by the carnal nature, that even their 'good' decisions are still done from a carnal nature, and, thus done for the wrong reasons, and not, therefore, 'good' in and of themselves. Both the Bible and life provide many examples of obeying God, where it is not submission, but mere compliance. But, regardless, that too falls under the truth of causation.

From what I can see, there are really two questions we have been dealing with here. One set of people, from both sides, are in agreement as to what 'free will' means, and only mean to argue the question of absolute causation. The other set of people are ambivalent as to the terminology, and argue whether causation implies determinism. To some of the latter, the question of whether influences are causes is pertinent.

 

[Jo555]

Nicely put. Though I would say a few things differently, they are not significant, but you did leave out the fact that among the influences of those 'imprisoned' by the carnal nature, that even their 'good' decisions are still done from a carnal nature, and, thus done for the wrong reasons, and not, therefore, 'good' in and of themselves. Both the Bible and life provide many examples of obeying God, where it is not submission, but mere compliance. But, regardless, that too falls under the truth of causation.

Agreed. There are two faculties being used, morality as opposed to life in the Spirit. Morality is shaped by the knowledge of good and evil and partaking of it, and it is forbidden fruit.

 

[Jo555]

For my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, and i realize you may know this already.

The fact that choices do not exist without influence does not undermine the fact that we can still choose. Those choices are just based on what is influencing our lives.

It actually confirms many things in scripture like how apart from God we can do nothing (nothing good that is, and good being defined as God's Spirit/ Heart); how when we are liberated from the yoke of the law with its inability to change the heart, we are now yoked with Christ and empowered by his Spirit; how their are two main forces influencing our lives, good and evil, light and darkness.

Romans 3:
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

It does not undermine God being just. Later on Paul goes into predestination and how God knows how to balance the scales, like bearing with much patients the unbeliever, and then we are given his corporate plan, so that all will see his light / glory and be drawn to Him.

When i started diving into this topic years ago it just emphasized for me with a greater understanding that, as He has said ...

"Apart from me, ye can do nothing."

Nothing good that is. And once again, good being defined as his Heart / Spirit.

This position of no freewill actually strengthens scripture and our inability to operate independently of influences.

.John 15:5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

God's creation, all of it, are just branches that are either found in Him, and influenced by Him, or apart from Him influenced by the kingdom of darkness.

So we can also say independence is just an illusion.

 

[Jo555]

Hey, I've graduated to "well known

It's not mine. I just agree with it.

I hear you Bradskii. I was just being lazy about looking up how it has been defined. My google mini is already working in overdrive with all the words I've asked it to define for me, and I'm already driving under the influence.

I took a shortcut. Now that i have been pulled over and given a citation, am i free to go?

Did I say free?

Who will free me from this cycle?

 

[Chesterton]

This, like the worst of several disciplines, considers the human perspective in and of itself valid.

I'd be very interested to hear the non-human perspective. I've owned many dogs throughout my life, and not once has any of them expressed an opinion of the topic.

--At least, that is the way I understand it.

In Christian circles, the notion implies that God is not after all Omniscient, and that there are principles or fact that exist apart from him or his intentions --that is, that God is not, then, after all, first cause. I can't abide such a notion. That is a mere superhuman.

The Christian modalist ("middle knowledge") will disagree with that assessment, claiming that God 'invented' (to use my word) an indeterminate system, (and thus they run afoul of simple logic.)

But this is hardly, in my opinion, any different from the majority of Christians nowadays, who consider 'libertarian' (uncaused) free will a valid concept. In fact, if anything, the modalist has at least claimed something that works for them, since, to them, God is not quite the same omnipotent God that the Christian Freewiller generally claims to believe in.

Isn't it you who is degrading the omnipotence of God? Why do you deny God the ability to create beings with free will? Do you believe we are created "in His image"?