"Free Will" vs "Free Choice" vs "Predestination"

[Chany]

I never disagreed about your definition of will. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you believe we have our own will and are in control of that will. I am saying we have a will, but that the will is determined by forces outside of our control and is therefore not free, at least in the sense that matters. I used "control" because if humans are determined by nature, whatever created us and the causes that shaped us is responsible for our actions.

Also, keep in mind, we are in a philosophy sub-forum. Scripture doesn't really matter here besides basic questions it can raise. It doesn't count for proof of an argument like in theology. In fact, the problem of free will is one of the main reasons I'm a deist and not a Christian.

 

[oi_antz]

Ok, so in your definition it is the "determination to make a decision".

No, I said it is the determination to stick with a decision. Also consider the meaning of the word in various contexts "I will..", "will you..?", "I expect he will..", "If I will.." .. all these contexts demonstrate the control of action, or one self's decision.

Now, this definition seems to simply shift the crucial issue to the question: "What is required for an action to be a decision?"

I think because you misread me, you have the cart before the horse. Of course, if this is the way you see it, I would be interested to hear your explanation of why.

´These are - what? - almost 20 definitions. Which one do you want to work from, for purposes of this thread?

I expect they are all valid definitions, otherwise they wouldn't be published as such. I think the best approach is to use the most relevant to the topic, as you can see I chose #4 yesterday.

I think I have explained this already. Which part would you like me to expand on?

You said that the idea that our will can contradict God's will is a fallacy. Obviously your explanation of why did not suffice for me to understand. However in this reply you have said that your concept of God is not scriptural, which does explain better for me. Your concept of God seems to be unrealistic, so I will just accept that your statement is unrealistic. That is sufficient for me.

If you insist that a word should be used for entities with completely different abilities, faculties, conditions etc., it is fallacious to assume that the word points to the same concepts.

E.g. if I insisted that non-human animals or rocks have a "will" it would be obvious that "will" in this case can´t mean what it means when we ascribe it to humans.

Why not? What do you think about a human makes it more wilful than an animal, say a bird that decides today it will begin building a nest?

The concept "will" has been developed as applying to humans and their particular conditions of existence. You can´t expect to carry it elsewhere and have it remaining the same concept.
With humans, for example, we often have the case that they exert their will but the result isn´t turning out to be what they intended. With God, this option doesn´t exist: whatever the result - it must be God´s will.

Bsed on what? Your logic?

Well, just because the bible states that it wasn´t God´s will doesn´t render this a logically possible statement.
I still need to be explained how something that´s necessarily unfolding according to how God had set up things (and which he knew would be the inevitable consequence of the way he intentionally had set up things) can even be considered to be against his will. God, as an allegedly eternal being and the creator of everything, can´t make spontaneous decisions. He had made all his decisions already when he created the universe.

He appears to make decisions as time unfolds. This doesn't negate the possibility that He expected to before time actuated.

Tbh, I don´t care whether it is scriptural. Rather, I am interested in what is logically possible and what is not.

I am interested whether it is scriptural or not, because it defines the difference between fact and fiction.

Judas betraying Jesus was a necessary part of God´s salvation plan. As such, it doesn´t even make sense to say it was against God´s will.

How do you know that salvation could not have been achieved without crucifixion? Jesus forgave sin, healed the sick and raised the dead before He was crucified.

At the point when God made his decision (your definition of "will") to create the way he did it was what he decided would happen. Saying that at the point in time it took place it wasn´t his will is directly contradicting your definition (because God didn´t decide anything at that point. He exerted his will at the point of creation.)

He also exerts His will in our daily lives.

Undisputedly. Which, however, doesn´t mean it wasn´t God´s.

Doesn't mean that it was either, only that He allowed it, presumably because of a perceived benefit. Ths is why I would like to see evidence that it was His will.

Yes, you have a point there: "responsibility" (just like "will") is another concept that can not simpy be transposed to an omnimax entity.
So when I said "God is responsible", I meant that God intentionally set created a mechanism that he knew would inevitably result in whatever happens. Thus, declaring something to be against God´s will doesn´t make any sense whatsoever. He willed the universe and everything into existence. If it hadn´t been his will he would have done it differently.
Or, IOW postulating that we are responsible to God makes as little sense as postulating God is responsible to us.

Are you trying to confuse me? I accept that He willed creation, He willed the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden, He willed for the human to be warned of it, but there is no indication that He willed for them to eat of it. It happened, but apparently not of God's desire. How did He respond? Or are you trying to say that because He has perfect foresight, that He doesn't need to respond? I have to say, that doesn't make sense. It would make sense if He was making all our decisions for us, but there is no indication of that being the case. There is a lot of evidence that He wants us to make good decisions.

there are so many different variables to what affects our will that sometimes our will is not 'free', it simply becomes the will of what is master over it.

This is exactly what I used to think free will meant, until I found out that it is supposed to mean free choice. That might help others understand better my understanding of "will", which may or may not need refining.

humans are controlled by knowledge ( or lack thereof ) and belief systems, and their unique perspective of the things they encounter. why a man picks what he picks... is something unique to each instance of this occurring and what is growing in his garden that is his soul.

Do you think anyone really does have the freedom to choose? It is difficult to prove because we only ever make one choice and the moment that happens, the consequence changes the variables that then impacts the next decision. So it is all theoretical really, but I would like to know your opinion.

most humans are so caught up in education and information that they don't ever think to birth new understandings, new facets of reality.

This is a bit confusing. How can an understanding be formed if not from education or information?

 

[Ken-1122]

. I am saying we have a will, but that the will is determined by forces outside of our control and is therefore not free,

I would disagree with this claim. I believe we have a will and we must take forces outside our control into consideration if we choose to act upon that will. We do have free will, but it is limited to what is practical.

Ken

 

[Chany]

I would disagree with this claim. I believe we have a will and we must take forces outside our control into consideration if we choose to act upon that will. We do have free will, but it is limited to what is practical.

Ken

What part of you is actually free and not determined by prior causes? I am also not saying that we don't go through meaningful deliberation about subjects, just that what we ultimately "choose" to do is determined by other factors outside of our control.

 

[quatona]

No, I said it is the determination to stick with a decision.

Ok, the determination to stick with a decision.
I´m not sure that this adds something meaningful or important to my short version, and I am not sure how it takes away from the validity of my response, but ok.

Also consider the meaning of the word in various contexts "I will..", "will you..?", "I expect he will..", "If I will.." .. all these contexts demonstrate the control of action, or one self's decision.

No, it doesn´t. It only does if you presuppose it does. I don´t experience my will being under my control.

I think because you misread me, you have the cart before the horse. Of course, if this is the way you see it, I would be interested to hear your explanation of why.

Well, you could simply help me understand you by answering my question: What is the difference between a mere action and a "decision that someone is determined to stick to"?

I expect they are all valid definitions, otherwise they wouldn't be published as such.

I didn´t question their validity, I pointed out that they differ from each other, and I asked you which one you want this discussion to be based upon (in response to your question "Do you agree (with me) what will is?")

I think the best approach is to use the most relevant to the topic, as you can see I chose #4 yesterday.

Thank you!
#4 is: Deliberate intention or wish.
My response in short: If your omnipotent, omnisiscient creator entity knowingly sets up things in a way that are against his deliberate intention or wish the terms "wish" and "intention" cease to have any meaning, or - alternatively - you are picturing God as suffering from cognitive dissonance.

You said that the idea that our will can contradict God's will is a fallacy. Obviously your explanation of why did not suffice for me to understand.

Well, I gave additional explanation in the mean time. I don´t expect you to accept them as convincing, but I´d appreciate it if you´d at least consider them.

However in this reply you have said that your concept of God is not scriptural, which does explain better for me.

There are different interpretations of scripture.
I have given you the alleged traits of God that I base my argument upon:
omnisicent, omnipotent, creator of everything, eternal.
If your god concept doesn´t contain one or several of these traits, my argument doesn´t address your god concept.

Your concept of God seems to be unrealistic, so I will just accept that your statement is unrealistic. That is sufficient for me.

"Not matching your interpretation of the bible" doesn´t equal "unrealistic".

If, however, your god concept includes those traits I have mentioned, and some wording of the bible can be interpreted to mean that God doesn´t have those traits, there are two options: Either God doesn´t have those traits, or your bible interpretation is inaccurate.

Why not? What do you think about a human makes it more wilful than an animal, say a bird that decides today it will begin building a nest?

Simply because we I don´t know that a bird makes decisions in the way we do (see my question above), to begin with.

Bsed on what? Your logic?

Yes, according to the logic I have presented. Logic isn´t personalized. Either something is logical or it isn´t. If you feel my logic is faulty, feel free to point out the fallacies. Merely calling it "your logic" doesn´t cut it.

He appears to make decisions as time unfolds. This doesn't negate the possibility that He expected to before time actuated.

So are you saying that God made decisions (well knowing what the outcome would be) but didn´t stick to them once they turned out as expected?

I am interested whether it is scriptural or not, because it defines the difference between fact and fiction.

If you work from the premise that (your interpretation of) scripture determines the difference between fact and fiction, I don´t share your premise.

How do you know that salvation could not have been achieved without crucifixion?

That´s what I keep being told by believers (I´m sure you are familiar with the mainstream Christian doctrine of "the wages of sin are death, so God couldn´t forgive without a blood sacrifice"). Maybe it´s time you have a word with those guys.
If, however, you are postulating that the entire crucification gag was pointless, and that God could have simply said "You guys are forgiven" and be done with it, you and I couldn´t agree more.

He also exerts His will in our daily lives.

Mind addressing the point instead of evading it by saying "also"?

But I´ll address your evading remark, nonetheless: How exactly does he do that? And how do you tell when that which we (as you concede, "mechanistically") will is an exertion of God´s will or the opposite? So when God "allows" something to happen (which I guess means he doesn´t spontaneously intervene to prevent it from happening, thus "exerting his will in our lives" - can we conclude that it´s an instance of him "sticking to his decision" (the very decision he had made when creating things so that this would happen)?

Doesn't mean that it was either, only that He allowed it, presumably because of a perceived benefit. Ths is why I would like to see evidence that it was His will.

Well, if it´s true that God set up things fully knowing the results, if it´s also true that when seeing the results were as he had planned, if it´s also true that he "stuck to his decision" by not intervening, if it´s also true that he perceived a benefit from "sticking to his decision" (which he had made when knowingly setting up things in the way the came to pass) I have no idea what "It was against his will" could possibly mean.

Are you trying to confuse me? I accept that He willed creation, He willed the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden, He willed for the human to be warned of it, but there is no indication that He willed for them to eat of it. It happened, but apparently not of God's desire.

Well, the indication that he willed (was "determined to stuck to his decision", in the definition you have provided) is that he knowingly set up things so that A&E would do it and didn´t intervene when they did.
He made the decision when he knowingly created things so that they´d turn out this way, and he "stuck with" this decision when things came to pass. So all your criteria are met.

How did He respond?

He inflicted harm on them.

Or are you trying to say that because He has perfect foresight, that He doesn't need to respond?

Well, that´s not exactly my argument - but then again, now that you mention it...it´s more like "If he didn´t will this to happen he could have easily decided to set up things in a way that it wouldn´t happen, in the first place, and if he didn´t want to "stick to his decision" there was plenty of time to intervene before it happened, in order to prevent it from happening. Saying later: "Ooops, sorry, this is not what I intended (willed) to be the result" is an excuse available to humans but not to an omniscient omnipotent creator of everything.

 

[quatona]

What part of you is actually free and not determined by prior causes? I am also not saying that we don't go through meaningful deliberation about subjects, just that what we ultimately "choose" to do is determined by other factors outside of our control.

Another question would be: Are those deliberations that we unquestionably experience ourselves going through "chosen"?

 

[oi_antz]

Cross-posted, sorry about that.

I never disagreed about your definition of will. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you believe we have our own will and are in control of that will. I am saying we have a will, but that the will is determined by forces outside of our control and is therefore not free, at least in the sense that matters. I used "control" because if humans are determined by nature, whatever created us and the causes that shaped us is responsible for our actions.

If you consider God to be nature, which I don't. I consider nature to be a product of God, and His control of it is not entire, though it is supreme.

Also, keep in mind, we are in a philosophy sub-forum. Scripture doesn't really matter here besides basic questions it can raise. It doesn't count for proof of an argument like in theology. In fact, the problem of free will is one of the main reasons I'm a deist and not a Christian.

No, but I want to be sure we are discussing the same person. Anyone can call anything God, but that doesn't mean we are discussing the same person. Scripture gives us that consistency.

@quatona, I will respond later, thanks.

 

[Ken-1122]

What part of you is actually free and not determined by prior causes?

My mind and how I choose to use it.

I am also not saying that we don't go through meaningful deliberation about subjects, just that what we ultimately "choose" to do is determined by other factors outside of our control.

I don't think our choices are determined just influenced. Example; a few minutes ago I decided to go outside to get a newspaper that was left on my front lawn. It was raining outside so I had the option of putting on my rain gear so I don't get wet or I could quickly run across the front lawn to get the paper without my rain gear and the amount of wetness I recieved will be less than the inconvience of having to retrieve my rain gear and putting it away after I am done using it. I chose to run in the rain even though I got a little wet. This was just 1 of the many choices I had concerning this issue; I could have walked in the rain getting very wet, I could have left the paper on the lawn and get it after it quit raining, I could have tried to get someone else to get it by paying them, and the list goes on; but I chose to get it myself and get a little wet. The rain influenced my decision, but it didn't determine it.

Ken

 

[Chany]

Cross-posted, sorry about that.

If you consider God to be nature, which I don't. I consider nature to be a product of God, and His control of it is not entire, though it is supreme.

No, but I want to be sure we are discussing the same person. Anyone can call anything God, but that doesn't mean we are discussing the same person. Scripture gives us that consistency.

@quatona, I will respond later, thanks.

Sorry about the wording, when I said nature, I meant it more along the lines of "the essence or reality of", not " the physical concept".

 

[oi_antz]

Ok, the determination to stick with a decision.
I´m not sure that this adds something meaningful or important to my short version, and I am not sure how it takes away from the validity of my response, but ok.
No, it doesn´t. It only does if you presuppose it does. I don´t experience my will being under my control.

Well, you could simply help me understand you by answering my question: What is the difference between a mere action and a "decision that someone is determined to stick to"?

I didn´t question their validity, I pointed out that they differ from each other, and I asked you which one you want this discussion to be based upon (in response to your question "Do you agree (with me) what will is?")
Thank you!
#4 is: Deliberate intention or wish.
My response in short: If your omnipotent, omnisiscient creator entity knowingly sets up things in a way that are against his deliberate intention or wish the terms "wish" and "intention" cease to have any meaning, or - alternatively - you are picturing God as suffering from cognitive dissonance.

Well, I gave additional explanation in the mean time. I don´t expect you to accept them as convincing, but I´d appreciate it if you´d at least consider them.
There are different interpretations of scripture.
I have given you the alleged traits of God that I base my argument upon:
omnisicent, omnipotent, creator of everything, eternal.
If your god concept doesn´t contain one or several of these traits, my argument doesn´t address your god concept.
"Not matching your interpretation of the bible" doesn´t equal "unrealistic".

If, however, your god concept includes those traits I have mentioned, and some wording of the bible can be interpreted to mean that God doesn´t have those traits, there are two options: Either God doesn´t have those traits, or your bible interpretation is inaccurate.

Simply because we I don´t know that a bird makes decisions in the way we do (see my question above), to begin with.

Yes, according to the logic I have presented. Logic isn´t personalized. Either something is logical or it isn´t. If you feel my logic is faulty, feel free to point out the fallacies. Merely calling it "your logic" doesn´t cut it.

So are you saying that God made decisions (well knowing what the outcome would be) but didn´t stick to them once they turned out as expected?
If you work from the premise that (your interpretation of) scripture determines the difference between fact and fiction, I don´t share your premise.

That´s what I keep being told by believers (I´m sure you are familiar with the mainstream Christian doctrine of "the wages of sin are death, so God couldn´t forgive without a blood sacrifice"). Maybe it´s time you have a word with those guys.
If, however, you are postulating that the entire crucification gag was pointless, and that God could have simply said "You guys are forgiven" and be done with it, you and I couldn´t agree more.


Mind addressing the point instead of evading it by saying "also"?

But I´ll address your evading remark, nonetheless: How exactly does he do that? And how do you tell when that which we (as you concede, "mechanistically") will is an exertion of God´s will or the opposite? So when God "allows" something to happen (which I guess means he doesn´t spontaneously intervene to prevent it from happening, thus "exerting his will in our lives" - can we conclude that it´s an instance of him "sticking to his decision" (the very decision he had made when creating things so that this would happen)?

Well, if it´s true that God set up things fully knowing the results, if it´s also true that when seeing the results were as he had planned, if it´s also true that he "stuck to his decision" by not intervening, if it´s also true that he perceived a benefit from "sticking to his decision" (which he had made when knowingly setting up things in the way the came to pass) I have no idea what "It was against his will" could possibly mean.

Well, the indication that he willed (was "determined to stuck to his decision", in the definition you have provided) is that he knowingly set up things so that A&E would do it and didn´t intervene when they did.
He made the decision when he knowingly created things so that they´d turn out this way, and he "stuck with" this decision when things came to pass. So all your criteria are met.
He inflicted harm on them.
Well, that´s not exactly my argument - but then again, now that you mention it...it´s more like "If he didn´t will this to happen he could have easily decided to set up things in a way that it wouldn´t happen, in the first place, and if he didn´t want to "stick to his decision" there was plenty of time to intervene before it happened, in order to prevent it from happening. Saying later: "Ooops, sorry, this is not what I intended (willed) to be the result" is an excuse available to humans but not to an omniscient omnipotent creator of everything.

Quatona, I would like to address all this, I have very good thoughts regarding it, but I sense you are not being very nice to me. Can you tell me, what is the purpose of your involvement on this thread? What are you hoping to achieve by it? I want to know your motivation, you are coming across like you just want a fist-fight. I would not engage in that here at this time, it will either get ugly or I might get hurt and that is not what I am hoping to achieve in this thread.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Unless you want to be disillusioned with the reality that there is no such thing as free will, I'd stay away from books on neuroscience.

 

[oi_antz]

Unless you want to be disillusioned with the reality that there is no such thing as free will, I'd stay away from books on neuroscience.

I don't know if I'd get time to read books on neuroscience tbh, but I am curious to know the basic concepts, if you are willing. Can I ask up front, how do you suppose one makes a decision? Quatona has mentioned that logic is universal (I think), how do you view that idea?

 

[poolerboy0077]

I don't know if I'd get time to read books on neuroscience tbh, but I am curious to know the basic concepts, if you are willing. Can I ask up front, how do you suppose one makes a decision? Quatona has mentioned that logic is universal (I think), how do you view that idea?

Most people seem to not deny that they're influenced by their genes and their environment but still feel that at every moment there is freedom to choose. This cannot be the case because everything you are consciously aware of in every moment is the result of causes of which you are not aware and of which you exert no conscious control.

Take the following thought experiment. Think of one famous celebrity at this moment that you know. Now, the person who comes to mind feels to have been retrieved by you having pulled that person off the shelf of your memory, but you cannot account for why you chose that celebrity over any other that you know of. Before I posed the question it's likely you weren't thinking of anybody, certainly not any celebrity, yet by my mere mention of it somebody emerges into conscious awareness. As a matter of neurophysiology that was manufactured by the brain at the end of a series of causes of which you are the mere witness.

As for logic, logic is in a general sense valid reasoning, and reasoning validly and soundly is going to be possible with or without free will. Consider the fact that computers are able to compute despite a clear understanding of their lack of volition. Clearly we are more complex than such machines, but we are not the authors of our actions in the way many people seem to think (and feel). We all, including myself, feel that we are, of course. Just like we feel we are selves coterminous with our bodies, despite the self being an illusion as well.

 

[Ken-1122]

Most people seem to not deny that they're influenced by their genes and their environment but still feel that at every moment there is freedom to choose. This cannot be the case because everything you are consciously aware of in every moment is the result of causes of which you are not aware and of which you exert no conscious control.

I believe these causes that we have no control of are taken into consideration when we make a decision; but we are still left with a plethora of options to choose from. I believe we have free choice within the limitations of what is reasonable.

Ken

 

[poolerboy0077]

I believe these causes that we have no control of are taken into consideration when we make a decision; but we are still left with a plethora of options to choose from. I believe we have free choice within the limitations of what is reasonable.

Ken

We certainly make choices but they're not freely chosen in the way that people seem to think they are. Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we aren't responsible for them, or they're the product of chance and we're not responsible for them.

If a person's choice to shoot the president is determined by a certain pattern of neural activity, which is in turn the product of prior causes -- perhaps an unfortunate coincidence of bad genes, an unhappy childhood, lost sleep, and cosmic-ray bombardment -- what can it possibly mean to say that that person's free will is "free"?

 

[Ken-1122]

We certainly make choices but they're not freely chosen in the way that people seem to think they are.

I'm not sure who are these people you are refering to, but I don't think I am one of them

Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we aren't responsible for them, or they're the product of chance and we're not responsible for them.

How about; we determine our wills and the prior causes is simply something we have to take into consideration when doing so.

If a person's choice to shoot the president is determined by a certain pattern of neural activity, which is in turn the product of prior causes -- perhaps an unfortunate coincidence of bad genes, an unhappy childhood, lost sleep, and cosmic-ray bombardment -- what can it possibly mean to say that that person's free will is "free"?

Perhaps he shot the President because he doesn't like the President. so he chose to shoot him.

Ken

 

[oi_antz]

Brain working.. hard.. Thanks poolerboy, I must carry on with work but this will be mulling in the meantime. I will see how I can respond tonight.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I'm not sure who are these people you are refering to, but I don't think I am one of them

I'm referring to people who think free will is real rather than an illusion. You are not one of those people then?

How about; we determine our wills and the prior causes is simply something we have to take into consideration when doing so.

That statement seems to express much confusion about what I'm talking about. We don't "consider" prior causes; they arise subconsciously. You are not aware of many mechanisms of your body, for instance, you do not consciously decide to digest your food, it just happens. Our brains work similarly in this regard, which is why the thought experiment I posed works the way it does. You cannot account for why a particular celebrity you chose in said thought experiment came to mind. It just did. Same thing goes with physical behaviors that stem from thoughts.

Perhaps he shot the President because he doesn't like the President. so he chose to shoot him.

I don't see how dislike vitiates the illusion of free will.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm referring to people who think free will is real rather than an illusion. You are not one of those people then?

I am one of those people.

That statement seems to express much confusion about what I'm talking about. We don't "consider" prior causes; they arise subconsciously. You are not aware of many mechanisms of your body, for instance, you do not consciously decide to digest your food, it just happens. Our brains work similarly in this regard,

That is all a part of me! How does that prevent me from making a decision?

which is why the thought experiment I posed works the way it does. You cannot account for why a particular celebrity you chose in said thought experiment came to mind. It just did. Same thing goes with physical behaviors that stem from thoughts.

Actually I know exactly why said celebrity came to mind. Your thought experiment did not work for me.

I don't see how dislike vitiates the illusion of free will.

He dislikes the President and he chose to react to this dislike by shooting him when he found the opportunity to do so; a freewill decision.

Ken

 

[poolerboy0077]

That is all a part of me!

Indeed.

How does that prevent me from making a decision?

It doesn't. You and I make decisions all the time.

Actually I know exactly why said celebrity came to mind.

Why's that?

He dislikes the President and he chose to react to this dislike by shooting him when he found the opportunity to do so; a freewill decision.

I'm certainly not claiming that thoughts arrive at random with no sense of continuity or coherence, but seeming acts of volition merely arise spontaneously (whether caused, uncaused, or probabilistically inclined, it makes no difference). The impulse to shoot or not shoot the president is the product of unconscious causes. One cannot account for which particular thoughts did or did not arise when they did. The intention to do one thing and not another doesn't originate in consciousness, it only appears in consciousness as does any thought or impulse that might oppose it.

Consider that physiologist Benjamin Libet famously used EEG to show that activity in the brain's motor cortex can be detected some 300 milliseconds before a person feels that he has decided to move.

It is concluded that cerebral initiation of a spontaneous, freely voluntary act can begin unconsciously, that is, before there is any (at least recallable) subjective awareness that a ‘decision’ to act has already been initiated cerebrally. This introduces certain constraints on the potentiality for conscious initiation and control of voluntary acts.
​

B. Libet, C. A. Gleason, E. W. Wright, & D. K. Pearl, 1983. Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential): The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act, Brain 106.