Free Will

[RoboMastodon]

Then, we have:
quantum event: random
flip of the coin: determined

Both, however, have causes, because everything that exists necessarily has a cause, except the uncaused cause, which, since it doesn't change and its existence depends on nothing other than itself, is not caused.

Hmm... Alright then. However, argument still stands: either determinism or indeterminism is true. Determinism is incompatible with free will for obvious reasons already stated. Indeterminism is incompatible with free will because the properties of an event are not fully determined by its causes so there must be random variables involved. We do not author these random variables.

 

[Lifesaver]

Hmm... Alright then. However, argument still stands: either determinism or indeterminism is true. Determinism is incompatible with free will for obvious reasons already stated. Indeterminism is incompatible with free will because the properties of an event are not fully determined by its causes so there must be random variables involved. We do not author these random variables.

The first part you wrote is correct: for any event, either determinism or indeterminism is true.
However, you repeat the error of equating indeterminism with randomness (that kind of indeterminate non-voluntary causation which seems to exist in quantic events).

But let me repeat the argumentation of free will, and how the will influences the intellect in such a way that free will exists. Even better, I'll quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, who first articulated the teory explicitly:

"People are in charge of their acts, including those of willing and of not willing, because of the deliberative activity of reason, which can be turned to one side or the other. But that someone should deliberate or not deliberate, supposing that one were in charge of this too, would have to come about by a preceding deliberation. And since this may not proceed to infinity, one would finally have to reach the point at which a person's free decision is moved by some external principle superior to the human mind, namely by God, as Aristotle himself demonstrated. Thus the minds even of healthy people are not so much in charge of their acts as not to need to be moved by God."

And this movement of our will by God is not determining, but rather leaves our freedom untouched; furthermore, it moves our will towards acting as men (acting in a rational way, since what defines man is being a rational animal).

 

[joemaloy]

I Cant freaking believe you people;
Get on one side of the road or the other...
Far as Im concerned it goes like this...
Its all a matter of an equation.


Belief#1_You believe that there is a God---------

Belief#2_You dont believe there is a God--------

If Belief#2 is correct then: If you dont believe there is a God------ and when you die everything will fade to black and WHAT EVER you have done in your life good or bad; Free will or NO freewill is erelalvent......AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED... THIS SIDE OF THE EQUATION ENDS HERE!!!!!!

If you believe that there is a GOD------ Then you have to be able to define without any question what "IT" ie"GOD" is or is not.

Because there is no GRAY area, He cant be both otherwise It/God is a hippocrite.

And from the ONLY information what we have of GOD is the BIBLE.
Which Chirstians believe is the UNTIMATE truth.

AND The Bible says that God is --------

#3_All Knowing
#4_All Powerfull

If God/it is ALL Knowing----- Then nomatter what you do, God will know BEFOREHAND what you are going to do. "A trillion years beforehand" -you can pick a # if you want.

Statement-#2_ If #3 is correct then God knows the day that you are born and the day that you will die, and everything in between.

Now to say that you Have FREE WILL is saying that some time between the time of your birth and death that God said to Himself " I DONT KNOW WHAT THIS PERSON IS GOING TO CHOOSE"
But of cource this breaksdown #3 in the equation.

And if this Equation breaks down so do the rest of the whole "BIBLE" Belief in God.

And if ANY part of the equation breaks down then you can go back to Belief#_2

And if you want to bring Quantum Physics/Theory into the Equation, then you are in --THIS-- of an infinite quantum "REALITIES" still choosing between Beliefs #1 or #2.....

 

[RoboMastodon]

The first part you wrote is correct: for any event, either determinism or indeterminism is true.
However, you repeat the error of equating indeterminism with randomness (that kind of indeterminate non-voluntary causation which seems to exist in quantic events).

But let me repeat the argumentation of free will, and how the will influences the intellect in such a way that free will exists. Even better, I'll quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, who first articulated the teory explicitly:

"People are in charge of their acts, including those of willing and of not willing, because of the deliberative activity of reason, which can be turned to one side or the other. But that someone should deliberate or not deliberate, supposing that one were in charge of this too, would have to come about by a preceding deliberation. And since this may not proceed to infinity, one would finally have to reach the point at which a person's free decision is moved by some external principle superior to the human mind, namely by God, as Aristotle himself demonstrated. Thus the minds even of healthy people are not so much in charge of their acts as not to need to be moved by God."

And this movement of our will by God is not determining, but rather leaves our freedom untouched; furthermore, it moves our will towards acting as men (acting in a rational way, since what defines man is being a rational animal).

Considering how predictable humans behave, I doubt our behavior is very far from determinate and if it is indeterminate, it is because of quantum events leaking into the macroscopic world.
I must ask you again: do animals have "free will"? Plants? Fungi? Protists? Bacteria? Zygotes? Like I stated before, you seem to be making up a new kind of "special indeterminism" just for free will to exist. I must ask you to substantiate the assertion that our brains aren't simply following the laws of physics.

Edit - Aquinas' argument doesn't make much sense: "We have to make a decision and in order to make a decision we have to decide to make a decision" is what it reads to me... I don't see why this would progress ad infinitum. If you are sitting in a room studying and there is some construction noise outside that you are not aware of because you are concentrated. Suddenly, a large object or something is dropped and you immediately become aware of it. This is due to an action potential being fired off in one a set of your neurons. You see, neurons behave by an "all-or-nothing law" they either fire or they don't, and they require a certain amount of stimulation before doing so. In other words, the "choice" to react to the sound is merely the result of neurons firing off--there is an "initial deliberation" and it is physical, it doesn't need to regress ad infinitum.

 

[RoboMastodon]

I Cant freaking believe you people;
Get on one side of the road or the other...
Far as Im concerned it goes like this...
Its all a matter of an equation.


Belief#1_You believe that there is a God---------

Belief#2_You dont believe there is a God--------
[This is not a belief]
If Belief#2 is correct then: If you dont believe there is a God------ and when you die everything will fade to black and WHAT EVER you have done in your life good or bad; Free will or NO freewill is erelalvent......AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED... THIS SIDE OF THE EQUATION ENDS HERE!!!!!!
[God is not required for there to be an afterlife]
If you believe that there is a GOD------ Then you have to be able to define without any question what "IT" ie"GOD" is or is not.

Because there is no GRAY area, He cant be both otherwise It/God is a hippocrite.
[What?]
And from the ONLY information what we have of GOD is the BIBLE.
Which Chirstians believe is the UNTIMATE truth.
[How about the Vedas, Upanishads, Qu'ran, Book of The Dead, and all the other "holy" books that other cultures have written?]
AND The Bible says that God is --------

#3_All Knowing
#4_All Powerfull

If God/it is ALL Knowing----- Then nomatter what you do, God will know BEFOREHAND what you are going to do. "A trillion years beforehand" -you can pick a # if you want.

Statement-#2_ If #3 is correct then God knows the day that you are born and the day that you will die, and everything in between.

Now to say that you Have FREE WILL is saying that some time between the time of your birth and death that God said to Himself " I DONT KNOW WHAT THIS PERSON IS GOING TO CHOOSE"
But of cource this breaksdown #3 in the equation.

And if this Equation breaks down so do the rest of the whole "BIBLE" Belief in God.

And if ANY part of the equation breaks down then you can go back to Belief#_2

And if you want to bring Quantum Physics/Theory into the Equation, then you are in --THIS-- of an infinite quantum "REALITIES" still choosing between Beliefs #1 or #2.....
[What?]

Your post is, for the most part, unintelligible. I'm still not sure what you are trying to say.

 

[Lifesaver]

Considering how predictable humans behave, I doubt our behavior is very far from determinate and if it is indeterminate, it is because of quantum events leaking into the macroscopic world.

If we examine this theory more carefully, we'll see it doesn't hold itself well.
You say that whenever a human behaves in an unpredictable way, it is because of some random quantic variable.
There are individuals who act in more unpredictable ways than others; some people are complete excentrics, whose every action is, by normal standards, unexpected.
If we are to accept your theory, then quantic events, which are random (and not suitable to be influenced by someone's "personality") somehow work different in these people.

I must ask you again: do animals have "free will"? Plants? Fungi? Protists? Bacteria? Zygotes? Like I stated before, you seem to be making up a new kind of "special indeterminism" just for free will to exist. I must ask you to substantiate the assertion that our brains aren't simply following the laws of physics.

Of course the brain, and the whole body, follow the laws of physics. But these are not what determine a man's actions.
Any choice you make will have, as its physical result, certain brain reactions which follow the laws of physics.

Edit - Aquinas' argument doesn't make much sense: "We have to make a decision and in order to make a decision we have to decide to make a decision" is what it reads to me... I don't see why this would progress ad infinitum. If you are sitting in a room studying and there is some construction noise outside that you are not aware of because you are concentrated. Suddenly, a large object or something is dropped and you immediately become aware of it. This is due to an action potential being fired off in one a set of your neurons. You see, neurons behave by an "all-or-nothing law" they either fire or they don't, and they require a certain amount of stimulation before doing so. In other words, the "choice" to react to the sound is merely the result of neurons firing off--there is an "initial deliberation" and it is physical, it doesn't need to regress ad infinitum.

That is not what a deliberation means; he uses the definition set down by Aristotle. To deliberate is to think about possible courses of action, on what to do.
A man will make a decision; his decision is based on what he thinks (his values, his ideas, how he perceives the current situation, etc); however, he can, with his will, influence these variables (which will determine his action); still, when he makes the decision to influence his intellect this decision (a volition of the will) is also determined by his intellect; and he can alter this influence; but this decision to will depend on his intellect, and so on. This cannot proceed to infinity; ultimately, there is an external principle, God, driving man towards doing what is good, but leaving the decision open to the individual.

When you hear a sound, there is no choice; your body is affected by the sound and translates it into the experience you have. You can't choose not to hear it, as you can't choose not to think, and as you can't choose to do something in which you don't see any good in.

 

[Socrastein]

Lifesaver

You obviously didn't understand what I was saying about the difference between appearances and things-in-themselves. That was my best attempt at making a difficult concept understandable, so since I have failed I'm just going to drop it cause I don't know how to help you understand.

Also, I should point out you contradicted yourself when you said quantum devents are causal, then in the next sentence said that quantum movement is not determined.

Also, I don't think that there is no such thing as causality. I simply think that it is an unprovable assumption that we pragmatically make for the sake of understanding the world. Maybe whenever I decide to get an apple I happen to be hungry at the same time? How would you prove that there is a causal relationship without starting with causality already assumed?

You say there is no such thing as an uncaused movement - you did not substantiate this. Please prove your assertion if you're going to state it as though it were fact.

Regarding truth remaining constant - yes, truth is truth, however we humans are not directly privy to truth itself, we can only infer and try to glean truth from what we observe and think. So while the truth of a proposition is constant, our understanding/acceptance/ignorance of the truth is not a constant, it is ever changing.

Also, you keep asserting over and over that people experience free will. But this is false. People just think they do. They don't experience anything, they just apply the phrase 'free will' to there lives because this is a commonly propogated belief that people grow up with. I have shown how there is no such thing as free will, because if a choice isn't causally determined, then that choice isn't a choice. So how can someone experience free will if there isn't even such a thing? You're saying that free will isn't impossible because we experience it, and I'm saying we don't experience free will because there's no such thing. Like you said yourself, you can't experience a nonsensical concept. So what do you mean when you say that everyone experiences choices that aren't causally determined but are still choices? You still haven't proven that a choice can be indeterminate.

Also, I'm curious if you could tell me what you think the word random means. You deny that an event without cause is a random one, so I'm curious what would be a random event in your opinion.

And no, I don't admit that one can experience free will, I admit that one can say they experience free will. I can say I experience square-circles every time I eat an apple just because this idea has been engrained in me since childhood, but that does not prove that there are square-circles.

And yes, the LEM has everything to do with determinism and randomness. Like has been said numerous times, an event is either determined, or ~determined. Determinism vs Indeterminism. And until you can give a meaningful alternate definition of random, I'm going to continue to use the word as I have always understood it to be used - something without cause.

Also, I'm curious why you see no problem with arguing that everything must have a cause, and then saying that not everything must have a cause by asserting an uncaused cause. You blatantly contradict yourself but it doesn't phase you and I'm curious why.

Every ring has a hole in the center of it, except for the hole-less ring. This statement is fine in everyday talking (Everyone got a B on the test except Jimmy who got and A) but not when you're trying to create logical syllogisms.

Anyway, you nobody, including you, has adequately addressed the key point of my argument:

For every choice X, if every variable were exactly the same, could choice X be made differently? If not, then we are bound to only one course of action in any situation and thus "freedom" has no place. If so, then our actions aren't choices, they are indeterminate events that can happen any which way, like saying 2+2 = something different every time.

 

[Ewe]

Of course the brain, and the whole body, follow the laws of physics. But these are not what determine a man's actions.
Any choice you make will have, as its physical result, certain brain reactions which follow the laws of physics.

According to certain scientists, it is proven that our brains decide everything we do before we are consciously aware of it; therefore any belief we have that we control our actions is an illusion or assumption. This discovery has at least enough credibility so as to be taught in schools – I knew someone who studied it in Philosophy classes. But I guess there are implications too heavy for it to get much attention elsewhere; it scared me too at first.

Anyway, surely this begs the question ‘what is consciousness for?’ It seems to just bear witness to information gathered by our brains. Personally, I don’t think it means that no one is evil – but it does mean that we can’t possibly know who these are. God already knows, but He wouldn’t just send them straight to hell without teaching them why. Sending anyone straight to heaven would be equally pointless. Giving us human experiences is not for His benefit, but our own – so that we can understand ourselves and eventually understand God. Most of us won't until we've left our physical bodies and its distractions behind - but I think we'll all agree it will have been worth it.

 

[Socrastein]

Ewe, I read an article on the study you mention some time ago. In fact I believe I actually mentioned it and linked to it in another thread I participated in on free will, though I have no desire to go looking for it.

It's very interesting and I think it only helps further the idea that "free will" is but an illusion created by self-aware lifeforms.

 

[mepalmer3]

Anyway, you nobody, including you, has adequately addressed the key point of my argument:

For every choice X, if every variable were exactly the same, could choice X be made differently? If not, then we are bound to only one course of action in any situation and thus "freedom" has no place. If so, then our actions aren't choices, they are indeterminate events that can happen any which way, like saying 2+2 = something different every time.

The free will arguments tend to get old, don't they!

We seem to be at an impasse on your "key point" as it's not verifiable or falsifiable according to you. We obviously can't possibly test the theory that something would happen exactly the same.

One other point for those watching this thread...

God, by definition, is the only completely uncaused being. Nothing created him, nothing causes him to act or react, rather he acts purely according to his own nature. His actions are in a sense determined by himself, but indetermined as far as any external causes goes. So by Socrastein's definition, God's actions are random.

This really shouldn't be of any concern to anyone suggesting free will to hear that our actions are random. Remember, random is being used to described "uncaused". If you look up "uncaused" on dictionary.com, it will say "spontaneous", not random. And that's actually a much better word to describe something that's uncaused.

In a sense it is random in that it cannot be predicted. One way you can sort of "try this at home" is to simply do something completely unexpected. For example, grab the milk out of your fridge, then go through it on the roof and dance around like a chicken.

 

[elman]

The free will arguments tend to get old, don't they!

We seem to be at an impasse on your "key point" as it's not verifiable or falsifiable according to you. We obviously can't possibly test the theory that something would happen exactly the same.

One other point for those watching this thread...

God, by definition, is the only completely uncaused being. Nothing created him, nothing causes him to act or react, rather he acts purely according to his own nature. His actions are in a sense determined by himself, but indetermined as far as any external causes goes. So by Socrastein's definition, God's actions are random.

This really shouldn't be of any concern to anyone suggesting free will to hear that our actions are random. Remember, random is being used to described "uncaused". If you look up "uncaused" on dictionary.com, it will say "spontaneous", not random. And that's actually a much better word to describe something that's uncaused.

In a sense it is random in that it cannot be predicted. One way you can sort of "try this at home" is to simply do something completely unexpected. For example, grab the milk out of your fridge, then go through it on the roof and dance around like a chicken.

One must have free will to deny free will. To deny free will is illogical.

 

[levi501]

One must have free will to deny free will. To deny free will is illogical.

One doesn't have freewill when they deny freewill. To believe in free will is illogical.

 

[elman]

One doesn't have freewill when they deny freewill. To believe in free will is illogical.

How did you deny free will if you did not have free will that allowed you to do that? Believing in free will is as illogical as believing in our own existence.

 

[Ewe]

How did you deny free will if you did not have free will that allowed you to do that?

Programmed computers and robots can reject data as invalid without having free will. It's only consciousness that distinguishes us from robots (this is of course assuming that robots don't have consciousness), and as I've said, the presence of consciousness does not demand that the medium it operates through has free will. It's not that I don't believe free will exists, just that I don't think it exists in the physical world that we observe during life. 'We' (our consciousness) aren't a part of this world any more than we are a part of a TV soap when watching it, however engrossed in it we are or how much we relate to a character.

 

[elman]

Programmed computers and robots can reject data as invalid without having free will. It's only consciousness that distinguishes us from robots (this is of course assuming that robots don't have consciousness), and as I've said, the presence of consciousness does not demand that the medium it operates through has free will. It's not that I don't believe free will exists, just that I don't think it exists in the physical world that we are caught up in during life. 'We' (our consciousness) aren't a part of this world any more than we are a part of a TV soap when watching it, however engrossed in it we are or how much we relate to a character.

So if I understand you you think someone else programed you to decide you did or did not have free will like a computer would be programed? If free will exists but not in this physical world, then where does it exist and why? And who programed you to think you did not have free will in this physical world? Was it that same person that created the illusion of free will all around you?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

One must have free will to deny free will. To deny free will is illogical.

What exactly is that "free will" you speak of?

 

[elman]

What exactly is that "free will" you speak of?

Ultimatly it is the ability to love or hate.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Ultimatly it is the ability to love or hate.

And immediately?

 

[elman]

And immediately?

The decision to have a cheese burger or not.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The decision to have a cheese burger or not.

OK, so I won't get a constructive reply from you either.