Free Will

[doubtingmerle]

I am going to spin this off as another thread, because this topic might have a mind of its own.

Animals can't do even half the things we can, plus there's the fact that they don't have free will

Regarding free will, it is molecules that do the thinking. Since those molecules together make up a person, Daniel Dennet says that we, that is, the physical collection of matter that makes up our brains, choose to do things and are free to do what "we" want. Sam Harris, for instance, would not call that free will. But I think both are essentially saying the same thing: Molecules form our brains, and that mind that comes as a result of that mass of matter between our ears is free to do what it chooses. Whether we should call that free will is a question of semantics.

Regardless, our molecules are running the show. They create the illusion after the fact that there is a consciousness in charge. But that consciousness actually occurs a split second after the fact, so that consciousness is not in charge.

None of that removes responsibility. I am still the same me, regardless of whether I am made up of atom-stuff, consciousness-stuff, or soul-stuff. Either way, if that stuff inside me were to choose to act in unacceptable ways, then the resulting me would need to take responsibility for that decision.

Do other animals have free will? Ask my dog. It is clear to me that he had a mind of his own and choose to do what he wanted to do when he wanted to.

 

[Bradskii]

None of that removes responsibility. I am still the same me, regardless of whether I am made up of atom-stuff, consciousness-stuff, or soul-stuff. Either way, if that stuff inside me were to choose to act in unacceptable ways, then the resulting me would need to take responsibility for that decision.

I struggle with this. I believe we are creatures of our environment. So if I was born to and grew up in a God fearin' happy and upright family (I did) I would be a different person to someone born to a disfunctional drug dependent single mother in a favala.

I could make bad decisions in the first example (I have) and good ones in the second. But how much influence does genetics and the environment play in how we act? And more importantly, how much consideration should we give to them in apportioning responsibility?

In my opinion, free will is not simply the ability to make decisions. It's the concept that if we re-ran the film of our life, could we make different decisions? No, it's not credible. So free will in that sense doesn't exist anyway.

 

[SelfSim]

I could make bad decisions in the first example (I have) and good ones in the second. But how much influence does genetics and the environment play in how we act? And more importantly, how much consideration should we give to them in apportioning responsibility?

Hmm .. (reinterpreting just as way of clarifiying what you mean there .. just a little), wouldn't you mean: 'how much influence does our perceptions of genetics and our perceptions of the environment play in how we act'?
If so, then I would say we are always ultimately acting on our own perceptions when it comes to apportionment of responsibility.

In my opinion, free will is not simply the ability to make decisions. It's the concept that if we re-ran the film of our life, could we make different decisions? No, it's not credible. So free will in that sense doesn't exist anyway.

If free will is based on our perceptions and given that we have the ability to change our perceptions and its us who also controls the concept of a hypothetical rerun of our life there, then why wouldn't we be able to observe different decisions?
I think free will exists as much as anything else in a hypothetical paradigm(?)

 

[Neogaia777]

Hmm .. (reinterpreting just as way of clarifiying what you mean there .. just a little), wouldn't you mean: 'how much influence does our perceptions of genetics and our perceptions of the environment play in how we act'?
If so, then I would say we are always ultimately acting on our own perceptions when it comes to apportionment of responsibility.
If free will is based on our perceptions and given that we have the ability to change our perceptions and its us who also controls the concept of a hypothetical rerun of our life there, then why wouldn't we be able to observe different decisions?
I think free will exists as much as anything else in a hypothetical paradigm(?)

I think what @Bradskii means, is if we went back without the knowledge, or perceptions, or whatever, that we have now, and in that case nothing could have changed or would have been or happened any differently, and we would have made the very same choices, and even had the very same thoughts even, if we were able to do that right now, but without what we have/know right now, etc, so that it goes in a straight line, and there is no such thing as other possibilities, but is all determined/predetermined/set already, by other factors, which were also set/predetermined already from before as well, etc, and that/those going all the way back to the beginning maybe, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

Hmm .. (reinterpreting just as way of clarifiying what you mean there .. just a little), wouldn't you mean: 'how much influence does our perceptions of genetics and our perceptions of the environment play in how we act'?
If so, then I would say we are always ultimately acting on our own perceptions when it comes to apportionment of responsibility.
If free will is based on our perceptions and given that we have the ability to change our perceptions and its us who also controls the concept of a hypothetical rerun of our life there, then why wouldn't we be able to observe different decisions?
I think free will exists as much as anything else in a hypothetical paradigm(?)

Our genetics and the environment are fixed. Axiomatic. The genes that we have are the cards we are dealt. The environment is the only environment. If you re-run the film, nothing changes. Literally nothing. There is no 'soul' that observes everything outside of what we experience. It's just us.

So if you re-run the film, what is it that causes us to make a different freewill choice? There is, there cannot be, anything. So in that sense (and I think it's the only sense), free will doesn't exist. There's nothing external to the situation that says 'hang on, maybe there's another option here'.

Free will exists only if there is something like that which people describe as a soul. I see zero evidence for that. Hence...no free will.

 

[Bradskii]

I think what @Bradskii means, is if we went back without the knowledge, or perceptions, or whatever, that we have now, and in that case nothing could have changed or would have been or happened any differently, and we would have made the very same choices, and even had the very same thoughts even, if we were able to do that right now, but without what we have/know right now, etc, so that it goes in a straight line, and there is no such thing as other possibilities, but is all determined/predetermined/set already, by other factors, which were also set/predetermined already from before as well, etc, and that/those going all the way back to the beginning maybe, etc...

Exactly right.

 

[Neogaia777]

Our genetics and the environment are fixed. Axiomatic. The genes that we have are the cards we are dealt. The environment is the only environment. If you re-run the film, nothing changes. Literally nothing. There is no 'soul' that observes everything outside of what we experience. It's just us.

So if you re-run the film, what is it that causes us to make a different freewill choice? There is, there cannot be, anything. So in that sense (and I think it's the only sense), free will doesn't exist. There's nothing external to the situation that says 'hang on, maybe there's another option here'.

Free will exists only if there is something like that which people describe as a soul. I see zero evidence for that. Hence...no free will.

I think that, when our program ends here, whether we only exist in the mind of that original intelligence, or God, and whether He causes us to exist elsewhere after that, or in another place or another form after that, is all up to Him, etc...

Maybe we will get a true free will after that, who knows...?

God Bless!

 

[SelfSim]

Our genetics and the environment are fixed. Axiomatic. The genes that we have are the cards we are dealt. The environment is the only environment. If you re-run the film, nothing changes. Literally nothing. There is no 'soul' that observes everything outside of what we experience. It's just us.

So if you re-run the film, what is it that causes us to make a different freewill choice? There is, there cannot be, anything. So in that sense (and I think it's the only sense), free will doesn't exist. There's nothing external to the situation that says 'hang on, maybe there's another option here'.

Free will exists only if there is something like that which people describe as a soul. I see zero evidence for that. Hence...no free will.

Flees in a jar - remove the lid and they keep on jumping the same height. The 'lid' and the jar however, must be of our own conception when you rule out that there is nothing outside of our experience.

I'm not arguing for the existence of a 'soul' here (whatever that is). What I am saying though, is that our minds are doing all of the conceiving and so the constraints must also be our own conceptions. Both Determinism and Free Will are just instances of similar conception types. We can test for both on a case-by-case basis in order to make sense of some given perception .. they're just different sides of the same coin. (A 'soul' appears as being a different type of conception however .. because 'soul' is not objectively testable).

 

[Bradskii]

Flees in a jar - remove the lid and they keep on jumping the same height. The 'lid' and the jar however, must be of our own conception when you rule out that there is nothing outside of our experience.

I'm not arguing for the existence of a 'soul' here (whatever that is). What I am saying though, is that our minds are doing all of the conceiving and so the constraints must also be our own conceptions. Both Determinism and Free Will are just instances of similar conception types. We can test for both on a case-by-case basis in order to make sense of some given perception .. they're just different sides of the same coin. (A 'soul' appears as being a different type of conception however .. because 'soul' is not objectively testable).

They're not 'conception types'. Free will and determinism aren't types of anything. One is either true or false and if one is true it will exlude the other. And most of existence is deterministic. It has to be or physics or chemistry wouldn't exist.

We are part of that existence so I can't see why we are not bound by the same rules. Just because we've evolved to gain a self awareness cannot mean that free will also evolved with us. It's an either/or situation. It makes zero sense to me to suggest that back in our evolutionary past we had 'a little bit' of free will.

 

[durangodawood]

...It makes zero sense to me to suggest that back in our evolutionary past we had 'a little bit' of free will.

I dont see a problem with the constraints on free will widening over evolutionary "progress", based on growth of physical, emotional, imaginational capacities .

 

[Bradskii]

I dont see a problem with the constraints on free will widening over evolutionary "progress", based on growth of physical, emotional, imaginational capacities .

We're not talking about decision making ability here. And it's not like I'm saying that you either have sight or you don't. Or you can fly or you can't. Free will, as I see it, is either on or off. We either have it or we don't. It either exists or it doesn't.

If it exists then creatures further down the food chain have it. If it doesn't then they don't. There isn't anything with 20% free will. Or 85% free will. It's not an evolved capacity. Our ability to consider our choices in greater detail is an evolved capacity. But as I said, that doesn't equate to free will. Because we are still constrained by our personal make-up and the environment.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Maybe we will get a true free will after that, who knows...?

Can you explain what you mean by 'true free will'? An example would help.

 

[durangodawood]

We're not talking about decision making ability here. And it's not like I'm saying that you either have sight or you don't. Or you can fly or you can't. Free will, as I see it, is either on or off. We either have it or we don't. It either exists or it doesn't.

If it exists then creatures further down the food chain have it. If it doesn't then they don't. There isn't anything with 20% free will. Or 85% free will. It's not an evolved capacity. Our ability to consider our choices in greater detail is an evolved capacity. But as I said, that doesn't equate to free will. Because we are still constrained by our personal make-up and the environment.

I think it might be an evolved capacity. Here's how I described it elsewhere:

I'm proposing that in the solution space of available choices for a decision, some of them can be cooked up in a causally unconnected consciousness zone. Maybe this zone is us harnessing accumulated randomness like some solvent that dissolves the ties of cause/effect in the mind. Then we can run somewhat free in the solution space, as one novel idea triggers others. The cascading novelty can even permit an untethering from the initial motivation for attacking a given problem.

 

[SelfSim]

We're not talking about decision making ability here. And it's not like I'm saying that you either have sight or you don't. Or you can fly or you can't. Free will, as I see it, is either on or off. We either have it or we don't. It either exists or it doesn't.

An absolutist definition. Apparently devoid of any vestiges of Relativism(?) Why does this apply specifically to Free Will (and apparently not to everything else)?

If it exists then creatures further down the food chain have it. If it doesn't then they don't. There isn't anything with 20% free will. Or 85% free will. It's not an evolved capacity. Our ability to consider our choices in greater detail is an evolved capacity. But as I said, that doesn't equate to free will. Because we are still constrained by our personal make-up and the environment.

Constraints and personal make-up are also subject to change too, y'know(?)

 

[Neogaia777]

Can you explain what you mean by 'true free will'? An example would help.

I don't know exactly, and that is part of the problem...

To me it's still some kind of mystery, elusive "thing" right now, and that is part of the problem...

Part of the reason why I said "who knows" right now, etc...

God Bless!

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I am going to spin this off as another thread, because this topic might have a mind of its own.


Regarding free will, it is molecules that do the thinking. Since those molecules together make up a person, Daniel Dennet says that we, that is, the physical collection of matter that makes up our brains, choose to do things and are free to do what "we" want. Sam Harris, for instance, would not call that free will. But I think both are essentially saying the same thing: Molecules form our brains, and that mind that comes as a result of that mass of matter between our ears is free to do what it chooses. Whether we should call that free will is a question of semantics.

Regardless, our molecules are running the show. They create the illusion after the fact that there is a consciousness in charge. But that consciousness actually occurs a split second after the fact, so that consciousness is not in charge.

None of that removes responsibility. I am still the same me, regardless of whether I am made up of atom-stuff, consciousness-stuff, or soul-stuff. Either way, if that stuff inside me were to choose to act in unacceptable ways, then the resulting me would need to take responsibility for that decision.

Do other animals have free will? Ask my dog. It is clear to me that he had a mind of his own and choose to do what he wanted to do when he wanted to.

Our molecules are not running the show any more than the gas in our tank tells the car where to go.

Fee will is nothing more than your ability, as a human being, to think or not. We have it because we have a certain kind of consciousness, one that can form concepts, which process requires selective attention.

 

[Neogaia777]

@FrumiousBandersnatch

I can't understand why many people on here just cannot seem to understand or see why we just don't have it truly right now though, etc...?

Is it really that difficult an idea or concept to understand, etc...?

I might expect from people who are maybe less educated on here maybe, or that are maybe less aware maybe, but the more intelligent ones on here should be able to easily understand, etc...?

I guess I just don't get it, etc...

Is it just rebelliousness and/or pride or ego, or a need for control, or "what" exactly, etc...?

Anyway,

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

I think it might be an evolved capacity. Here's how I described it elsewhere:

I'm proposing that in the solution space of available choices for a decision, some of them can be cooked up in a causally unconnected consciousness zone. Maybe this zone is us harnessing accumulated randomness like some solvent that dissolves the ties of cause/effect in the mind. Then we can run somewhat free in the solution space, as one novel idea triggers others. The cascading novelty can even permit an untethering from the initial motivation for attacking a given problem.

I'm going to be in transit for the next couple of days but I'll try to get back to this...

 

[Neogaia777]

@FrumiousBandersnatch

I can't understand why many people on here just cannot seem to understand or see why we just don't have it truly right now though, etc...?

Is it really that difficult an idea or concept to understand, etc...?

I might expect from people who are maybe less educated on here maybe, or that are maybe less aware maybe, but the more intelligent ones on here should be able to easily understand, etc...?

I guess I just don't get it, etc...

Is it just rebelliousness and/or pride or ego, or a need for control, or "what" exactly, etc...?

Anyway,

God Bless.

@FrumiousBandersnatch

I've kind of given up on trying to tell them this part of it, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

An absolutist definition. Apparently devoid of any vestiges of Relativism(?) Why does this apply specifically to Free Will (and apparently not to everything else)?
Constraints and personal make-up are also subject to change too, y'know(?)

And we are still are governed by them. The fact that they change doen't alter anything.

And as to the first question...some things are either on or off. Are either capable or incapable. Think chemistry for one. The same is true for free will.