Free Will

[Bradskii]

If the answer is “because I wanted to” would you say I wasn’t free to act on my desire because I don’t control my desires?

If so, I’d disagree because we can control our desires through self discipline to an extent that’s arguably enough to consider it “free to do so” or at least “able to do so of our own accord”.

Nobody has argued that you are not in charge of making your own decisions. Nobody has said, for example, that your passions dictate your actions. You can stay in bed or go to the gym. You can have another beer or a tonic water. Unless someone is holding a gun to your head, the decision will be yours.

But if you get out of bed and go to the gym and the exact circumstances are repeated, then you will always get out of bed and go to the gym.

 

[Bradskii]

Sorry, this explanation just keeps getting more and more empty. Its the person who demands a response to the 'Why?' question that is inferring the response to be 'a reason', whereas the responder simply considers it as being 'an answer'.

An answer is an answer and doesn't have to be a reason from the responder's viewpoint. Reasons and answers have distinct meanings, y'know(?) Reasons already assume that universal causality exists and that logic is the only (universal) set of rules for determining what exists .. which are both philsophical and undistinguished 'going-in', biased, and not yet universally tested assumptions, made purely by the questioner.
The human mind also tests. Logic and testing are both very useful to humans, but one in the absence of the other, leads to meaninglessness.

Overall, the argument is akin to the child's game of continually asking: 'Why?' whenever an answer is provided to a question. What ensues is a completely empty and meaningless pile of word-salad.

If I asl someone why they did something and they tell me, then what they tell me is the reason why they did it.

It really couldn't be any simpler than that.

 

[SelfSim]

.. and the exact circumstances are repeated..

Uniqueness is observable within a stated measurement error context.
Circumstantial exactness has no stated measurement error context, by definition. (Ie: word-salad).

 

[SelfSim]

If I asl someone why they did something and they tell me, then what they tell me is the reason why they did it.

It really couldn't be any simpler than that.

As explained, its only because you, (ie: as the questioner), are already expecting a reason as being the only response.

 

[Bradskii]

Uniqueness is observable within a stated measurement error context.
Circumstantial exactness has no stated measurement error context, by definition. (Ie: word-salad).

It's a hypothetical for heaven's sake.

 

[Bradskii]

As explained, its only because you, (ie: as the questioner), are already expecting a reason as being the only response.

If someone has done something, she will have a reason for doing it or not. If not, then it's arbitrary.

And the fact that I am wasting my time explaining this has reached a point where I shan't respond any further in this particular matter.

And why am I doing that? Because I am wasting my time. That is, as they say, the reason for it.

 

[SelfSim]

It's a hypothetical for heaven's sake.

Sure .. an objectively untestable one too ... and thus, claims of truth about the outcomes are no better than the going-in claim that 'truth exists' (with no evidence supporting that claim).

Free will and determinism then stand on an equal footing status .. Ie: where one is claimed as existing (universally), so too, must the other when both share that the same, (hitherto), unstated definition.

 

[SelfSim]

If someone has done something, she will have a reason for doing it or not. If not, then it's arbitrary.

And the fact that I am wasting my time explaining this has reached a point where I shan't respond any further in this particular matter.

And why am I doing that? Because I am wasting my time. That is, as they say, the reason for it.

Ok .. its your decision to make.

 

[Chriliman]

Nobody has argued that you are not in charge of making your own decisions. Nobody has said, for example, that your passions dictate your actions. You can stay in bed or go to the gym. You can have another beer or a tonic water. Unless someone is holding a gun to your head, the decision will be yours.

But if you get out of bed and go to the gym and the exact circumstances are repeated, then you will always get out of bed and go to the gym.

So it’s just a repeat of me making choices freely(assuming that’s even possible)?

 

[renniks]

rammed the back of his car because he flipped me off. Logical? Illogical?

Obviously illogical and why would you do that twice? Again actions from emotions alone usually aren't logical.

 

[renniks]

In this context, a reason is simply 'why you did something'. It can be the most nonsensical thing you have ever done for the worst of reasons. For the most illogical of reasons. But if I ask you 'why did you do that?', then the answer you give will be the reason why you did it.

Or it could be the reason I thought I was doing it for, when really I don't understand my motivation at all.
Having a reason doesn't prove free will isn't real, anyway. The reasons don't cause my actions.

 

[durangodawood]

Obviously illogical and why would you do that twice? Again actions from emotions alone usually aren't logical.

Because if you went back to that situation, the events would be the same. Your state of mind would be the same. What would be different that would impel you to a different choice?

Im not seeing the latitude for a different choice there.

 

[Neogaia777]

The reason you do/say/choose/think what and how and when you do, and there is always a reason, etc, is also the cause, etc, and the reason/cause is always how everything (and I do mean everything) was already pre-determined or predestined to go from the beginning, etc...

Whether you think that was God, or a God, who either did, or does, or did do that in and from the beginning, etc, is entirely up to you, etc...

God Bless!

 

[renniks]

Because if you went back to that situation, the events would be the same. Your state of mind would be the same. What would be different that would impel you to a different choice?

Im not seeing the latitude for a different choice there.

I'm not convinced that there is any reason that I would pick the same thing every time in the exact same situation and the exact same mindset. Sometimes I let my logic reign and sometimes I let my emotions reign. I think people are oversimplifying the human psyche to believe that it would make the same choice in the same situation.
And I still don't think you're factoring in Free Will at all in reality.
If we are obligated by our circumstances and mindset to do certain things then we don't have free will.

 

[Bradskii]

Or it could be the reason I thought I was doing it for, when really I don't understand my motivation at all.
Having a reason doesn't prove free will isn't real, anyway. The reasons don't cause my actions.

Whatever caused your actions are the reasons for you performing them. I can't understand why this is so difficult to get across. Why did you do something? Because of X. Then X is the reason you did it. Let's have an example....

You decide to go to the gym rather than the pub. Why? Because you have put on a few Covid kilos and you need to lose some weight. What is the reason for choosing the gym? The reason is that you have put on a few kilos and want to lose some weight.

Why is that not blazingly obvious?

 

[SelfSim]

Whatever caused your actions are the reasons for you performing them. I can't understand why this is so difficult to get across.
..
Why is that not blazingly obvious?

What is blazingly obvious is the falsifying observation of people acting impulsively .. for no reason.

 

[Bradskii]

What is blazingly obvious is the falsifying observation of people acting impulsively .. for no reason.

I don't know what a 'falsifying observation' means. And are you saying that people don't make random choices?

 

[durangodawood]

I'm not convinced that there is any reason that I would pick the same thing every time in the exact same situation and the exact same mindset. Sometimes I let my logic reign and sometimes I let my emotions reign. I think people are oversimplifying the human psyche to believe that it would make the same choice in the same situation.
And I still don't think you're factoring in Free Will at all in reality.

Yes but even that choice is an effect of something in the strict materialist view. Something impelled you to reason through the situation, or to have a freak out. Some prior condition of your mind.

If we are obligated by our circumstances and mindset to do certain things then we don't have free will.

Yes thats precisely the argument. And the argument makes sense. Nevertheless I'm with you on this one. I suspect there's some unknowns at play which the argument isnt accounting for. The problem is: theyre unknowns. I cant point to them. I have to appeal to faith - which doesnt make for much of an argument.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't know what a 'falsifying observation' means. And are you saying that people don't make random choices?

I observe people making unreasoned choices .. aka: choices made without reason, according to their own reports. The choice may be triggered by impulsivity and is deliberate. There may, or may not be consistently observable behavioural patterns at certain scales, but not necessarily at all scales.

Your notion of 'under the exact same conditions', is flawed by measurement uncertainty and is thus not an objectively real constraint.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes thats precisely the argument. And the argument makes sense.

Doesn't matter when objective observations contradict the sense making.

Nevertheless I'm with you on this one. I suspect there's some unknowns at play which the argument isnt accounting for. The problem is: they're unknowns. I can't point to them. I have to appeal to faith - which doesnt make for much of an argument.

The argument that 'free will doesn't exist', is one such argument.