Free Will

[Bradskii]

.. a hypothetical criterion there, having no evidenced support(?)
Each moment in spacetime must be unique when you accept randomness (and the existence of 'edges of criticality'), I think.

Definitely a hypothetical. It's the only way to solve the problem. But then one could say that if we can't actually prove we don't have free will and it seems as if we do...then carry on as if we do (as I've just realised @Neogaia777 said earlier).

Which is precisely what happens.

I personally don't go through life treating every decision I make as a fait accompli, one that I had no hope of changing. It's kinda depressing. I like to think that I have control over the direction my life takes. Even if I don't.

 

[Neogaia777]

Definitely a hypothetical. It's the only way to solve the problem. But then one could say that if we can't actually prove we don't have free will and it seems as if we do...then carry on as if we do (as I've just realised @Neogaia777 said earlier).

Which is precisely what happens.

I personally don't go through life treating every decision I make as a fait accompli, one that I had no hope of changing. It's kinda depressing. I like to think that I have control over the direction my life takes. Even if I don't.

There is really no other way to go about it really, the second you get busy in life, your not going to be thinking about any of these things, and will just go about it the only way you/me/we can go about it really, etc, and maybe that's the way it's supposed to be really...? IDK...?

Without all the knowledge and information, which is probably a lot more than even our most highest capacity, or most advanced computers can hold or computate right now, then how else are you supposed go about it, etc...?

I do like to get out sometimes though, when I'm not going to be occupied, or distracted, or busy, and I sometimes like to do this without any preconceived notion, or plan or agenda, other than just maybe a general direction or route, like a bike ride or walk or something, etc, but one where I take the time to take a lot of breaks along the way sometimes, and just "see what happens" sometimes, etc, and see if I think any of it was pre-arranged or was predestined or pre-planned or not, etc, and sometimes there is little to nothing sometimes, or a lot of the time, etc, but then sometimes, you'll run across things that you think might have been pre-planned or pre-arranged, etc, and it can sometimes be very interesting at those times along the way sometimes, etc...

But, when you have "life to do", basically, etc, most of the time you are not going to be looking for these things most of the time, and therefore will not see these things, and will miss them anyway even if they are or you did most of the time, etc, but doing what I said just now a minute ago, etc, when you can maybe find the time, can sometimes be a very interesting "test" or experiment sometimes, etc...

Many people don't have and can't find the time though, etc, life is just "way too fast or busy" for them most of time, etc...

You gotta really slow things down by quite a lot or quite a bit in order to even see or notice these things most of the time, and many people are just not able to, or can't stand it even if they are, or even if they can or could most of the time, and so immediately pick up something to be occupied with or distracted by or with most of the time, etc...

You can't be impatient and expect to see or notice these kinds of things most of the time, and you can't be "going fast", or be overly busy or distracted by anything either, so a lot of people just don't see or notice these things a lot of the time, etc...

And, if you can handle this part of it, etc, most people do not ever hear God's voice either, because they either can't, or won't, do this, or try this, or slow things down to this point most of the time, etc...

In my opinion "life" makes many people a prisoner a lot of the time, etc...

But it's not their fault either, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

There is really no other way to go about it really, the second you get busy in life, your not going to be thinking about any of these things, and will just go about it the only way you/me/we can go about it really, etc, and maybe that's the way it's supposed to be really...? IDK...?

Without all the knowledge and information, which is probably a lot more than even our most highest capacity, or most advanced computers can hold or computate right now, then how else are you supposed go about it, etc...?

I do like to get out sometimes though, when I'm not going to be occupied, or distracted, or busy, and I sometimes like to do this without any preconceived notion, or plan or agenda, other than just maybe a general direction or route, like a bike ride or walk or something, etc, but one where I take the time to take a lot of breaks along the way sometimes, and just "see what happens" sometimes, etc, and see if I think any of it was pre-arranged or was predestined or pre-planned or not, etc, and sometimes there is little to nothing sometimes, or a lot of the time, etc, but then sometimes, you'll run across things that you think might have been pre-planned or pre-arranged, etc, and it can sometimes be very interesting at those times along the way sometimes, etc...

But, when you have "life to do", basically, etc, most of the time you are not going to be looking for these things most of the time, and therefore will not see these things, and will miss them anyway even if they are or you did most of the time, etc, but doing what I said just now a minute ago, etc, when you can maybe find the time, can sometimes be a very interesting "test" or experiment sometimes, etc...

Many people don't have and can't find the time though, etc, life is just "way too fast or busy" for them most of time, etc...

You gotta really slow things down by quite a lot or quite a bit in order to even see or notice these things most of the time, and many people are just not able to, or can't stand it even if they are, or even if they can or could most of the time, and so immediately pick up something to be occupied with or distracted by or with most of the time, etc...

You can't be impatient and expect to see or notice these kinds of things most of the time, and you can't be "going fast", or be overly busy or distracted by anything either, so a lot of people just don't see or notice these things a lot of the time, etc...

And, if you can handle this part of it, etc, most people do not ever hear God's voice either, because they either can't, or won't, do this, or try this, or slow things down to this point most of the time, etc...

In my opinion "life" makes many people a prisoner a lot of the time, etc...

But it's not their fault either, etc...

God Bless!

Keanu Reeves is an interesting example of late, etc, and how he goes about his daily life a lot of the time, etc, even though he is a star, etc, have any of you been hearing about him any lately any of the time lately, etc? I'll bet he's seen and experienced a few things some of the time, etc, he probably doesn't bother trying to tell anybody about it though, etc, and maybe he's got, or is getting it right, etc, I don't know, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Keanu Reeves is an interesting example of late, etc, and how he goes about his daily life a lot of the time, etc, even though he is a star, etc, have any of you been hearing about him any lately any of the time lately, etc? I'll bet he's seen and experienced a few things some of the time, etc, he probably doesn't bother trying to tell anybody about it though, etc, and maybe he's got, or is getting it right, etc, I don't know, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

Probably figures they are still stuck in the Matrix, etc, lol, and could be used by the agents of the Matrix if he did try to talk about it, or tell anybody, etc, lol...

Immediately exile him from Hollywood, and write him off as crazy or delusional maybe, etc, and so wouldn't hear him anyway, etc, etc, etc...

So maybe he's got it right, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Probably figures they are still stuck in the Matrix, etc, lol, and could be used by the agents of the Matrix if he did try to talk about it, or tell anybody, etc, lol...

Immediately exile him from Hollywood, and write him off as crazy or delusional maybe, etc, and so wouldn't hear him anyway, etc, etc, etc...

So maybe he's got it right, etc...

God Bless!

I might go his route soon, etc...

Been thinking about it anyway, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I might go his route soon, etc...

Been thinking about it anyway, etc...

God Bless!

I'm going to be getting an e-bike soon, which should make that a lot easier for me, since I've lost my driver's license for life, and don't work, and live alone, and I won't have to do all of that pedaling as much anymore, etc, beginning to get too old or too out of shape for it, etc, since I like to do it by riding a/the/my bike around to different places and spots around my town, etc...

God Bless!

 

[doubtingmerle]

But what if we begin with a completely different understanding of free will. One which is based solely upon whether or not my own personal preferences, ideologies and beliefs are a predominant factor in my choices, then I absolutely do have free will, and what we're really discussing is how I came to have those preferences, ideologies, and beliefs in the first place.

Did I come to have those preferences of my own accord, or were they simply the product of deterministic processes?

I could argue that it doesn't make any difference. No matter how I came to have them, they are MY preferences, ideologies, and beliefs. My existence, and everything about it may be completely deterministic, but it still constitutes ME.

I'm not an uncaused cause, but it doesn't matter, I still am what I am, and my preferences, ideologies, and beliefs are still mine, and any choices that arise because of them are completely the product of what I am. They are the product of MY will, no matter how I came to have that will.

Now you may or may not accept this argument, and I'm not saying that you should, but it is an alternative to the belief that determinism invalidates the idea of free will.

I understand that to be the view of Daniel Dennett. "I" am free to do whatever "I" want, but the "I" in that phrase refers to my physical body and the mind that emanates from it, and that body and mind are the sum product of all the influences that have shaped my brain and mind to be what they are today. Technically, I would not call that free will. But it all depends how you look at it.

I think Dennett has even argued that dot patterns in the game of life are illustrative of free will. (See Quantum Mechanics, Free Will and the Game of Life). "Glider guns" in the game of life are free to do what dots "choose" to do according to the rules of the game, but, in my opinion, it is a misnomer to call that free will.

 

[partinobodycular]

That they are your choices is a given. But would you make the same ones under the same cicunstances? If the circumstances are the same then what has changed to make you choose differently.

Consider for a moment that determinism tells us that if we know the state of a system at any point in time, then we can predict the state of that system at any other point in time. Specifically, the state of the system in the past determines the state of the system in the future. It's a simple enough concept, and one that seems to completely disallow free will. But there's something absolutely bizarre that happens once a system becomes conscious, because then the state of the system isn't just determined by its past, it's also determined by its future. How the system could be actually becomes a factor in how the system will be. That's bizarre, the future of the system actually becomes a factor in determining the future of the system.

Just let that idea sink in for a moment, that what "could be" actually becomes a factor in determining what "will be". But there are so many different things that "could be", so how does determinism then explain what "will be" if there are so many different things that "could be"? It would seem that the only way that it can possibly do this is through the influence of that conscious agent. Even if the system is still deterministic it's still the conscious agent that decides what "will be" out of all the possibilities that "could be".

Now I have to admit that I have never thought of this before, and so it's quite possible that I simply haven't thought it through sufficiently enough. But it seems to me that once the system becomes conscious such that the future becomes a factor in how the system evolves then the conscious agent has to play a role in that evolution because it's the only means by which the future can have an influence on the present.

Somewhere in this mess lies the groundwork for free will, that once the future begins to influence the present the conscious agent becomes the means by which that influence is expressed.

I realize that this is crazy, but this is what happens when the voices in my head just won't shut up. Anyway, just food for thought.

 

[doubtingmerle]

As the atheists like to constantly remind Christians - evidence is not proof!

When challenged on your stance that it is proven, read what I wrote, you suddenly move the goalposts of there being evidence...sigh.

No sir, I am moving no goalposts. My claim has always been that there is strong evidence that it is the brain that thinks. Nothing changed.

And no, you cannot simply ignore the evidence that it is the brain that thinks.

By illustration, consider the strong evidence that the earth is spherical. The earth is obviously spherical, but no, that was never proven. However, since the evidence is very strong, one cannot simply ignore the evidence and assume the earth must be flat.

Likewise, there is strong evidence that it is the brain that thinks. ( see Is There Life after Death? - The Mind Set Free). Since the evidence is very strong, it is wrong to ignore the evidence and assume an immaterial soul does the thinking.

Do you have any response to that evidence, other than to ignore it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

But there's something absolutely bizarre that happens once a system becomes conscious, because then the state of the system isn't just determined by its past, it's also determined by its future.

You lost be there. Why would the state of a conscious system be determined by its future state?

 

[partinobodycular]

You lost be there. Why would the state of a conscious system be determined by its future state?

Because the conscious mind can predict the possible outcomes and then choose between them. Thus the future affects the present, by affecting the choices made in the present. Even if the outcome is still deterministic a new element has been introduced to the equation, one which is only there because of the existence of a conscious mind.

 

[TedT]

And no, you cannot simply ignore the evidence that it is the brain that thinks.

I can ignore the evidence if there is more cogent evidence about reality that convinces me of its truth. The seven blind wise men describing the elephant comes to mind. Each has realistic and personal proof of what an elephant is but by missing the sum total of elephant-ness, their correctness leads to the wrong conclusions, sigh.

I used to be where you are now but I pass over it now because the evidence of the bible and the Spirit who converted me is more compelling...

Do you have any response to that evidence, other than to ignore it?

Of course - my response is to praise GOD, to seek HIM in all things and not my own understanding about science and theology and to muddle through with my faith.

 

[partinobodycular]

Of course - my response is to praise GOD, to seek HIM in all things and not my own understanding about science and theology and to muddle through with my faith.

But aren't you making the same mistake that you're accusing others of making, assuming the answer without sufficient evidence. I.E. you're just on the opposite end of the elephant.

 

[TedT]

But aren't you making the same mistake that you're accusing others of making, assuming the answer without sufficient evidence. I.E. you're just on the opposite end of the elephant.

Your presented evidence. Fine. Then you started to refer to that evidence as proof. Not fine. Evidence is not proof.

I find the evidence for the Christian take on reality to be compelling but NOT proven so I accord it my faith, my unproven hope, it is the truth.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Astrid]

Your presented evidence. Fine. Then you started to refer to that evidence as proof. Not fine. Evidence is not proof.

I find the evidence for the Christian take on reality to be compelling but NOT proven so I accord it my faith, my unproven hope, it is the truth.

If I may, what is the " Christian take on reality"?

 

[Bradskii]

Consider for a moment that determinism tells us that if we know the state of a system at any point in time, then we can predict the state of that system at any other point in time. Specifically, the state of the system in the past determines the state of the system in the future. It's a simple enough concept, and one that seems to completely disallow free will. But there's something absolutely bizarre that happens once a system becomes conscious, because then the state of the system isn't just determined by its past, it's also determined by its future. How the system could be actually becomes a factor in how the system will be. That's bizarre, the future of the system actually becomes a factor in determining the future of the system.

Just let that idea sink in for a moment, that what "could be" actually becomes a factor in determining what "will be". But there are so many different things that "could be", so how does determinism then explain what "will be" if there are so many different things that "could be"? It would seem that the only way that it can possibly do this is through the influence of that conscious agent. Even if the system is still deterministic it's still the conscious agent that decides what "will be" out of all the possibilities that "could be".

Now I have to admit that I have never thought of this before, and so it's quite possible that I simply haven't thought it through sufficiently enough. But it seems to me that once the system becomes conscious such that the future becomes a factor in how the system evolves then the conscious agent has to play a role in that evolution because it's the only means by which the future can have an influence on the present.

Somewhere in this mess lies the groundwork for free will, that once the future begins to influence the present the conscious agent becomes the means by which that influence is expressed.

I realize that this is crazy, but this is what happens when the voices in my head just won't shut up. Anyway, just food for thought.

No, it's a great point. I need to think about that. 'The future' would be the only thing that would cause a different decision to be made if all situations were the same. But we don't know the future...so no free will.

But...does considering the future make a difference? Or is that the answer to the problem of responsibility? Can possible futures be considered a part of the existing conditions?

 

[AV1611VET]

If freewill doesn't exist, then why do we experience cognitive dissonance, regrets, Hobson's choice, and hedonistic calculus?

 

[Bradskii]

If freewill doesn't exist, then why do we experience cognitive dissonance, regrets, Hobson's choice, and hedonistic calculus?

Take some time and explain how each one denies free will.