Free Will

[Bradskii]

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

It seems that I have to keep saying this, but it's a hypothetical. And as such, conditions are deemed to be exactly the same. We're not running an experiment here in trying to repeat any given set of conditions, so there is no 'measurement uncertainty'.

 

[Bradskii]

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

Yes, it is. Let's be honest here. We're giving our opinions on the matter and bringing the best arguments that we have to back up our individual positions. But this is not something that one can prove by any means.

I don't want to keep preceding everything I say with 'In my humble opinion (because we aren't going to be able to prove this)...', but let's assume that it prefaces every post in this thread.

And notwithstanding that, I live my life as if we have free will. Just as if I thought we might be avatars in some galactic game. We may as well carry on as if it's all real. I'm really not sure what the alternative would be.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Where we "choose" to place our attention is entirely the result of antecedent conditions. Thats the claim, based on the physics of cause/effect.

I'm looking for a mechanism that could escape that physics. [/QUOTE] I've already said that I think that that view is a result of a flawed understanding of causality. Many physicists are not very good when it comes to philosophy. So many of them take the Humean view of causality for granted. They are starting in mid stream.

What creates identity? Prior conditions, it seems. Theres no "you" thats the author of those conditions ultimately. You are a result of them.

I don't think it is created. I think identity is 100% concurrent with existence so asking what created identity is like asking what created the universe. It's a nonsensical question.

(I actually agree with your conclusion, that we do have free will. But I disagree that free will is a rational proposition. I can find no rational support for it so far. Its basically a faith position.)

So you agree with me that we have free will but this belief is not based on reason. Mine is.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Does that even matter?

The claim is our decisions are entirely the result of antecedent facts that we cannot change.

Well, I think that is true in a way. We can't change our natures. That is not open to our choice. Our natures are a fact just like the nature of everything that exists and these are antecedent facts. I think this notion that free will is defined as doing things for no reason, completely arbitrarily, and outside of any context is a bogus definition.

Choices have a purpose in our lives. If we were not living beings who have to act in the face of the alternative of life vs. death we wouldn't have to make them. If we were immortal, indestructible beings we could do whatever we want without reason, arbitrarily, and outside of any context. But we are not imortal, indestructible beings so the notion that free will means acting arbitrarily is itself arbitrary and it completely drops the context of the role of choices in our lives.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think it is created. I think identity is 100% concurrent with existence so asking what created identity is like asking what created the universe. It's a nonsensical question.

I'd suggest that a great part of one's identity is dna based. And the rest on our upbringing. Our environment. The where and when.

If you had someone else's dna then you wouldn't be the 'you' that you are now. And with the same dna but brought up in a different time in a different place, you likewise wouldn't be the 'you' that you are now.

What else serves to form our identity?

 

[durangodawood]

Well, I think that is true in a way. We can't change our natures. That is not open to our choice. Our natures are a fact just like the nature of everything that exists and these are antecedent facts. I think this notion that free will is defined as doing things for no reason, completely arbitrarily, and outside of any context is a bogus definition.....

Do you think material determinism is true?

What can we change if material determinism is true?

 

[renniks]

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?

Because it's never that simple in reality. Maybe if you were a computer it would be.
And you are still missing the point. A million reasons pro or con still do not cause the action.
Why is that not blazingly obvious?

 

[renniks]

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

It doesn't make sense that we are obligated to make a certain choice. Influenced, yes, but not obligated.

 

[Bradskii]

Because it's never that simple in reality. Maybe if you were a computer it would be.
And you are still missing the point. A million reasons pro or con still do not cause the action.
Why is that not blazingly obvious?

You can have a million reasons for doing something. Let's make it manageable.

You either go to the gym or go to the bar. There's a good reason for each. You choose one. And I'll repeat myself once more: 'Whatever caused your actions are the reasons for you performing them.'

What might cause you to go to the bar was that you really wanted to meet up with some friends for a drink. What might cause you to go to the gym was the desire to lose a few kilos. You pick one. Let's say it's the gym.

That desire to lose a few kilos was the reason you chose as you did. That reason, the desire to lose a few kilos, caused the decision. There may have been a million others. But that was the one.

Let me put it another way:

How many reasons do you have to choose the gym over the bar? Just the one - to lose weight. Do you go? Yes you do. So the desire to lose weight, the reason why you actually went, caused you to make that decision.

 

[Bradskii]

It doesn't make sense that we are obligated to make a certain choice. Influenced, yes, but not obligated.

You're not wrong. It doesn't make a lot of sense. It really seems like we are making free will decisions. But it really looks like the sun is actually rising in the east at the moment. That I am spinning towards it doesn't make any difference to me. I'll act as if it's rising. I'll refer to it as if it's rising. If we couldn't prove it one way or the other then it wouldn't make any difference.

 

[renniks]

You can have a million reasons for doing something. Let's make it manageable.

You either go to the gym or go to the bar. There's a good reason for each. You choose one. And I'll repeat myself once more: 'Whatever caused your actions are the reasons for you performing them.'

What might cause you to go to the bar was that you really wanted to meet up with some friends for a drink. What might cause you to go to the gym was the desire to lose a few kilos. You pick one. Let's say it's the gym.

That desire to lose a few kilos was the reason you chose as you did. That reason, the desire to lose a few kilos, caused the decision. There may have been a million others. But that was the one.

Let me put it another way:

How many reasons do you have to choose the gym over the bar? Just the one - to lose weight. Do you go? Yes you do. So the desire to lose weight, the reason why you actually went, caused you to make that decision.

No, the reasons aren't causes. You are the only cause in the equation. The reasons don't move your muscles and body in one direction or another. Your brain does. That's what Free will is, the ability to decide between options regardless of the reasons for or against.

 

[TedT]

I'd suggest that a great part of one's identity is dna based. And the rest on our upbringing. Our environment. The where and when.

Exactly!!!! Such things form our characters and cause our choices...and in the Christian pov, we are also addicted to evil from conception!!!

Free will for un-reborn humans? Neither secular materialism nor Christian doctrine (unless it is fudged to avoid the cognitive distress the doctrine of enslavement to sin causes, sigh) accept the free will of mankind.

YET our free will is an absolute necessity to make us actually criminally responsible for our crimes against GOD as mens rea insists. Also, the bible story ends with the heavenly marriage of the Church to the Lamb and since neither love nor marriage can be counted as true if forced, this marriage must be entered into by the Church by the free will of each person, iow, our free will is an absolute necessity to fulfill the purpose of God in our creation as this marriage, the culmination of the Bible story, implies.

So how is this contradiction resolved without resorting to the doublethink of accepting our free will and our enslavement to sin as both true at the same time? When did we have a free will to be able to be guilty for sin and to enter a perfect marriage? Since as soon as we get our dna at conception and family and cultural values at our birth, both of which coerce our will so it is not free, our time for a free will would have have been before these things happened to us as Matthew 13:36-39 and many more verses suggests.

 

[TedT]

No, the reasons aren't causes. You are the only cause in the equation. The reasons don't move your muscles and body in one direction or another. Your brain does. That's what Free will is, the ability to decide between options regardless of the reasons for or against.

And, if, as Christ told us, our brains are enslaved / addicted to evil, where is the ability to make a free will decision to be found??

 

[renniks]

And, if, as Christ told us, our brains are enslaved / addicted to evil, where is the ability to make a free will decision to be found??

This enslavement is not total, obviously. If it were, you would never do anything good.
You could certainly not choose Christ.
Free will has its limits, I can't flap my arms and fly to London, I can only do what is in my power to do.
It's within my power to choose between options.

 

[renniks]

So how is this contradiction resolved without resorting to the doublethink of accepting our free will and our enslavement to sin as both true at the same time?

If you believe that our slavery to sin is complete, when we are unbelievers, then why do you still sin now, if you are now a slave to Christ?
You can't have it one way and not the other.
Obviously the talk about slavery does not eliminate free will, it's a metaphor.

 

[Bradskii]

No, the reasons aren't causes. You are the only cause in the equation. The reasons don't move your muscles and body in one direction or another. Your brain does. That's what Free will is, the ability to decide between options regardless of the reasons for or against.

'You' aren't operating in a vaccum. 'You' respond to the situation. What is external to yourself and also to that which is internal. Your character. Your preferences. Your mood even. And all of that is the sum of the conditions whereby a decision is made. Else what are you basing your decision on?

Give me any example of you making a decision and you will have a list of reasons why you decided to make it. It cannot be any other way other than making a purely arbitrary coin-toss of a decision. So try it. Tell me about a decision you have made and we'll look at the reasons why you made it.

 

[Bradskii]

YET our free will is an absolute necessity to make us actually criminally responsible for our crimes against GOD as mens rea insists.

That seems logical. And I haven't an easy answer to that. It concerns me and I've never heard a satisfying answer to it.

 

[TedT]

This enslavement is not total, obviously. If it were, you would never do anything good.

ImCo:

Not total, no, but the sin taints every good thing the person wills...no decision is clean or righteous or good; all is tainted. And no, no sinner can choose Christ - - - without the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[TedT]

It's within my power to choose between options.

The power to choose is NOT proof of a free will because the will to choose evil obviously persists yet no fully righteous decision can be made. As the person's sinfulness becomes more and more leavened within all of every decision the amount of good intent decreases, obviously: Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. Satan has the power to make choices between options...his choices are all just perfectly evil because his will is perfectly bound, addicted, enslaved to sin.

 

[renniks]

Tell me about a decision you have made and we'll look at the reasons why you made it.

I decided not to spend money on a life coach currently. Lots of reasons pro and con. Why did I decide against? IDK. I could say that it was the cost, but that's not an absolute. I could have made it work. I could say it was pride, but honestly I don't think that's it. I could go on for a long time with the reasons. The reasons didn't cause my decision. I did.