How is free will possible?

[holo]

If I'm not responsible for my good/bad choices then I can't be commended/reprimanded justly. How then is this not a reason to do away with laws/accountability? There wouldn't be anything/anyone to be accountable for or to. It's a massive problem that I hope you can eventually see.

Commendation and reprimand is one of the million of things that determine what we do.

Believing that we don't have free will doesn't render morality and judgment meaningless, but it does mean that you can't really say someone is evil. The more you see what caused something to happen, the less likely you are to judge a person to be bad. It doesn't mean you can't say their acts are detrimental. It happens in court all the time - even murder can be understood if the circumstances were such and such. But it may still be right to send people to jail.

 

[holo]

Well, just because some can't control themselves doesn't mean no one is able to control themselves.

But don't we all have free will?

You controlling yourself is itself a consequence of something else. There are lots of reasons that you can, for instance your genes, the religion you've been exposed to/brought up in, your personality type etc. Heck, even how good you slept last night influences your level of self control.

Of course you may say "I chose to control myself." But again there must be a reason why you chose that. If we could freely choose our motivations, then surely we'd all choose to be motivated to eat healthy, study hard and so forth.

 

[Ken-1122]

You could have made a different choice if the preconditions had been different.

No; I WOULD have made a different choice if the preconditions had been different. I COULD have made a different choice even though they were not.

 

[Ken-1122]

I was agreeing with your description of what it means to be robotic.

Sounds like you’re contradicting yourself. At first you said:
I think since we don't know that there's only one possible outcome, we must live as if we have actual choice.

This tells me you are convinced we don’t have actual choice, that we just pretend that we do. Then you said:

If I actually believed I don't have choice, I probably struggle to find true meaning in life, become robotic.
For the record: I do believe we have real choice.

So which is it?

 

[Chriliman]

Sounds like you’re contradicting yourself. At first you said:
I think since we don't know that there's only one possible outcome, we must live as if we have actual choice.

This tells me you are convinced we don’t have actual choice, that we just pretend that we do. Then you said:

If I actually believed I don't have choice, I probably struggle to find true meaning in life, become robotic.
For the record: I do believe we have real choice.

So which is it?

Sorry I wasn’t clear before. I do believe we have actual choice.

 

[holo]

No; I WOULD have made a different choice if the preconditions had been different. I COULD have made a different choice even though they were not.

But you already said you chose a dog for a reason, i.e. the preconditions.

 

[Ken-1122]

Sorry I wasn’t clear before. I do believe we have actual choice.

So why did you say

I think since we don't know that there's only one possible outcome, we must live as if we have actual choice.

Why would you say that if you don’t believe there is only one possible outcome, and you believe we DO have actual choice?

 

[Ken-1122]

But you already said you chose a dog for a reason, i.e. the preconditions.

Yes I did choose for a reason. But I could have chosen differently if I wanted to.

 

[holo]

Yes I did choose for a reason. But I could have chosen differently if I wanted to.

Exactly. If you wanted to. And we don't choose to want things. Just like you didn't choose to have the dog as your favourite animal. It just is.

 

[holo]

Maybe I should clarify again that not having free will doesn't mean you're forced to act against your own wishes. It just means that you don't pick and choose your wishes.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't know. But the case against free will looks like this: everything that happens has a cause, and the mind is a function of the brain.

If we didn't have this assumption or illusion of free will in the first place, we would never come to the conclusion that such a thing exists by studying the universe. We assume we have a free will because it feels like we do, not because there's a scientific reason to.

I think the human "self" is a sort of emergent first-cause-machine thats arisen from the brain/mind's complex capacities.

I see your position as analogous to examining a time in the universe prior to life. Back then, whole categories of material functions made possible only by the emergent properties of biological matter would have rightly been considered impossible (leaving aside the paradox of the imaginary observer). Locomotion, information transfer, etc, etc, so many "impossible" material capacities.

Now that we know the trick, we can look backward and explain DNA in the context of biochemistry. But back then, looking forward, I think it would be relegated to the "impossible" bin, just like youre doing today with real human free will.

 

[holo]

I think the human "self" is a sort of emergent first-cause-machine thats arisen from the brain/mind's complex capacities.

I see your position as analogous to examining a time in the universe prior to life. Back then, whole categories of material functions made possible only by the emergent properties of biological matter would have rightly been considered impossible (leaving aside the paradox of the imaginary observer). Locomotion, information transfer, etc, etc, so many "impossible" material capacities.

Now that we know the trick, we can look backward and explain DNA in the context of biochemistry. But back then, looking forward, I think it would be relegated to the "impossible" bin, just like youre doing today with real human free will.

Of course it's possible that we may confirm that free will is real sometime in the future. But it seems to me the only reason to believe in it now is because it just feels like we have it.

 

[durangodawood]

Of course it's possible that we may confirm that free will is real sometime in the future. But it seems to me the only reason to believe in it now is because it just feels like we have it.

My sense is that the self/mind is still something of a "black box", and making rock solid statements right now about its constraints is premature.

 

[holo]

My sense is that the self/mind is still something of a "black box", and making rock solid statements right now about its constraints is premature.

It's certainly true that the self is a mystery. What is the self? Is it really a thing in and of itself?

 

[Ken-1122]

Exactly. If you wanted to. And we don't choose to want things. Just like you didn't choose to have the dog as your favourite animal. It just is.

If free will is the ability to choose between various courses of actions; unimpeded (which I believe it is)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
As long as I have the option to choose A or B, I have free will. The reasons I chose one over the other doesn’t dispel the fact that I still had the option.
With that being said, I’ve got a feeling how the term is used in philosophy is different than how the word is commonly used by the general public.

 

[durangodawood]

It's certainly true that the self is a mystery. What is the self? Is it really a thing in and of itself?

Right. There's the Buddhist perspective that the self is this illusory agglomeration cobbled together from your string of life events.

otoh there's the Christian view that insists the soul is real and eternal. I think this explains its appeal. People want their person validated.

 

[holo]

If free will is the ability to choose between various courses of actions; unimpeded (which I believe it is)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
As long as I have the option to choose A or B, I have free will. The reasons I chose one over the other doesn’t dispel the fact that I still had the option.
With that being said, I’ve got a feeling how the term is used in philosophy is different than how the word is commonly used by the general public.

If by unimpeded you mean not influenced, then we don't have free will because you'll never be in a situation where your choice isn't influenced by anything. Or if it is, it must be a choice that doesn't matter to you at all.

Like I mentioned earlier, things like obesity and smoking are pretty solid examples of how we don't have free, as in unimpeded, will. If we had, nobody would struggle with things like that. They would be completely free to do otherwise. If they didn't feel like eating healthy food, they could simply decide to start preferring carrots over pizza. But something is causing their choices, and they don't create or control those causes and conditions.

 

[Chriliman]

So why did you say

I think since we don't know that there's only one possible outcome, we must live as if we have actual choice.

Why would you say that if you don’t believe there is only one possible outcome, and you believe we DO have actual choice?

I’ll reword it and say: the fact that we don’t know there’s only one possible outcome points to us having real choice.

Does that make sense?

 

[ananda]

Right. There's the Buddhist perspective that the self is this illusory agglomeration cobbled together from your string of life events.

otoh there's the Christian view that insists the soul is real and eternal. I think this explains its appeal. People want their person validated.

Why do (some) individuals "want their person validated" (eternalism)? IMO it's because those individuals experience discontentment and suffering with the idea that their person may not be real or eternal. It also explains why other individuals do not want their person validated (annihilationism) - these individuals likewise experience discontentment and suffering with the idea of eternal existence.

Therefore, the real problem is discontentment and suffering - not eternal existence or non-existence.

 

[durangodawood]

Why do (some) individuals "want their person validated" (eternalism)? IMO it's because those individuals experience discontentment and suffering with the idea that their person may not be real or eternal. It also explains why other individuals do not want their person validated (annihilationism) - these individuals likewise experience discontentment and suffering with the idea of eternal existence.

Therefore, the real problem is discontentment and suffering - not eternal existence or non-existence.

I think way more people are discontented with the idea of annihilation than with the idea of eternal life.

And for those who are put off by mortal difficulties carried through eternally, the Christian model adds resurrection in bodily perfection, with all the evil people removed, plus lots of bliss. Whats not to like?