I need a proof for free will.

[quatona]

For "proposition, substitute "expression of belief"

You can believe in determinism only if you believe in an objective, disembodied, external world.

I don´t see these two ideas are necessarily linked.

From the point of view that we perceive the world from, there is no evidence to suggest that there is one, apart from intuition.

I´m not sure I understand - that there is what? A world, an objective world, free will?

But there is a thing that can choose whether or not to believe in things: otherwise there would be no propositions (expressions of belief).

I still don´t see how that follows. It seems you have left one or several key step unmentioned in your argumentative chain, maybe because you think they are self-suggesting.

So if there is an expression, there must be a believer, who must have been able to not believe if he had so chosen.

This sounds circular. What we are discussing is whether he has chosen or not. Now you introduce this for a premise.

What we can agree upon: Different people believe different things.
I do, however, not see how differences between two different persons allow the conclusion that either of them had a choice in it.

 

[exploring]

I don´t see these two ideas are necessarily linked.

I´m not sure I understand - that there is what? A world, an objective world, free will?

I still don´t see how that follows. It seems you have left one or several key step unmentioned in your argumentative chain, maybe because you think they are self-suggesting.


This sounds circular. What we are discussing is whether he has chosen or not. Now you introduce this for a premise.

What we can agree upon: Different people believe different things.
I do, however, not see how differences between two different persons allow the conclusion that either of them had a choice in it.

Either the world defines what we are, an objective view, or we define what the world is, a subjective view. In the first case, we do not have free will, since an essence can be found for all that we are. In the second case, our actions cannot be analysed into exterior constituents, because our existence precedes them. So we are free to choose what to do regardless of outside factors. That is why i said that belief in an objective world is the same as non-belief in free will.

A being that can think "I believe this" or "I don't believe this" is only possible in the second case. Even if you believe your actions are determined, that is still a belief. To believe in a world of essences is to believe that there is no such thing as belief.

 

[quatona]

Either the world defines what we are, an objective view, or we define what the world is, a subjective view.

I think this is a false dichotomy. Of course the world has an objective nature (that what the world is if noone perceives it). This objective nature is irrelevant and inaccessible for us, since what we see is necessarily a product of our perception.
So the world as we see and conceptualize it (define it, as you say), is our subjective view.

In the first case, we do not have free will, since an essence can be found for all that we are.

So far we have just agreed that there must be an essence, we apparently disagree in the question whether it can be found or not.

In the second case, our actions cannot be analysed into exterior constituents, because our existence precedes them.

Yes, emphasis on "cannot be analyzed into exteriour constituents" (as opposed to "requires the notion that no such exteriour constituents exist").

So we are free to choose what to do regardless of outside factors.

I still fail to see how that follows.
The fact that I am creating my reality does not necessarily mean that I have a choice in how I create it. I would like you to focus on this missing link in your argumentation.

That is why i said that belief in an objective world is the same as non-belief in free will.

Ok, but that was not the part I meant to discuss.

A being that can think "I believe this" or "I don't believe this" is only possible in the second case.

Again, a non-sequitur as far as I can see. If part of the assumed objective world is that it allows us to think "I believe this", I think these two things are perfectly reconcilable.

Even if you believe your actions are determined, that is still a belief.

No doubt about that. It doesn´t make my belief necessarily a choice, though.

To believe in a world of essences is to believe that there is no such thing as belief.

Feel free to consider me dense, but I don´t see how that follows from anything.

 

[phsyxx]

I think this is a false dichotomy. Of course the world has an objective nature (that what the world is if noone perceives it). This objective nature is irrelevant and inaccessible for us, since what we see is necessarily a product of our perception.
So the world as we see and conceptualize it (define it, as you say), is our subjective view.

So far we have just agreed that there must be an essence, we apparently disagree in the question whether it can be found or not.

Yes, emphasis on "cannot be analyzed into exteriour constituents" (as opposed to "requires the notion that no such exteriour constituents exist").

I still fail to see how that follows.
The fact that I am creating my reality does not necessarily mean that I have a choice in how I create it. I would like you to focus on this missing link in your argumentation.

Ok, but that was not the part I meant to discuss.


Again, a non-sequitur as far as I can see. If part of the assumed objective world is that it allows us to think "I believe this", I think these two things are perfectly reconcilable.

No doubt about that. It doesn´t make my belief necessarily a choice, though.

Feel free to consider me dense, but I don´t see how that follows from anything.

From the point of view of God, existent in the Eternal now and omnipotent, omniscient- there is no such thing as free will, because God has prior knowledge of your actions before you have commited them.

From the point of view of people, with limited knowledge, it seems that one has a choice, and events are random.
So it SEEMS that you have free will-
but in reality it is an illusion.

 

[quatona]

From the point of view of people, with limited knowledge, it seems that one has a choice, and events are random.
So it SEEMS that you have free will-
but in reality it is an illusion.

How come then, that to me it SEEMS I have no free will?

 

[elman]

How come then, that to me it SEEMS I have no free will?

That is baffeling. Why is it different for you than it is for me?

 

[Gracchus]

"Some people believe in free will. They have to. Some people don't believe in free will. That is their choice." -- Stultus Maximus

We always act as we want. What we wanted to do is what we do. We cannot, however, act as we don't want except by accident. Nor can we choose what we want. The apparent exceptions to this rule occur when we don't really know what we want.

Ergo, there is no such thing as free will, even if you choose to believe that there is.

 

[elman]

Quote

Every thing you do is not the result of your enviroment and the structure of your body

Yes it is, even if you lack the capability to accept or see this.

I do lack the capacity of seeing your divine knowledge. How do you know this to be true?

Quote

Some of the things you do is the result of you deciding to do it.

"You" deciding it is a physical process. A determined physical process, only influenced by the structure of your body and the environmental influences.

That is incorrect. I can decide different ways on the same issue. My deciding is a mental process and I can do it without being totally controled by my body and envrionmental influences.

Quote

I am not interested in your link. I decide not to be interested. Nothing forced me to do that. Not my body and not my environment.

Oh yes it did, even if you can't accept it . What you fail to see is that "you" actually is nothing more than the result of information centralisation of your body. "You" are not a separate entity, you are just an intermediate of the information processing of your body.

You are incorrect. You may be a robot driven only by chemistry, but I am a thinking being.

 

[quatona]

That is baffeling. Why is it different for you than it is for me?

Because you and I are subject to different determining factors.
Are you trying to tell me that differences indicate there to be choice? Forget it.

 

[Gracchus]

Quote

Every thing you do is not the result of your enviroment and the structure of your body


I do lack the capacity of seeing your divine knowledge. How do you know this to be true?

Quote

Some of the things you do is the result of you deciding to do it.


That is incorrect. I can decide different ways on the same issue. My deciding is a mental process and I can do it without being totally controled by my body and envrionmental influences.

Quote

I am not interested in your link. I decide not to be interested. Nothing forced me to do that. Not my body and not my environment.

You are incorrect. You may be a robot driven only by chemistry,
but I am a thinking being.

We understand. You have to believe that.

And how can we respect your thinking when you can't even get the quote function to format properly.

 

[quatona]

You are incorrect. You may be a robot driven only by chemistry, but I am a thinking being.

These two descriptions are not contradicting each other.

 

[exploring]

From the point of view of God, existent in the Eternal now and omnipotent, omniscient- there is no such thing as free will, because God has prior knowledge of your actions before you have commited them.

From the point of view of people, with limited knowledge, it seems that one has a choice, and events are random.
So it SEEMS that you have free will-
but in reality it is an illusion.

Except, you don't know that there is such a point of view as god's, since all you have is your own point of view. Surely free will only "SEEMS" to be an illusion? There is no reason to think that there is an objective reality

 

[exploring]

Thank you for arguing in such a calm and methodical way, quatona.

If the only point of view is a subjective one then we are free ot choose what we do. (a paraphrase but the same meaning I hope)

I still fail to see how that follows.
The fact that I am creating my reality does not necessarily mean that I have a choice in how I create it. I would like you to focus on this missing link in your argumentation.

Here goes...
In a subjective world, nothing outside is sure. since reasons are outside things, sure reasons cannot be found for actions. so as far as is knowable, nothing causes human decisions. A name for the unknowable thing that makes the decisions is "I". "I" just exists: it cannot be categorised. When it is observed that a decision has been made, we say "I (/he/she/you) made that decision". Nothing can tell "I" what to do/say/believe, so it is fair to say it has a "choice".

All this assumes that absolutely nothing is known objectively, even whether an objective world exists. You seem to disagree, saying

Of course the world has an objective nature

For me this falls under the category of objective statements that it is impossible to know from a subjective point of view. Why do you think it is so certain?

 

[quatona]

Thank you for arguing in such a calm and methodical way, quatona.

Well, I see no reason to do otherwise.
We are playing mindgames together, and we want to enjoy ourselves, no?

However, I see frustration coming my way.
What in my observation we have done in our last posts is:
e: X.
q: Z?
e: X
q: Z?
e: X
...

If basically the same questions and answers are repeated more than twice, it´s safe to bet that two persons are miscommunicating. It is not to be expected that repeating this a third, fourth, or fifth time will do the trick.
If one person says something, and it makes no sense to the other there can be various reasons for that. The most frequent on, in my observation, is: The two persons link different concepts to the terms used. I suggest we get that potential cause eliminated first. This is troublesome: it requires defining terms properly and clearly.

If the only point of view is a subjective one then we are free ot choose what we do. (a paraphrase but the same meaning I hope)

See, I´m not even sure I understand the components of this sentence.
"The only point of view is a subjective one":
- Points of view are subjective by definition.
- Why "the only point of view"? There are countless points of views.
- If the only way we can perceive things is subjectively (and this is actually already said by the word "perceive", how does that make a statement about the possibility or non-possibility of a non-subjective (objective) world?
I would first like to know what exactly you mean when saying "objective". I sense that you use it in different meanings alternately.
"Objective", when I use it, means something to the effect of: "the way it is if noone perceives it". Saying that there is no objective reality means saying there is nothing except our perception. I wouldn´t go there. All I can say (as a being that it bound to be perceiving, i.e. subjective): An objective world existing is a thought construct of mine, and an absurd one on top: It´s basically like asking: "What´s in the mirror if noone looks into it?" This assumed objective world would, by definition, be inaccessible and incomprehensible for me. As soon as I would be able to make a statement about it, I make a statement about my subjective reality. If there is something objective, it cannot be subject to our perception, thoughts and considerations. It´s somewhat absurd to first define something to be outside our reach and then talk about it.
IOW: Everything is what it is. We can, if you will, define that as all we can say about an "objective reality", or we can say this is a nonsensical tautology.

In a subjective world, nothing outside is sure.

This is a very unprecise statement, I think. In order to decide whether I accept it for a premise, I would first have to understand it better.
As far as I can see there are basically two possibilities as to what you may mean by "in a subjective world" (plus I have problems understanding what a "world" is meant to be in this context. I guess "reality" would be more to the point, so I will use it here):
- This subjective reality is the only reality there is. In this case something outside it is not only "not sure", but doesn´t even exist.
- There is an objective reality "outside" our subjective reality (the way things are if noone looks at them). If following this idea for a moment - despite my above explanation as to why that is an absurd approach - , things can well be sure in that objective reality. It´s only that I can´t be sure as to what and how they are.

since reasons are outside things, sure reasons cannot be found for actions.

I don´t even seem to understand how you arrive at the premise, and even if I accept the premise for the sake of the argument, I don´t see how the conclusion follows.

so as far as is knowable, nothing causes human decisions.

I can´t follow. In my subjective reality I observe causes for human decisions. So this is knowable (or not knowable - depending on what you mean when saying "knowable"), just as knowable as anything else subjectively perceived would be knowable (or not knowable).

A name for the unknowable thing that makes the decisions is "I". "I" just exists: it cannot be categorised.

Uh, that comes as a bit of a surprise to me. I wasn´t aware that we had established this definition of "I".

When it is observed that a decision has been made, we say "I (/he/she/you) made that decision". Nothing can tell "I" what to do/say/believe, so it is fair to say it has a "choice".

Well, ok. If we leave "I" by and large undefined other than it is a spaceholder for "something I simply assume to exist as the author of decisions", then we have defined this "I" to be the author of decisions. I don´t see, however, any reason to assume such an "I" to exist, other than that you have defined it so. If I define "molspom" to be something that is a. an elephant and b. pink, this is a legitimate definition. It would not be legitimate, though, to assume that I can define "molspoms" (or pink elephants) into existence that way.

All this assumes that absolutely nothing is known objectively, even whether an objective world exists.

Apart from the fact that I have problems understanding the point in introducing a non-concept ("objective") that so far has no other definition than merely "that which is outside my access; that which cannot be subject to my considerations", and then making it subject to my considerations nonetheless, I would agree with your statement. I would prefer to say "Everything that I experience is necessarily a product of my perception".

For me this falls under the category of objective statements that it is impossible to know from a subjective point of view. Why do you think it is so certain?

I don´t think it is "certain". It´s just all I can work from, since being bound to my perception. The "objective world" is exactly defined as being outside my access, so what I say is not even a conclusion, but merely acknowledging the definition. (As said in the beginning: Maybe you refer to something completely different when saying "objective world", but then you would have to provide me with that definition in order to help me make sense of your idea of an objective world that can be subjectively perceived).

Besides, this is the point where I think you - I´m sure inadvertantly - fall for the error of using a word in two meanings and then making a conclusion that would only be valid, if it had had the same meaning in both cases: The "objective" in "objective world" and the "objective" in "objective statement" signify completely different concepts. So the contradiction you conclude does not necessarily exist.

And unfortunately I still don´t see what all that has to do with choice.

explorer, I will be gone for a few days. I´ll check in when I´m back home. Thanks for the conversation so far.
quatona

 

[phsyxx]

Here goes...
In a subjective world, nothing outside is sure. since reasons are outside things, sure reasons cannot be found for actions. so as far as is knowable, nothing causes human decisions. A name for the unknowable thing that makes the decisions is "I". "I" just exists: it cannot be categorised. When it is observed that a decision has been made, we say "I (/he/she/you) made that decision". Nothing can tell "I" what to do/say/believe, so it is fair to say it has a "choice".

What makes "I" have that choice?
It seems that "I" makes that choice in a determined process.
"I" only has a limited number of options.
"I" is subject to consequences outside of itself.
"I" has prior knowledge of previous incidents and will naturally seek to gain the best solution to the problem/choice.


May I also propose, quatona, that favourites show that people develop preferences.

If a being was in an environment where everything tasted mildly of chicken, then how can the being possibly have "apple" as it's favourite flavour?

If there is freedom, or free will, even if there is, then it is a seriously limited form of freedom.

 

[elman]

=phsyxx]

What makes "I" have that choice?

I is born with that ability.

It seems that "I" makes that choice in a determined process.
"I" only has a limited number of options.
"I" is subject to consequences outside of itself.
"I" has prior knowledge of previous incidents and will naturally seek to gain the best solution to the problem/choice.

Not always, sometimes I makes choices knowing it is not the best solution to the problem.

May I also propose, quatona, that favourites show that people develop preferences.

Of course we have preferences. We are able to chose against our preferences.

If a being was in an environment where everything tasted mildly of chicken, then how can the being possibly have "apple" as it's favourite flavour?

It can't but what does that have to do with anything?

If there is freedom, or free will, even if there is, then it is a seriously limited form of freedom.

Of course. No one is arguing free will is unlimited.

 

[Opethian]

All of this begs the question: "how do you know that you don't exist" How do you know that physical processes are true? All of these are decisions that you can either accept or reject. There is no evidence for "physical processes" or "information " that does not pass through the subjective lens of "you". It is impossible to look at the world except subjectively. This means that free will, whether in objective reality it is true or not, is the subjective reality that we all have to deal with.

Obviously. I'm not going to argue against that. Anyways, I'm not going to debate this further. I've debated free will on numerous forums and my conclusion is that some people just can't grasp it or don't want to (because they are too vain). Good luck for the ones that still have energy left to try and persuade those that believe in free will, but I've run out of mine.

 

[b4uris]

A pretty good essay by Michael Huemer:

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/fwill.htm

 

[David Gould]

The 'proof' in that essay is simply bizarre.

When I say something like, 'I should strive for truth,' I am not making any statement as to whether it is possible for me to do so in a particular instance. What I am expressing is a wish as to how things will be. Indeed, in a deterministic world, the use of the word 'should' is a push towards a particular action (if you are told you should do something, you may be more likely to do it than if you are told you may do something, for example.)

Thus, I reject his second premise. As a clear example, just because we should hold the bridge to prevent the enemy from crossing, it does not mean that we are able to.

To use his own example, the student should have come some other way to class in order to avoid his teacher's ire. However, that does not mean that he was able to.

If I wanted to prove that free will exists, I should hjave been able to define it. That does not mean that I was able to, however.

 

[Gottservant]

All I want is a proof for free will. Please provide me a logical proof of free will and the existence of an omniscient being (where omniscient means "having all knowledge"). I don't need you to make the proof, just provide it.

"I need a proof for free will". There is your proof. Your words. You recognize them. You cannot take back having written them. You distinguished between a free will and just a will. All of these things were a free choice.

By the same token, I did not need to say that they were your words. I did not need to say that your words will be your words. I did not need to say that you chose those words by a free choice. You must recognize that.

Jesus said in Matthew 12:36-37 (Show Context) "But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." You have chosen to distinguish between a will and a free will, therefore you have a free will with respect to "free will" (as you have demonstrated).

Anyone who argues with you and says that there is only a "will" foremost recognizes that you have identified the will as being potentially free, that is their free choice. Anyone who argues with you and says that you were out of control when you said you needed a proof, ignores the fact that you remain responsible (someone who is perpetually able to be "out of control" is not out of control). Anyone who argues with you and says that you do not recognize your own words will have an argument with you on their hands, demonstrating that you both have free will and are prepared to use it. Finally, anyone who tries to tell you that you can take your words back is a liar and I will be witness to that. On Judgement Day, God will not say that He forced you to say those words, anyone saying anything to the contrary will be found guilty of lying.

You still stand by your words, no doubt. Does that mean that someone else cannot say them? No. Does that mean that no one else will say them? No. Does that mean that you will never choose other words besides those? No. I am witness of these facts because I know them to be true and I am not required to say those words, your words, in order to demonstrate that this is true. God is my witness that this is the case.

I hope I have not waxed too lyrical, eloquent or long!