Is free will real?

[Lost4words]

I am never automatically directed to a certain lampost. No! I believe i freely choose which one to mark when out and about.

 

[durangodawood]

But it makes guilt impossible. Why would you punish people if they do what they can't no do?

I didnt say there would be "punishment". I said there would be consequences. And those could involve such things as extreme restraint (jail) if needed.

Punishment aside, we'd still need to protect ourselves from the harm others might do.

 

[Silmarien]

Buddhism is highly satisfaction motivated. It was the Buddha's enduring dis-satisfaction that motivated him to seek ultimate satisfaction in the first place.

Maybe youre thinking of pleasure rather than satisfaction? Even then, I think Buddhism advocates that satisfaction comes from pursuing a pleasure-middle-path, and not shunning pleasure altogether.

No, I am definitely thinking of satisfaction. The Buddha's quest was to solve the problem of dissatisfaction, but his conclusion seems to have been that dissatisfaction comes from striving. It is in the very pursuit of satisfaction that the root of suffering is identified.

I don't see Buddhism as a middle path at all. You're supposed to seek the wisdom to recognize that your material desires cannot be fulfilled, and work to free yourself from being enslaved to desires. Pleasure isn't bad in and of itself, but a value system based upon seeking satisfaction strikes me as highly problematic from a Buddhist perspective. (And from many others.)

Whether the human is a free will agent or not, I dont see the human as ever becoming neutral toward the subjective experience of suffering. And that could be the basis from which values emerge in a no-agency world.

I don't think this is necessarily true, but even granting the possibility, like I said, the natural end is a drug state. If you do not believe in personal autonomy, do not think anyone really makes any decision whatever, and only care about the subjective experience of pain and pleasure, a society built around opiods or virtual reality or something along those lines seems like the obvious solution.

 

[ananda]

a value system based upon seeking satisfaction strikes me as highly problematic from a Buddhist perspective. (And from many others.)

The search for satisfaction is very literally the central reason which motivates all conscious activity in life. Buddhism simply acknowledges that, realistically.

 

[ananda]

The concept of free will popped up in a discussion I have with @Sanoy. I think it should have its own thread to keep things a little tidy.

Is free will real? Can it be real, given what we know about natural laws? Is it truly possible, philosophically speaking?

There are different conceptions of what free will means. What I mean by it is something like this: the ability to make a choice (or think of something) without that choice being determined by something else. For example, you can use your will to choose pizza over tacos, but is it a free choice? Do you pick one over the other for no reason? Or is it in fact determined by, say, that you just don't happen to like the taste of one of them (which obviously isn't something you freely chose)?

What would be an example of truly free will being exercised?

(Posted in this subforum because it has implications for how we think about morality.)

IMO, "free will" is free to the extent that we feel free.

 

[Silmarien]

The search for satisfaction is very literally the central reason which motivates all conscious activity in life. Buddhism simply acknowledges that, realistically.

But it identifies it as the source of suffering, no? This would certainly be the first time that you've recommended embracing the search for satisfaction as a means to avoid dissatisfaction.

 

[durangodawood]

No, I am definitely thinking of satisfaction. The Buddha's quest was to solve the problem of dissatisfaction, but his conclusion seems to have been that dissatisfaction comes from striving. It is in the very pursuit of satisfaction that the root of suffering is identified.

I don't see Buddhism as a middle path at all. You're supposed to seek the wisdom to recognize that your material desires cannot be fulfilled, and work to free yourself from being enslaved to desires. Pleasure isn't bad in and of itself, but a value system based upon seeking satisfaction strikes me as highly problematic from a Buddhist perspective. (And from many others.)



I don't think this is necessarily true, but even granting the possibility, like I said, the natural end is a drug state. If you do not believe in personal autonomy, do not think anyone really makes any decision whatever, and only care about the subjective experience of pain and pleasure, a society built around opiods or virtual reality or something along those lines seems like the obvious solution.

The drug state answer strikes me as a very shallow look into what make humans the most satisfied. Maybe thats because you are substituting "pain/pleasure" where I said "satisfaction/suffering".

I would say: examine what makes people satisfied in a deep and enduring way. Same for suffering. Those things are observable facts of human life. They arent dependent on a final determination about whether we're really agents or not. They are more facts about our species that we already know through long observation and have been recorded in our various wisdom traditions.

 

[Robban]

Was going to edit a little and the whole thing was gone in a flash.

Was not such a good example anyhow.

 

[ananda]

But it identifies it as the source of suffering, no? This would certainly be the first time that you've recommended embracing the search for satisfaction as a means to avoid dissatisfaction.

The search for satisfaction is only seen as ultimately fruitful if that energy is used & directed towards the practice of the singular Path which leads to the unending satisfaction - nibbana.

That same search, if directed elsewhere - e.g. to lesser pursuits or pleasures - does lead to further suffering and dissatisfaction.

 

[durangodawood]

But it identifies it as the source of suffering, no? This would certainly be the first time that you've recommended embracing the search for satisfaction as a means to avoid dissatisfaction.

Here's a quick quote about the first noble truth:

"As the first noble truth, however, dukkha has a far wider significance, reflective of a comprehensive philosophical vision. While it draws its affective coloring from its connection with pain and suffering, and certainly includes these, it points beyond such restrictive meanings to the inherent unsatisfactoriness of everything conditioned. This unsatisfactoriness of the conditioned is due to its impermanence, its vulnerability to pain, and its inability to provide complete and lasting satisfaction."
What are The Four Noble Truths and Impermanence in Buddhism?

We can see where this is headed: what does provide complete and lasting satisfaction?

 

[renniks]

Y

I didnt say there would be "punishment". I said there would be consequences. And those could involve such things as extreme restraint (jail) if needed.

Punishment aside, we'd still need to protect ourselves from the harm others might do.

Yeah, because jail isn't a punishment.
Everyone lives as if free will is real. I think the responsibility is on the determinists to prove its not, not the other way around. Saying we have to prove it exists, is silly if we can't live like it doesn't.
Anyway, perhaps we don't even really exist and are just programs in a super intelligence's computer. But probably not.

 

[Silmarien]

The drug state answer strikes me as a very shallow look into what make humans the most satisfied. Maybe thats because you are substituting "pain/pleasure" where I said "satisfaction/suffering".

I would say: examine what makes people satisfied in a deep and enduring way. Same for suffering. Those things are observable facts of human life. They arent dependent on a final determination about whether we're really agents or not. They are more facts about our species that we already know through long observation and have been recorded in our various wisdom traditions.

The underlying problem here is that we're discussing a hypothetical in which agency isn't real, and human society has fully rejected the notion of personal autonomy. Agency is the most observable fact of human life, and I would say that the issue of personal identity is the centerpiece of pretty much all of our wisdom traditions. People cannot be satisfied in a deep and enduring way if their starting point is the claim that they are utterly at the mercy of events outside of themselves with no power whatsoever to genuinely make any decision in their lives. That is pretty inimical to any notion of a pursuit of happiness.

I agree that a drug state is a shallow look at what makes people happy, because it is obvious to me that personal freedom and some sense of accomplishment is pretty central to any genuine notion of satisfaction. But those are not concepts that make any sense once agency is rejected. If you think a more robust understanding of satisfaction and dissatisfaction would exist than pain in pleasure to a society that doesn't believe in autonomy, you're going to have to expain what that understanding might be. We have seen this sort of reductionism with hard determinists before--to the Marxists, after all, everything amounted to material conditions.

You've presented a hypothetical where people are genuine, consistent non-compatibilistic determinists. Where they have somehow overcome the intuition that they actually make decisions and are in charge of their own lives. This is so far removed from the human condition as actually observed that you can't base how people would approach the question of satisfaction based on how we have historically. We're effectively talking about a different species, but I think the closest we've gotten to this sort of thinking, i.e., genuine Marxism, paints a pretty ugly picture.

 

[Silmarien]

The search for satisfaction is only seen as ultimately fruitful if that energy is used & directed towards the practice of the singular Path which leads to the unending satisfaction - nibbana.

That same search, if directed elsewhere - e.g. to lesser pursuits or pleasures - does lead to further suffering and dissatisfaction.

Do you think this approach to satisfaction would work if we started by rejecting that agency and autonomy were real? Whether someone is capable of directing their search in the correct direction seems to be completely out of their hands, so I would wonder how it would work in a society that believed the majority were deterministically doomed to dissatisfaction, Calvinist style.

(I have definitely known determinists whose approach to Buddhism has essentially been "if I'm preordained to start practicing meditation, I'll do it, and if I'm not, I won't.")

Here's a quick quote about the first noble truth:

"As the first noble truth, however, dukkha has a far wider significance, reflective of a comprehensive philosophical vision. While it draws its affective coloring from its connection with pain and suffering, and certainly includes these, it points beyond such restrictive meanings to the inherent unsatisfactoriness of everything conditioned. This unsatisfactoriness of the conditioned is due to its impermanence, its vulnerability to pain, and its inability to provide complete and lasting satisfaction."
What are The Four Noble Truths and Impermanence in Buddhism?

We can see where this is headed: what does provide complete and lasting satisfaction?

Well, I could quote Saint Augustine at you, but I won't.

 

[durangodawood]

Yeah, because jail isn't a punishment.
Everyone lives as if free will is real. I think the responsibility is on the determinists to prove its not, not the other way around. Saying we have to prove it exists, is silly if we can't live like it doesn't.
Anyway, perhaps we don't even really exist and are just programs in a super intelligence's computer. But probably not.

Jail is a restraint. Thats the fact. Whether its a "punishment" is a matter of intent.

I agree that we have free will btw. But I'm not afraid to take an honest look at what it might mean if we didnt.

 

[ananda]

Do you think this approach to satisfaction would work if we started by rejecting that agency and autonomy were real? Whether someone is capable of directing their search in the correct direction seems to be completely out of their hands, so I would wonder how it would work in a society that believed the majority were deterministically doomed to dissatisfaction, Calvinist style.

Buddhism teaches a modified form of free will, where free will in the present acts to modify the effects resulting from past conditions and choices. The degree of strength of present will determines the degree past effects are modified.

If there was no agency and autonomy, such as in the three teachings the Buddha refuted, then Buddhism must be false.

Do you follow Calvinism & its doctrines of determinism?

 

[Silmarien]

Buddhism teaches a modified form of free will, where free will in the present acts to modify the effects resulting from past conditions and choices. The degree of strength of present will determines the degree past effects are modified.

If there was no agency and autonomy, such as in the three teachings the Buddha refuted, then Buddhism must be false.

Do you follow Calvinism & its doctrines of determinism?

No. I am strongly in the free will camp.

 

[durangodawood]

The underlying problem here is that we're discussing a hypothetical in which agency isn't real, and human society has fully rejected the notion of personal autonomy. Agency is the most observable fact of human life, and I would say that the issue of personal identity is the centerpiece of pretty much all of our wisdom traditions. People cannot be satisfied in a deep and enduring way if their starting point is the claim that they are utterly at the mercy of events outside of themselves with no power whatsoever to genuinely make any decision in their lives. That is pretty inimical to any notion of a pursuit of happiness.

I agree that a drug state is a shallow look at what makes people happy, because it is obvious to me that personal freedom and some sense of accomplishment is pretty central to any genuine notion of satisfaction. But those are not concepts that make any sense once agency is rejected. If you think a more robust understanding of satisfaction and dissatisfaction would exist than pain in pleasure to a society that doesn't believe in autonomy, you're going to have to expain what that understanding might be. We have seen this sort of reductionism with hard determinists before--to the Marxists, after all, everything amounted to material conditions.

You've presented a hypothetical where people are genuine, consistent non-compatibilistic determinists. Where they have somehow overcome the intuition that they actually make decisions and are in charge of their own lives. This is so far removed from the human condition as actually observed that you can't base how people would approach the question of satisfaction based on how we have historically. We're effectively talking about a different species, but I think the closest we've gotten to this sort of thinking, i.e., genuine Marxism, paints a pretty ugly picture.

Nooo, I never said they were non-compatibilistic determinists.

People in this hypothetical would have no real agency, yet suffer greatly when their sense of will is thwarted. Lets not forget that this is not a hypothetical world we're creating. Its a proposing a hypothetical explanation for our world.

We already know enough about the causes of suffering (which include being thwarted in ones natural expression of self) that we'd highly value letting people play out their "fate", while we gently help them to improve their fate, so long as they dont impinge on others.

 

[Silmarien]

Nooo, I never said they were non-compatibilistic determinists.

People in this hypothetical would have no real agency, yet suffer greatly when their sense of will is thwarted. Lets not forget that this is not a hypothetical world we're creating. Its a proposing a hypothetical explanation for our world.

We already know enough about the causes of suffering (which include being thwarted in ones natural expression of self) that we'd highly value letting people play out their "fate", while we gently help them to improve their fate, so long as they dont impinge on others.

You just changed the hypothetical! Remember, we were initially talking about a world in which people had so fully thrown off the idea that people had agency that they didn't feel wronged when someone committed a crime against them. You can't deny agency and not be a non-compatibilistic determinist!

I'm not sure what this new scenario entails. If the people in it aren't actually non-compatibilists, I don't know why they would be acting as if there were no agency in the first place.

 

[durangodawood]

You just changed the hypothetical! Remember, we were initially talking about a world in which people had so fully thrown off the idea that people had agency that they didn't feel wronged when someone committed a crime against them. You can't deny agency and not be a non-compatibilistic determinist!

I'm not sure what this new scenario entails. If the people in it aren't actually non-compatibilists, I don't know why they would be acting as if there were no agency in the first place.

People would still suffer when a crime is committed against them. Thats how we are. They would just have a different sense of how responsibility for that crime gets assigned, and therefore what the appropriate response should be.

 

[Silmarien]

People would still suffer when a crime is committed against them. Thats how we are. They would just have a different sense of how responsibility for that crime gets assigned, and therefore what the appropriate response should be.

But then they would be non-compatibilists and not believe in agency.