What is free will?

[durangodawood]

Thanks for the polite reply.

The one part that hit me most is when I closed my eyes. Sam Harris said some things, and I felt no control over what went on in my mind. I also concluded that any effort to force myself to think "controllably" in order to override his effect on me would just be a reaction that wouldn't have played out any other way.

I hope this helps. It's probably the best I can do to describe the concept.

You are describing one of the many things over which you have no control. (Or a poorly developed control, just like most of us.) I'm well aware that I do not control most things external, and even many things internal.

But in no way does that negate the decision making capacity, however small, over which you DO have control.

You are appealing to how it FEELS to have thoughts "think you". Well, when you respond to me, notice how it FEELS to formulate and express your ideas, and then to review them to see if they conform to your intent.

 

[brightlights]

Wow.

Pretty restrictive definition.

Everybody is restricted by conditions of the world around them.

Then no one is entirely free.

 

[durangodawood]

Then no one is entirely free.

Yes.

But "entirely free" is not what free will means.

Free will means you have some locus of independent self-directed influence on the decisions you make.... even IF you are are also subject to an onslaught of external reality, conditioning, brain biology, etc, etc.

(You can cultivate your free will, and make it a bigger influence in your life, you know.)

 

[brightlights]

Free will in a libertarian sense is pretty incoherent. It's hard to understand what the concept even means. I think it means something like "ultimate self determination" which seems patently fictional.

 

[brightlights]

Yes.

But "entirely free" is not what free will means.

Free will means you have some locus of independent self-directed influence on the decisions you make.... even IF you are are also subject to an onslaught of external reality, conditioning, brain biology, etc, etc.

That's what I said. Free to do what you want to do.

edit: I'm not sure what "independent" or "self-directed" could mean here. I cannot be separated from the decision I make. My choices and my decisions are me. What self is there that's independent of my decisions and experiences?

 

[brightlights]

For the record...

"Free will" generally means two things. That for any given decision:

1. We are ultimately responsible, and
2. There were possible alternative options

Libertarians say that people have both ultimate responsibility and unrestricted alternative options. Determinists say that we have neither. Compatiblists say that these things are not necessary for us to meaningfully have freedom. I am a compatiblist. Libertarianism is incoherent.

 

[durangodawood]

For the record...

"Free will" generally means two things. That for any given decision:

1. We are ultimately responsible, and
2. There were possible alternative options

Libertarians say that people have both ultimate responsibility and unrestricted alternative options. Determinists say that we have neither. Compatiblists say that these things are not necessary for us to meaningfully have freedom. I am a compatiblist. Libertarianism is incoherent.

How exactly do you know enough about the mind to even judge which of these views is correct?

Seems we are getting way ahead of our actual knowledge here. Thats why, for me, I make a sort of working guess based on the model I prefer... until real evidence shows up. But for sure, I cannot right now reason my way to one conclusion or another.

 

[brightlights]

How exactly do you know enough about the mind to even judge which of these views is correct?

Seems we are getting way ahead of our actual knowledge here. Thats why, for me, I make a sort of working guess based on the model I prefer... until real evidence shows up. But for sure, I cannot right now reason my way to one conclusion or another.

I make my decision based on the utility of the language. Freedom in a libertarian sense is incoherent and without any meaning. So I've got to reject that until someone gives some meaningful explanation of it. Determinism isn't useful for anything. So when speaking of freedom I use freedom to mean: "free to do what we want to do." This is the compatiblist view.

 

[durangodawood]

I make my decision based on the utility of the language. Freedom in a libertarian sense is incoherent and without any meaning. So I've got to reject that until someone gives some meaningful explanation of it. Determinism isn't useful for anything. So when speaking of freedom I use freedom to mean: "free to do what we want to do." This is the compatiblist view.

Hmm. I thought this was pretty coherent:

"Free will means you have some locus of independent self-directed influence on the decisions you make.... even IF you are are also subject to an onslaught of external reality, conditioning, brain biology, etc, etc."

It may or may not exist. But I dont see a coherence problem.

 

[brightlights]

Hmm. I thought this was pretty coherent:

"Free will means you have some locus of independent self-directed influence on the decisions you make.... even IF you are are also subject to an onslaught of external reality, conditioning, brain biology, etc, etc."

Explain what you mean by independent.

 

[durangodawood]

Explain what you mean by independent.

Originating in a self, as opposed to contingent on a chain of inexorable cause and effect.

(and again - I'm not discounting the real cause-effect that we are part of, biology, conditioning, etc.)

 

[brightlights]

Originating in a self, as opposed to contingent on a chain of inexorable cause and effect.

This is akin to Chisholm's "agent causation". I'm fine with it to some extent. The self is a legitimate thing. We do genuinely make decisions and are responsible for these decisions. But none of us determine ourselves. Our person is shaped by the Lord through biology, experience, influence of other people, etc. None of us are free to act outside of our personality. So we are even constrained by who we are. A good tree produces good fruit and a bad tree produces bad fruit. We have no ultimate control over who we are.

 

[durangodawood]

This is akin to Chisholm's "agent causation". I'm fine with it to some extent. The self is a legitimate thing. We do genuinely make decisions and are responsible for these decisions. But none of us determine ourselves. Our person is shaped by the Lord through biology, experience, influence of other people, etc. None of us are free to act outside of our personality. So we are even constrained by who we are. A good tree produces good fruit and a bad tree produces bad fruit. We have no ultimate control over who we are.

Thats the great tragedy: how well formed a self is by the time we reach maturity. The die is almost cast.

But to say there IS NO agency at all is strictly a statement of faith. I've known people who have really wrestled with themselves even to the point of knowing they have a certain personality, but gaining mastery over it such that the personality is NOT the one in charge.

Of course, when I say there IS independent agency, I have no proof either. Its simply a preference I express in absence of firm evidence either way. Without good evidence, I dont see how you can be so definitive about this.

 

[brightlights]

Thats the great tragedy: how well formed a self is by the time we reach maturity. The die is almost cast.

But to say there IS NO agency at all is strictly a statement of faith. I've known people who have really wrestled with themselves even to the point of knowing they have a certain personality, but gaining mastery over it such that the personality is NOT the one in charge.

This "mastery" is itself an expression of the person -- hence is itself the personality. There is no independent entity within a person that's separate from the person. What would this entity be? Reason? Intellect? Did your friend's reason win out over his emotions? All of this is contained within the one person. All of it is his or her personality.

 

[durangodawood]

This "mastery" is itself an expression of the person -- hence is itself the personality. There is no independent entity within a person that's separate from the person. What would this entity be? Reason? Intellect? Did your friend's reason win out over his emotions? All of this is contained within the one person. All of it is his or her personality.

Well, it seems that this capacity for changing yourself lies within almost everyone, even if its rather dormant.

Remember, all I'm arguing for is what MIGHT be, possibilities that are not totally foreclosed yet.. You are arguing for what cannot be, and success will require a better demonstration of facts about mind and matter than science is capable of right now.

If otoh you are making a statement of faith, well, thats fine. But its not an argument.

Anyway. Gotta go to bed. Good chatting with you.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's not that hard to figure it out... I'm not sure why you think it's so hard.

Reality doesn't work that way because our brains are made of matter, which is deterministic (or random).

At a certain level, matter is all about probabilities rather than hard determinism. I'm skeptical whether or not that has an effect at the level will is supposed to work at, but I wouldn't say it is a solved problem yet.

I do agree that people confuse the feeling of free will with it actually existing. Yet another example where using introspection to understand our brains is a bad idea.

 

[durangodawood]

Let me try another angle:


We make decisions based on what we know, and what we know includes our perceived immediate options from moment to moment. In a broad sense, we make "better" decisions when we get older, because of our collected experiences. That's the broad sense. Take that all the way down to the "moment to moment" level, and it's still the same. Some of us are born more intelligent than others. Combine that with our surroundings that constantly affect us, and our actions are going to be the way they are going to be, just like me typing this right now.

I hope this helps.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if the greatest minds in the world say that free will is an illusion, it's worth looking into.

But don't worry. On this ride that we call "life", we have to operate as if we do have free will. Discovering the actual absence of free will and acknowledging it simply adds another precious absolute certainty that we can put on the shelf of accomplishment in a world littered with uncertainty.

1. You do a great job of enumerating all the habit, conditioning, momentum, etc, that we contend with when we make decisions. Clearly it often overwhelms us. But I am NOT arguing that free will is the major player... but just that its there, even if tiny and dormant.

2. I respect the greatest minds, but no so much that I treat their pronouncements as gospel.

 

[Paradoxum]

At a certain level, matter is all about probabilities rather than hard determinism. I'm skeptical whether or not that has an effect at the level will is supposed to work at, but I wouldn't say it is a solved problem yet.

I do agree that people confuse the feeling of free will with it actually existing. Yet another example where using introspection to understand our brains is a bad idea.

That's why I said randomness too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Dear people,

Regardless weather you are Christian or not, this question is for those who believe that we humans have 'free will'.

I have been unable to formulate a clear definition of what 'free will' exactly is for myself without it being a paradox. So what is your definition of 'free will' and also, does that definition of 'free will' implicitly contradict determinism and in what way?

I am really curious about your answers!

Free will is having the capacity to make a qualified and deliberate decision. The decision doesn't emanate from instinct.

Peace

 

[poolerboy0077]

Aside from the fact that human free will doesn't answer why natural disasters (droughts, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, lighting, etc.) exist and have hurt even believers, why is it that some theists say we must have free will and the attendant presence of evil that comes from it or else we'd all be robotic machines incapable of choice, but see no problem reconciling this with answered prayers and miracle works? If God choses to intervene in an event that would otherwise have resulted in some other outcome per man's free will, why not intervene more often, or all the time? It's the height of arrogance to claim that one has been "blessed" because some trivial changes in one's life were positive on a given day, yet overlook the countless instances in which God has not intervened in the lives of millions of innocent men, women and children, like millions of Jews burned in ovens in the Holocaust.

Moreover, if heaven is a perfect realm of existence devoid of suffering, does this mean there's no free will in heaven? If so, it seems that free will isn't always seen as necessary. If there is free will, then it seems man can live in a state of bliss and have free will at the same time, so why have evil on Earth? The explanation that we "live in a fallen world" doesn't really answer why innocent children ought to suffer the screw-ups of others given what I've laid out above.