A case for free choice

[Quasar1011]

Everywhere we look, we seem to encounter choices and decisions waiting to be made. Corporations and individuals incessantly try to influence our decisions. They want something from us. We want something from our choices. But we never know what we will get. That is the fundamental problem....Having established this, it needs to be said that the most serious problem of making decisions is the fact that you do not know the consequences of your actions or your inaction at the point when you make the decision.

I think you're off the mark. You say, "we never know what we will get". That's not true. Choices lead to actions, and there are consequences to each action. Some of these consequences, either positive or negative, are predictable. Some are not. For example, last night I stayed out til 3 a.m., even though I knew I had to be at work at 8 a.m. this morning. I had to weigh my choice to have fun (went to an amusement park with my girlfriend, and rode roller coasters all night ), versus feeling tired at work today. I decided I could handle being tired. So this was a choice where I knew what I would get. I am sure others on this board can post lots of examples too. So to say, you never know what the consequences of your choices will be, is just not right.

 

[insurgent]

But I was asking why discrimination per se is the issue. Doesn't make much sense to me. After all, killing one person is better than blowing up the planet, right?

Sure it is. I thought you were making the point that we are already discriminating, implying that further discrimination would be ok.

Wouldn't you say that in the current world, no one has the complete freedom of choice? And don't you think this is a problem? Well, it seems to me that if you want to be logically consistent, you shouldn't think this is a problem, because no one's being discriminated against. We're all in the same boat.

When did I say anything to indicate this?

It's true that a refrigerator can't be good for a person if that person never thinks this him/herself. But when actually buying the refrigerator, he/she won't be able to perfectly predict whether or not he/she will like it. And it's my opinion that in some cases, someone else could actually tell better than this particular person (although admittedly not in the case of buying refrigerators), although you probably disagree.

Sure, somebody could afterwards prove to have been right that a different choice for an individual would have been better. But that cannot be properly predicted, and so the right of the individual to choose for himself becomes the deciding principle in this matter to me.

I understand the confusion, considering my example didn't match what I was saying. A new one: imagine someone voting for a run-of-the-mill Democrat because this voter supports lower taxes for the rich. This is a mistake. The "fundamental" choice in this case is that the person decides the rich should have lower taxes---and you can't really argue with that, if it's an axiom of this person (which it's probably not, but let's pretend it is). But the "logically dependent" choice is that the person decides to vote for a Democrat---the person is thus mistaken, as this choice doesn't reflect what this person, deep down, really wants (lower taxes for the rich). Voting for a Republican, Libertarian, or Constitution party candidate would be the right thing to do.

And if, hypothetically speaking, I knew someone who was planning on voting for a Democrat because they wanted lower taxes for the rich, I would have no ethical problem with forcing them to vote for a Republican instead, assuming I couldn't simply convince them. Would you? (Note that I understand the slippery slope of this, and I am certainly careful when applying this bit of moral philosophy to the real world.)

Yes, I would object to forcing their hand. I would have to convince them. If I were so sure that I were right, I would just have to be persistent in order to voluntarily convince the other person to rethink their decision

I was saying (not very well, I admit) that if you look at just one particular individual, he would almost certainly appreciate being given the full freedom of choice. With this freedom, he could keep all his hard-earned money, do all the recreational drugs he wants, etc. And if you wanted to go particularly far, he could kill anyone he doesn't like.

So if you asked just one person if he would like complete freedom, I imagine he would say yes. But if the populace at large were asked, with the understanding that all individuals would be given this freedom, maybe .01% of people would say they would like this.

Quite right, most modern individuals do not want a society with less government interference.

So why do you think this is a problem? Don't people always know what's best for them? Wouldn't thinking this is a problem be insulting the people's choice?

I may have gone over the top, saying that people always know what is best for them, but in a subjective way, that is true. I realise the subjectivity of my own argument, but I retain the right to try to convince others that I am right - that they should listen to me in some of their choices: they should reduce the coercion that they expose themselves to. I have the right to try to convince them that what I am saying is true. I don't have a right to force them to do anything - even though they are forcing me to live by their rules.

 

[insurgent]

I think you're off the mark. You say, "we never know what we will get". That's not true. Choices lead to actions, and there are consequences to each action. Some of these consequences, either positive or negative, are predictable. Some are not. For example, last night I stayed out til 3 a.m., even though I knew I had to be at work at 8 a.m. this morning. I had to weigh my choice to have fun (went to an amusement park with my girlfriend, and rode roller coasters all night ), versus feeling tired at work today. I decided I could handle being tired. So this was a choice where I knew what I would get. I am sure others on this board can post lots of examples too. So to say, you never know what the consequences of your choices will be, is just not right.

Sure, you can have reasonable expectations. You can never be 100% certain, but you will have to base your decision on what you estimate will be the consequences. But the fundamental problem of decision-making is still that you cannot possibly know the full consequences of your actions. That basic uncertainty is the reason for doubt in the moment of choice and the reason that mistakes are made.
Knowledge can help to make your expectations more certain: experience tells you that you will be tired the next day if you go ride roller coasters all night. You are pretty certain, but you cannot be 100% sure, as it is in the future. A different consequence might be that you are miraculously awake, that you die a sudden death when the roller coaster crashes under you, that you do not get up early enough to go to work etc.
And what about all the consequences that we haven't even considered? That you might get sacked because you are tired, that you might cause something different to happen by your actions. I think you know what I mean.
As I said, you cannot possibly know the full consequences of your actions.

That shouldn't make you passive or apathetic, because inactivity also has consequences. And most of the time, your expectations will prove to be true: when you throw a ball against the floor, it is reasonable to expect that it will bounce back.

 

[Ayatollah So]

No you can't. ["I can ignore his predictions and do whatever I want."-Ayatollah] You only think and feel you can and your feelings are irrelevant. if his prediction is 100% correct then you must always do exactly as he predicted.

No, if his prediction is to be 100% correct then he must always predict as I do. You are getting it backwards. I'm not constrained; he is.

Consider this scenario. You and my friend go to a distant planet, I stay on Earth. From noon to 12:05 he predicts all that I will do from 12:05 to 12:10; you write all the predictions down. The planet is distant enough that the two event-sequences are outside each others' light-cones. Obviously his predictions cannot be controlling me, they have no causal influence!

You two come back, we compare notes, and see that he got it all right. Well, good for him. It's no skin off of my nose. I don't mind one bit. Why should I? Unlike you (apparently), I don't view free will as a zero-sum game. If my friend can anticipate all the intelligence and creativity I've got, that's great. More power to him.

Think of it this way. I have a computer program running on a computer churning out pseudo-random numbers on computer A. I run another copy of the program on another computer, computer B, starting is out just one second before A. B will correctly predict the random sequence on A from here on to eternity. However, A is a cognitive machine made of bio-neural chips and thinks that it has "free-will" and "thinks" it can make a choice.

Hold on a sec there, does it think, or just "think"? Is it comparably intelligent to the average human being? Does it have a comparable number of neuron-like devices organized in a comparable way?

If so, I don't see any problem with supposing that it does make a choice. Although, to my mind, making a choice about the next number in a sequence is a stupid way to generate pseudo-random numbers. I'm sure if I tried that my number sequence would easily be spotted as non-random. Instead, it would be better to use an unintelligent mathematical formula to get pseudo-random numbers.

(But it can't really, because all it is doing is running an algorithm.) So just because A feels that way should we say that A has free-will when we know that A is pre-ordained to give us a fixed and known sequence?

Can't understand where your confusion is. The argument is crystal clear.

Oh it's crystal clear all right, because lots of people make your same mistake. Seen it all before. It's clear, it's just not valid.

Running an algorithm does not imply inability to make an intelligent choice. (At least, Penrose's argument for that thesis is unconvincing.) Nor does being "pre-ordained", which apparently just means being caused, invalidate choice. That there are reasons for what I do, is a good thing. When I make a choice, I usually take myself to be doing so for specific reasons. When I don't recognize any outstanding reasons favoring one choice over the other, then it's a degenerate case of choice, not a sterling example of choice.

 

[WillJ]

Sure it is. I thought you were making the point that we are already discriminating, implying that further discrimination would be ok.

When did I say anything to indicate this?

I suppose that was my point, although I wasn't originally concerned with discrimination, but rather with taking away people's freedom of choice. My big point, though, is that we agree on something but disagree on something else, and that you're not being consistent (as I see it). I'll repeat what's been said, and if I make any mistakes/misinterpretations please point them out:

You simultaneously believe that taking people's freedom of choice is never justified, and that taking children's freedom of chioce is justified. Children are people, thus this doesn't make any sense. When I brought this up, you offered the explanation that taking children's freedom of choice is okay since we're all children at one point, thus no discrimination is really taking place. I then claimed that this is still inconsistent, as you think that taking people's freedom of choice is NEVER justified, not that it's never justified unless you take people's freedoms indiscriminantly. You think it's a problem that none of us have the freedom of choice, yet also don't think it's a problem that no kids have the freedom of choice. Again, the latter is because we're all children at some point, but then again we're all adults at some point too, so what's wrong with taking the freedoms of all adults? That's not discrimination either. Thus either there's some other difference between the two besides discrimination, or you need to change your stance for it to make any sense. This last point still stands, AFAIK.

If you're wondering what my view on the matter is, it's simply that taking people's freedom of choice is sometimes justifed, one of those times being when the person's a child. I figured I could convince you to "my side" by pointing out the case of the child, considering you actually agree with it.

Sure, somebody could afterwards prove to have been right that a different choice for an individual would have been better. But that cannot be properly predicted, and so the right of the individual to choose for himself becomes the deciding principle in this matter to me.

So we can't interefere with others' lives because it's never 100% certain that what we're doing is right?

Well, people can't ever be 100% sure that what they themselves are doing is right, so why should they be allowed to do anything?

Could it be that a person always has a BETTER chance of doing what's best for himself than someone else does for him? If that's the explanation, then I disagree with it and we'll have to discuss it some more. If there's some other reason, then I'm all ears.

Yes, I would object to forcing their hand. I would have to convince them. If I were so sure that I were right, I would just have to be persistent in order to voluntarily convince the other person to rethink their decision

I guess I'll just ignore this for now, since it's completely dependent on the above discussion.

I may have gone over the top, saying that people always know what is best for them, but in a subjective way, that is true. I realise the subjectivity of my own argument, but I retain the right to try to convince others that I am right - that they should listen to me in some of their choices: they should reduce the coercion that they expose themselves to. I have the right to try to convince them that what I am saying is true. I don't have a right to force them to do anything - even though they are forcing me to live by their rules.

Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying, but it still seems ironic to me that you want to convince others that they are wrong in thinking that they are wrong about stuff (or their interests conflict with those of others) and need restrictions. They're apparently dead wrong at least this once!

 

[betazed]

No, if his prediction is to be 100% correct then he must always predict as I do. You are getting it backwards. I'm not constrained; he is.

Please pardon me but I must do this. Ah! now I feel better.

Prediction necessarily happens (by deifnition) before the event that is being predicted happens. That means that both you and your friend are both in Ny and before you drink your coffee at 8;00 am your friend has predicted that you will drink it at 7;30 am. That means you are constrained by his prediction.

Consider this scenario. You and my friend go to a distant planet, I stay on Earth. From noon to 12:05 he predicts all that I will do from 12:05 to 12:10; you write all the predictions down. The planet is distant enough that the two event-sequences are outside each others' light-cones. Obviously his predictions cannot be controlling me, they have no causal influence!

Obviously. But when this argument does not apply because your friend is not on another planet. You are both here now side by side in NY.

Hold on a sec there, does it think, or just "think"? Is it comparably intelligent to the average human being? Does it have a comparable number of neuron-like devices organized in a comparable way?

Makes no difference.

Oh it's crystal clear all right, because lots of people make your same mistake. Seen it all before. It's clear, it's just not valid.

I am afraid I am compltely missing your point why it is invalid.

Running an algorithm does not imply inability to make an intelligent choice. (At least, Penrose's argument for that thesis is unconvincing.) Nor does being "pre-ordained", which apparently just means being caused, invalidate choice. That there are reasons for what I do, is a good thing. When I make a choice, I usually take myself to be doing so for specific reasons. When I don't recognize any outstanding reasons favoring one choice over the other, then it's a degenerate case of choice, not a sterling example of choice.

I made no argument for presence or absense of intelligence. IMO, intelligence and free-will are complete disparate and neither is required for the other.

 

[Quasar1011]

Knowledge can help to make your expectations more certain: experience tells you that you will be tired the next day if you go ride roller coasters all night. You are pretty certain, but you cannot be 100% sure, as it is in the future. A different consequence might be that you are miraculously awake, that you die a sudden death when the roller coaster crashes under you, that you do not get up early enough to go to work etc.
And what about all the consequences that we haven't even considered? That you might get sacked because you are tired, that you might cause something different to happen by your actions. I think you know what I mean.
As I said, you cannot possibly know the full consequences of your actions.

You are correct in saying I couldn't know the full consequences of my actions. But, I knew I wouldn't get sacked, or die of a sudden death. I also did know that I would be tired on Saturday. That was not due to experience, but to common sense: working on 3 hours sleep!

How did I "know" I wouldn't die or get fired/sacked? Well, I had gotten a bit apprehensive about going at one point. When my girlfriend said, "we're taking your car" and "my niece and her boyfriend are going too", I began to dread the trip. It was raining, and I knew with 5 people in my car, somebody's head would be blocking my rear-view mirror as I drove. I was also dreading rush-hour traffic on the freeways near Los Angeles. I was also dreading the drive home while I was tired. So, I did the best thing I could do: I prayed about it. God told me to stop worrying about it, that He wanted me to go and have a good time. And I did! In the end, only 3 of us went, not a drop of rain fell from the sky, the freeways were clear enough that the trip only took an hour, and it was cold enough that the fresh air kept me awake and alert for the drive home. I didn't get fired/sacked, and I didn't die. Thanks, Lord!

 

[Gothmog]

insurgent wrote:

If free will does not exist, there is no justification for a punitive justice system.

Wrong, unless you are saying that society (in the abstract) has no ‘right’ to protect or propagate its self?

Free will is the very foundation of our court system. The concept of responsibility is based on the idea of free choice. It makes no sense to punish somebody for something that is not his fault. If his actions were inevitable due to his nature or whatever, he could not have acted otherwise. If he could not have acted otherwise, how can we punish him?

This gets back to what I pointed out in my second post in this thread, you believe that the court system exists to punish wrongdoers. I believe that it exists to create a safer more stable society.

IMO punishment is juvenile. This philosophy also points the way to attempting to improve society. One can analyze the circumstances that led to the crime and try to change or improve them. Otherwise we are left with the possibility that society cannot be made safer or more stable. The murderer is also a victim, a cursory look at the lives of murderers should clear that up, but that doesn’t mean that society has no right to take him/her off the street. Indeed society has a responsibility to its citizens to do just that, and to try and create conditions that will not foster the creation of additional murderers. Injustice demonstrably fosters murder. We recognize that justice for the individual helps create a safe and stable society (in this case by reducing the incidence of murder), but justice is not punishment.

I know that society is not conscious, and not an individual, and so not responsible in the typical sense. I am speaking about the rules and organizations that make up society. When we attempt to design rules for our society we should try and measure their impact on individuals because circumstances do matter.

Love for other people does not feel like meaning to me.

You might want to work a bit on that, love is meaning. Fatality and absurdity don’t change that basic fact. We are all going to die. We will never know if there is anything more during our time on earth. But if you love someone, or something, you will give of yourself for it. You will sacrifice for it and it will not feel like a sacrifice. That is meaning. Love isn’t something you achieve, it’s a process and it pays its own bills. Nothing is more important to the one who has it. To me it seems sad that you do not find meaning in loving other people. Given your fatalism, where else can you look for meaning?

The other place I find meaning is contributing to something larger than myself. Again not something you achieve, but a process. This is akin to a love for humanity and is secondary to more familial love.

What you said about pointlessness is true in a limited sense. It just ignores the basic connection between love and meaning.

I don't think I would ever be able to rape my own conscience and force it to draw conclusions and consequences from something that I consider an illusion.

Not sure how ‘rape’ fits into the equation here, but I’ll say that I am somewhat of a rationalist, and devout agnostic, and don’t believe in truth at all. Thus distinguishing between reality and illusion is a game that I left behind long ago. I also think that you need to be clear about the right for an individual to act based upon its own character and experience, and the very different problem of the existence of free will.

I have no idea. Maybe it originates in the fact that we can think abstractly and be conscious about something. That we can think rationally and not be solely guided by our instincts and urges.

Couldn’t rationality be one of our instincts and urges? Certainly there can be reasons for what we do without the existence of free will. Indeed the reasons are clear, our intrinsic character and our experiences. Where are the reasons in free will?

Because I don't think we are. Our actions do not strike me as advanced manifestations of animal urges and desires. There's something else in humans, there are ethics, there is capacity for something much greater than what we can simply ascribe to determining factors. Maybe it doesn't.
If there is a God, then it must have been his gift to and curse on humans. If there is no God, then it must be the freak result of some mutation or evolutionary development.

Or it is simply an manifestation of our animal nature, no more or less special than the ability to form a seemingly whole image of the external world based on our very limited senses. Animals have ethics, animals apply compassion, what is so different about humans? It’s a matter of degree not basic quality.

I do not believe that I will never know the answer.

That last bit is the beginning of wisdom. You will never know, and whether free will exists or not does not matter. Now you need to figure out what does matter.

Edit: fixed quotes

 

[insurgent]

I suppose that was my point, although I wasn't originally concerned with discrimination, but rather with taking away people's freedom of choice. My big point, though, is that we agree on something but disagree on something else, and that you're not being consistent (as I see it). I'll repeat what's been said, and if I make any mistakes/misinterpretations please point them out:

You simultaneously believe that taking people's freedom of choice is never justified, and that taking children's freedom of chioce is justified. Children are people, thus this doesn't make any sense. When I brought this up, you offered the explanation that taking children's freedom of choice is okay since we're all children at one point, thus no discrimination is really taking place. I then claimed that this is still inconsistent, as you think that taking people's freedom of choice is NEVER justified, not that it's never justified unless you take people's freedoms indiscriminantly. You think it's a problem that none of us have the freedom of choice, yet also don't think it's a problem that no kids have the freedom of choice. Again, the latter is because we're all children at some point, but then again we're all adults at some point too, so what's wrong with taking the freedoms of all adults? That's not discrimination either. Thus either there's some other difference between the two besides discrimination, or you need to change your stance for it to make any sense. This last point still stands, AFAIK.

I thought that was your point. Equality of rights is an important principle to me, and therefore discrimination would be a problem. But having established that it is not discrimination, there has to be some other reason that children are not as independent. The obvious answer is the one of intellect and consciousness.
Now, why other people should not be evaluated the same way before they are allowed the freedom of choice is a difficult question. Maybe my position is derived from my basic belief that this would dehumanise adults and that nobody can possibly assess this objectively and fairly.

Well, people can't ever be 100% sure that what they themselves are doing is right, so why should they be allowed to do anything?

Because people cannot possibly know the individual preferences of other people. It's what people WANT that matters, not necessarily what you and I subjectively find best. People know this best themselves.

Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying, but it still seems ironic to me that you want to convince others that they are wrong in thinking that they are wrong about stuff (or their interests conflict with those of others) and need restrictions. They're apparently dead wrong at least this once!

Yes, I think they are wrong. They obviously don't think so. What I want to convince them is that they should not employ coercion to further their own subjective desires. If they want something, they should find a way of getting it without letting others suffer from it.

So, wanting somebody else to make choices for you does not make you wrong. You are RIGHT about your preferences. So, you should try to let somebody else handle your decisions. The wrong thing to do would be to appeal to central authority and coercive government in order to make everybody else follow your preferences.
I guess you could say that the real problem for me is that people should realise the subjectivity of their own desires. This subjectivity is what qualifies their desires as unique and supreme, but it is also what limits it to what people can convince others to do through voluntary means.

 

[insurgent]

You are correct in saying I couldn't know the full consequences of my actions. But, I knew I wouldn't get sacked, or die of a sudden death. I also did know that I would be tired on Saturday. That was not due to experience, but to common sense: working on 3 hours sleep!

My point still stands. You CAN NEVER BE CERTAIN. I know that your expectations are as accurate as they can possibly be, but they are still expectations, and as expectations they are per se uncertain. For instance, you did not know that you wouldn't die a sudden death. It was highly unlikely, but you did not KNOW it. This problem of uncertainty is to different extents what haunts all decision-making.

 

[insurgent]

insurgent wrote: Wrong, unless you are saying that society (in the abstract) has no ‘right’ to protect or propagate its self? This gets back to what I pointed out in my second post in this thread, you believe that the court system exists to punish wrongdoers. I believe that it exists to create a safer more stable society.

Sure, if it exists for that reason, yes, it could be justified. It still couldn't justifiably hold people accountable and responsible for their actions, but yes it could be justified.

IMO punishment is juvenile. This philosophy also points the way to attempting to improve society. One can analyze the circumstances that led to the crime and try to change or improve them. Otherwise we are left with the possibility that society cannot be made safer or more stable. The murderer is also a victim, a cursory look at the lives of murderers should clear that up, but that doesn’t mean that society has no right to take him/her off the street. Indeed society has a responsibility to its citizens to do just that, and to try and create conditions that will not foster the creation of additional murderers. Injustice demonstrably fosters murder. We recognize that justice for the individual helps create a safe and stable society (in this case by reducing the incidence of murder), but justice is not punishment.

That's how we are different. I find the principles of guilt and responsibility vital and important for both society and individuals. If we do not feel responsible (in the very philosophical way), then we cannot possibly be responsible in our behaviour.

I know that society is not conscious, and not an individual, and so not responsible in the typical sense. I am speaking about the rules and organizations that make up society. When we attempt to design rules for our society we should try and measure their impact on individuals because circumstances do matter.

Sure.

You might want to work a bit on that, love is meaning.

You may feel that it is, but that is a subjective feeling and therefore you cannot state it as a fact.

We are all going to die. We will never know if there is anything more during our time on earth. But if you love someone, or something, you will give of yourself for it. You will sacrifice for it and it will not feel like a sacrifice. That is meaning.

As I said before, if that's how you feel, then good for you. I just don't think that this will work out for you in the long run, but if you think it will, then it's none of my business.
You see, I realise the subjectivity of what I'm saying. You should do the same.

Love isn’t something you achieve, it’s a process and it pays its own bills.

You must excuse my at times inadequate English. The word "achieve" was used out of lack for a better word. I don't know how to express it, but you engage yourself in love, as you would engage yourself in something bigger than yourself. This engagement is in a way you striving for something great. It does not necessarily need to have the purpose of some achievement or objective.

Nothing is more important to the one who has it. To me it seems sad that you do not find meaning in loving other people. Given your fatalism, where else can you look for meaning?

I presume this is meant as a rhetorical question, but I'll treat it as if it isn't. Basically, the search for meaning is absurd in itself. We cannot possibly find it, as it cannot logically exist. Having acknowledged this, the way to happiness, I think, is to live. Live life for it's own sake. Live as much as you can (not in the vulgar meaning). By that I mean, be conscious about what you do, and enjoy the only certainty in your life: that you exist in this very moment. You cannot know about the next.

The other place I find meaning is contributing to something larger than myself. Again not something you achieve, but a process. This is akin to a love for humanity and is secondary to more familial love.

Sure, if you feel that this is enough, then good for you. I'm just sceptic as to whether or not it will work out.

What you said about pointlessness is true in a limited sense. It just ignores the basic connection between love and meaning.

I do not accept that as an axiomatic and objective fact.

Not sure how ‘rape’ fits into the equation here, but I’ll say that I am somewhat of a rationalist, and devout agnostic, and don’t believe in truth at all.

Well, rape was merely a rhetorical word, but the reason I said it is that I find it strange that you can both deny free will and at the same time live as if you believe in it. To me that is a kind of rape: forcing your mind to accept something that you think is wrong.

I'm an agnostic too, not in the sense that I find free will unimportant, but in the sense that I find our origin and existence inexplicable and irrelevant. We do not know, and I do not think that we could possibly ever realise why we are here. That is what makes life basically pointless in every way that has any meaning to me.

I also think that you need to be clear about the right for an individual to act based upon its own character and experience, and the very different problem of the existence of free will. Couldn’t rationality be one of our instincts and urges? Certainly there can be reasons for what we do without the existence of free will. Indeed the reasons are clear, our intrinsic character and our experiences. Where are the reasons in free will? Or it is simply an manifestation of our animal nature, no more or less special than the ability to form a seemingly whole image of the external world based on our very limited senses.

I do not know the nature or origin of free will. As I see it, it can't be the expression of our rationality. Rationality to me is merely what separates us from the world. It's what makes our will possible, rational and lets it come to its expression. It's also what helps us understand and comprehend the outside reality. It never motivates or drives us to do anything. But this is the level that is affected and influenced most by the outside world. Environment and circumstances have their most significant effect here.

Our motivation is what we will. Our free will is the sum of that. This comes from our core, our soul, you might say. This consists of our instincts, our desires, and also our sense of justice, and everything that motivates you. Admittedly, some outer influence can have its bearing on what we want, but generally this is derived from human nature. All our actions and reactions come from this core of humanity, and having been filtered by human reason, it comes to its expression in reality.

The fact that we seem capable of controlling our will is what makes it free, in my opinion.

This is the theory I have come to consider most reasonable. If it's true, I don't know. Perhaps rationality is a motivation after all. Maybe my distinction is not fair, and maybe I'm just being naïve.

Animals have ethics, animals apply compassion, what is so different about humans? It’s a matter of degree not basic quality.

Maybe. I have never been an animal. But to me, it seems that their core, their soul is much less conscious, much more simple, and that they have very little advanced rationality (in the meaning that I have indicated above). But I don't know.

That last bit is the beginning of wisdom. You will never know, and whether free will exists or not does not matter. Now you need to figure out what does matter.

Hold the condescension.

It matters to me if there is a such thing as free will, as it matters to me if I'm responsible for my own actions. I think I am. That matters.

As I see it, true wisdom is knowing one's own limitations. You need to be more aware of the subjectivity of what you claim. That might help you understand and tolerate diversity. I only say this because you seem to think that you need to teach me something. No doubt you can. But to me, this seems to be at least reciprocal.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Obviously. But when this argument does not apply because your friend is not on another planet. You are both here now side by side in NY.

If my friend conceals the predictions from me, then again they exert no causal influence. So they can't be controlling me.

If he tells me his predictions, they will probably have some influence, if only to make me pay more attention to the predicted option. Now a lot depends on what kind of person I am. If I were a contrary sort of person, my friend could never hope to publicly predict my action, no matter how much he knows about me. Because I would just do something different. But I'm not that kind of person.

My friend is constrained, if he wants to get his predictions right. He has to be careful to match the prediction to the action. If they don't match, it won't be my fault.

IMO, intelligence and free-will are complete disparate and neither is required for the other.

Intelligence is necessary for free will, because free will is about choices, which are implementations of evaluations of various courses of action. To imagine various courses of action and their consequences requires intelligence. It doesn't require as much intelligence as humans have - there's evidence that rats imagine and evaluate courses of action - but it does require some.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Now that I have a little more time, let me add that there's a quantum leap in freedom that comes with high intelligence, at the point where we can see ourselves and others both as physical and as mindful beings. Some developmental psychologists use the phrase "the concept of a person" to describe this vital breakthrough in a child's perceptions. I don't think it's uniquely human; some other great apes have this cognitive ability too. Someone who grasps the concept of a person can then ask questions like: have I considered enough alternatives? Have I thought this through enough? Is this the kind of person I want to be? Etc.

This conceptual breakthrough marks the difference between just plain consciousness and self-consciousness.

Is the capacity for self-consciousness necessary for "free will"? I don't think it matters much whether we say yes or no: if we say yes, then we need to acknowledge that there is a partly similar albeit less flexible will that lower animals have. If we say no, then we still need to acknowledge that self-conscious animals have a qualitiative edge. I think most people would probably say yes, self-consciousness is necessary. If you build that into the definition of free will, then free will seems to require a high level of intelligence.

Beyond that, the only other requirement I see is that one's implementation of one's intelligence in action not be blocked. Not be blocked by brainwashing or hypnosis to impose alien evaluations on you; not be blocked by unintelligent portions of the brain causing tics or seizures; not be blocked by an oppressor who kills you if you show signs of doing something he doesn't like, etc.

Ayatollah's rough-and-ready formula for free will, then: intelligence + noninterference = free will.

 

[Ayatollah So]

IMO punishment is juvenile. This philosophy also points the way to attempting to improve society. One can analyze the circumstances that led to the crime and try to change or improve them. Otherwise we are left with the possibility that society cannot be made safer or more stable. The murderer is also a victim, a cursory look at the lives of murderers should clear that up, but that doesn’t mean that society has no right to take him/her off the street. Indeed society has a responsibility to its citizens to do just that, and to try and create conditions that will not foster the creation of additional murderers.

When you say "punishment is juvenile", do you separate out deterrence versus making wrongdoers suffer just for the sake of making them suffer? Because I agree that the latter is a bad idea, but I think deterrence is proper. Whether the criminal thinks he can escape negative consequence is often (certainly not always, I admit) one of the factors that leads to the crime.

Another subtle but important factor in the criminal justice system is the way penalties express social disapproval of crimes, determining what people whose morality may not be very admirable still regard as beyond the pale. Care is needed here. There are plenty of vindictive voters and politicians who love to use this rationale as a fig leaf for vengefulness. Misused as it is, this line of reasoning isn't always bogus.

Society can and should do both: impose negative consequences for crime, and also reduce unemployment, racism, child abuse, and so on. I expect you'd say that remedies in the latter category have more potential and are less costly. Well, I'll say it if you won't. But negative consequences for crime help too.

 

[Gothmog]

@insurgent
Sorry if you felt condescended to, I didn’t intend it that way. I typically to respond to what I perceive as the tenor of the poster I am conversing with. I felt you were stating things in the same straight forward manner I then took on. Have no doubt that I respect your opinion and understand that my ideas in this area are 100% subjective. Indeed that is the core of my argument, meaning can only be found in subjective states. There is nothing more.

I too find the principles of guilt and responsibility important, and I think that everyone (beyond sociopaths etc.) struggles with them. But I am not going to stake my claim there, obviously not everyone has equivalent a sense of personal responsibility. Not everyone ponders philosophical issues the way we do. In addition circumstances sometimes push people into decisions they may regret, these decisions may have been dictated to them by some of their previous decisions and/or by circumstances. In any case I think society needs to provide the structure that allows people to live how they want, as long as they don’t threaten the safety and stability of other individuals.

Basically, the search for meaning is absurd in itself. We cannot possibly find it, as it cannot logically exist. Having acknowledged this, the way to happiness, I think, is to live. Live life for it's own sake. Live as much as you can (not in the vulgar meaning). By that I mean, be conscious about what you do, and enjoy the only certainty in your life: that you exist in this very moment. You cannot know about the next.

Again, we are close but different. You sound like a younger version of myself (not meant to be condescending). I appreciate what you are saying, but you have not really touched on where you will find happiness. My experience has been that people are made happy through their personal relationships, and secondarily through their contributions, self gratification comes in third. This is definitely true for me, but as far as I can tell it is true for most people.

You say it may not work out for me in the long run, and you may be right, but it has been working out for me for roughly as long as you have been alive (given that you are 20). That’s not bad really.

That is what makes life basically pointless in every way that has any meaning to me.

Meaning is something which gives one a sense of purpose, and self worth. Love certainly fits that description for those who have it, as does contribution (in the abstract sense). This is what I was getting at before, if you value other people then love and contribution are not pointless. Rather they are central.

I just don’t see where this ‘free will’ has any impact. I am my intrinsic physical being along with the sum of my experiences. It seems that you are saying that if ‘you’ had been born in my circumstances, with my DNA etc. You would have been a different person. That is basically the belief in a soul, I don’t share that belief.

I’ve worked hard for a long time, I value self discipline above just about anything. This comes from a very basic belief in being responsible for myself. I know that my values come from my experiences. Primarily from my parents, where I found roll models for self responsibility and discipline (as well as more active forms of persuasion), but also through my interaction with society (mostly through the negative ones) and even by assimilating the ideas of other people that I respect. The choice of who I respect again is colored by my experiences. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, indeed I assume that most everyone wont (this again from personal experience). So we need to have social structures that can allow such a disparate group of people to live and work together. I just don’t trust people to do that without rules and structure.

When I said you need to figure out what does matter, I was not trying to condescend. Everyone does. You have indicated that love does not matter to you. You have gone so far as to say that meaning its self is absurd. In my mind that is treading on dangerous ground. You are willing to accept free will, though you cannot say where it originates from or what impact it has, and as I indicated I think the idea is a logical contradiction. If it exists at all it must be somehow ‘spiritual’, it must depend on something more than the physical world. But you are not willing to accept meaning, though meaning can be found in your own heart. In your own subjective being.

@Ayatollah
Deterrence is another aspect of the justice system, to the extent that it helps create a safe and stable society. Compensation for victims is important too, but vengeance is quite separate in my mind, so is punishment.

 

[betazed]

If my friend conceals the predictions from me, then again they exert no causal influence. So they can't be controlling me.

sigh! whoever, said anything about control? Where in my 'n' number of posts in this thread did I talk about control? I talk about prediction only. Prediction is not control. It does not matter whether he conceals or tells you his predictions.

Intelligence is necessary for free will, because free will is about choices, which are implementations of evaluations of various courses of action. To imagine various courses of action and their consequences requires intelligence. It doesn't require as much intelligence as humans have - there's evidence that rats imagine and evaluate courses of action - but it does require some.

I gave a recipe for a free-will machine. It did not require any intelligence. It just needed to run a few algorithms which are hooked to a fundamentally random process.

btw, if you allege that intelligence is required for free-will then it opens another can of worms. namely...
(a) What is intelligence?
(b) How much of intelligence? Does that question even make sense?
(c) Is a cat intelligent enough to have free-will? Or a dog? What about an earthworm? and finally, what about the insane person?

Anyway, this discussion is going nowehere, because it is apparent that I have failed to explain a very simple concept.

 

[punkbass2000]

"Anyway, this discussion is going nowehere, because it is apparent that I have failed to explain a very simple concept. "

No you haven't The comprehending lurkers often fail to indicate their understanding

 

[betazed]

No you haven't The comprehending lurkers often fail to indicate their understanding

That is good to know.

 

[insurgent]

You say it may not work out for me in the long run, and you may be right, but it has been working out for me for roughly as long as you have been alive (given that you are 20). That’s not bad really.
Meaning is something which gives one a sense of purpose, and self worth. Love certainly fits that description for those who have it, as does contribution (in the abstract sense). This is what I was getting at before, if you value other people then love and contribution are not pointless. Rather they are central.

I do not think that I have experienced love. Maybe I'm too much of a skeptic to recognise it when I feel it.
I have felt, and do feel, a deep urge to help somebody. I am fascinated by her, but I do not think that I'm blinded by love for her entirety. I like her a lot, but I have a feeling that she likes me more than I like her.
Now, getting to know her, it became clear to me that she suffers from many personal issues. Her life was not happy, and everything seemed to be messed up in her private life. Everything seemed to matter far too much to her, other people's opinions in particular seemed far too important. She seemed over-stressed, trying to be something for other people that she did not dare to be for herself.
The point of all this is that I felt a, to me, rare and powerful compassion when I got to know her. Not pity, but a powerful motivation to help her define herself more independently. To help her make herself free from what seemed to restrain her and make her miserable.
I still feel it, to some extent, and it is a deep and utterly selfless feeling. I want to help, just for help's sake. Being gratified for it was unimportant.

So, I think I know what you mean. But my logic dictates that I refuse to call it the meaning of my life. That would not be fair to my intelligence, I think.

I just don’t see where this ‘free will’ has any impact. I am my intrinsic physical being along with the sum of my experiences. It seems that you are saying that if ‘you’ had been born in my circumstances, with my DNA etc. You would have been a different person. That is basically the belief in a soul, I don’t share that belief.

I'm not sure if I believe in the existence of a soul. If it's defined as what I wrote above, then yes, I believe in it. If it's defined as something that must be supernatural and spiritual, then no.

My belief in free will has, as I said, an impact on whether or not I can hold myself and others responsible for what they do. If we can control our actions independently and freely, then we are accountable.

When I said you need to figure out what does matter, I was not trying to condescend. Everyone does. You have indicated that love does not matter to you.

It matters to me, I think. I don't think I know love as in love for a special person. But there are things and people that I love. They matter to me. They just don't constitute a given purpose or meaning. Using a cliché, I believe that being precedes essence, and any essence that we adopt in our lives is our own, and defined solely by ourselves. But the problem with all such essence is that it also constantly requires being. But our being is not certain beyond this very moment. So, such essence is not certain beyond this exact moment either. We will die some day. This will constitute the failure of all attempts at creating some essence higher than life. All such ideas of meaning cannot succeed in the end. They will fall victim of hopelessness or simple death.
I can engage myself. I can live anyway I want. I may feel some meaning, a gratifying feeling, definitely. But meaning and purpose are not real, they are illusions because of the above described absurdity. That's what logic dictates to me. That is why I will not seek this feeling. Instead, it will have to come to me, and I will accept it but know that it cannot possibly gain permanence.
I think that is living with absurdity without being defeated by it. It doesn't make me quit or stop living my life because I capitulate, I just stop considering hope the only motivation for action.

You have gone so far as to say that meaning its self is absurd. In my mind that is treading on dangerous ground. You are willing to accept free will, though you cannot say where it originates from or what impact it has, and as I indicated I think the idea is a logical contradiction. If it exists at all it must be somehow ‘spiritual’, it must depend on something more than the physical world. But you are not willing to accept meaning, though meaning can be found in your own heart. In your own subjective being.

I'm not so sure about that. It seems evident to me that we can control our own minds. But I see an alternate theory which seems to explain human action in a different but logically consistent way. I will have to rely on what I feel is true, because I do believe that I possess free will. If this necessarily requires some sprituality, I do not know.

 

[anarres]

I found this thread late and I am enjoying the read.

Others are already expressing my views pretty well atm.