Do we have free will? Is the world indeterministic?

[warpus]

If the world appears flat, and there's no contrary evidence, we should assume the world is flat. Same here. If free will appears to exist, and there's nothing to say it can't, then we should believe it does.

But then our assumptions could very well be false. You don't see a problem with this?

"Let's assume things that could very well be false are true and declare victory", doesn't sound much better...

 

[timtofly]

But then our assumptions could very well be false. You don't see a problem with this?

"Let's assume things that could very well be false are true and declare victory", doesn't sound much better...

That would not be a true or false scenario. That would be a lack of education/experience. An educated person would be arrogant to assume the assumption as being false. Now if a person had knowledge and still kept the same assumption, they would be lying to themselves.

 

[Traitorfish]

What does "arrogance" have to do with anything? You can't derive epistemology from ethics.

 

[Souron]

But then our assumptions could very well be false. You don't see a problem with this?

"Let's assume things that could very well be false are true and declare victory", doesn't sound much better...

We can't claim certainty on anything, but if we have a minimal standard of evidence before we deem something worth considering, then we can actually have a good framework for what we can be said to know. So if we might say that Russel's teapot doesn't exist, even though we can't prove it.

As it is, there's reason to believe we have free will (namely we appear to have free will), and you have so far not presented any evidence why we should believe we don't. The discussion of how much confidence we should have in this situation of our position is, in my eyes, rather pointless. But if no one can articulate a genuine objection, then perhaps we should "Declare Victory". I'd rather debate the objection though.

 

[timtofly]

What does "arrogance" have to do with anything? You can't derive epistemology from ethics.

My using a different term for assumption in a statement already using the form of the word twice sounded better than using the word three times I assume. Calling it a false assumption would have defeated my purpose since we are trying to keep it in an education context and not one of assuming something is false to one individual when they are not even aware of a reason to consider it false.

 

[Souron]

Yes it would in a non-deterministic universe. We still have to address the fact "are you free in a deterministic universe?" or "are you forced into the decision making process?" Is it your will that is being done? If your choices are not yours, then there is no freedom. It is an illusion.

Will is the force that drives people, but how one uses that will is the determining factor. There is always that nagging voice that asks, "did you make the right choice?" The free part is not even the confidence that you made the right choice. It is the ability to make the choice to begin with. If we could not make a choice the will would just be going in random directions.

In a deterministic universe the unknown variable is "where do the choices come from?" Are they your choices, or choices that have been handed to you from the environment around you, or yes even choices unknown to you through your subconscious. In a non-determnistic universe, it would be easier to determine that, because the reality would be there are no underlying factors driving subconscious choices.

Yes there can be order in a non-deterministic universe, because humans have the capacity to arrange such order. That is the knowledge base we have. We have created such knowledge to arrange the unknown into the known. That is science. However, that does not determine that the universe is deterministic or not. If humans can free themselves from the idea that there is an underlying subconscious that would be the determinism factor, then the will would be truly free of such determinism.

I disagree with the bolded.

Your choices are your own, but you are the product of your environment. For example, a person who has seen lots of suffering may be more generous. The freedom in choosing to be generous is not diminished by the fact that one has seen lots of suffering. However, it may be impossible for such a person not to give to a person in need if circumstances allow.

In a non-deterministic univerce, or were the mind is not deterministic, it is not easier to determine where your choices come from; your choices come from nowhere. Importantly, they don't come from you. They cannot. You are defined by your personality, memories, and identity, which in turn comes from what you were born to be, and how you have lived. But if the mind is non deterministic, then by definition, your choices cannot be the product of that, of you.

The subconscious can be viewed as a limit on free will, but because it is not conscious, not because it is deterministic.

 

[timtofly]

I disagree with the bolded.

Your choices are your own, but you are the product of your environment. For example, a person who has seen lots of suffering may be more generous. The freedom in choosing to be generous is not diminished by the fact that one has seen lots of suffering. However, it may be impossible for such a person not to give to a person in need if circumstances allow.

In a non-deterministic univerce, or were the mind is not deterministic, it is not easier to determine where your choices come from; your choices come from nowhere. Importantly, they don't come from you. They cannot. You are defined by your personality, memories, and identity, which in turn comes from what you were born to be, and how you have lived. But if the mind is non deterministic, then by definition, your choices cannot be the product of that, of you.

The subconscious can be viewed as a limit on free will, but because it is not conscious, not because it is deterministic.

I agree that one is the product of their environment in as much as that is the level of education/choices they can choose from. The only form of determinism that I recognize is that which restricts the educational process or the fact that a human cannot survive without the proper education needed to do so. The only freedom of will that I see is the amount of knowledge that has been gained in human existence. I view the subconscious (if it exist, which I do accept) as an unknown source of knowledge that cannot be explained in an observable fashion. That may be an excuse for a host of other issues. I do not see it as the will. To me the will is just a personal drive or self determination.

 

[Ayatollah So]

You are assuming that we have free will and asking someone to refute this hypothesis.

No, you are misrepresenting my position. I am assuming that we have determinism, and asking whether free will could exist at the same time - whether they are compatible. (Hint: the answer is yes, they are compatible.) If they are compatible, then every argument that goes "we can't have free will, because determinism" is unsound.

This isn't the same as proving, or trying to prove, free will. There can be - there are - unsound arguments against untrue propositions. So it would require a very different sort of argument to establish, even as a probability, that we have free will. What sort of argument? See below.

If no contradiction exists [between determinism and free will], the compatibalism is correct.

Exactly. That's just a restatement of the definitions of compatibilism and incompatibilism.

----------

To establish as best we can with available evidence whether free will does or doesn't exist, first we need to understand what "free will" is supposed to mean. To do that, we should look for real life usage of the term, where "real life" means outside of philosophical or religious debates. That way, we avoid biased opinions of those who have a dog in this fight, and we also get a sense of why philosophers and religious leaders have thought the topic to be important. And a great source of real life usage of the term is the legal system.

For example, this document on rape and sexual harassment mentions free will in its definition of consent:

c. Consent
Positive cooperation in the act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved. A current or previous dating relationship shall not be sufficient to constitute consent.

And this is further clarified by contrast with conditions that contradict consent, such as:

3. Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, administered by or with the privity (knowledge) of the accused.

Another rich source of implicit and explicit definition of free will in the law is the insanity defense. For example Julie Grachek writes:

The insanity defense addresses the policy issues inherent in the question of criminal culpability:14 the connection between responsibility and blameworthiness. The view is that in a criminal justice system based on free will,15 the acts of mentally ill persons lacking complete free will cannot fairly be judged in the same way as the acts of sane, free-willed persons. Therefore, the insanity defense reflects the “criminal justice system’s view that the conduct of individuals who lack some degree of mental capacity should not be judged according to general volitional and cognitive principles.”16 Society’s recognition of a moral difference between the acts of a sane person and a mentally ill person17 results in the insanity defense serving dual roles in the criminal justice system: 1) as a way to distinguish between offenders who are able to conform their conduct to the law as a result of punishment from those offenders who are not able to conform their conduct to the law despite punishment,18 and 2) as a method of ensuring offenders posing a threat to society are restrained.19

In this passage, free will is associated with "some degree of mental capacity", "volitional and cognitive principles", "ability to conform conduct to the law", and "ability to [take into account] punishment". I would have said, take into account any and all foreseeable consequences of action, but the general idea is similar.

OK, so now that we have a proto-definition of free will, let's look at the known universe for any beings that have: mental capacity? Check. Volition and cognition? Check. Ability to conform to the law? Check. Taking consequences, such as punishment, into account? Check!

And what kinds of beings have these qualities, in copious amounts? Are they roughly the same ones that most people regard as having free will, such as typical adult human beings without severe mental illness? By golly, gee willikers, yes they are!

 

[warpus]

WAs it is, there's reason to believe we have free will (namely we appear to have free will), and you have so far not presented any evidence why we should believe we don't.

You haven't presented any evidence whatsoever why we should believe that we do. All you're saying is: "Common sense dictates..."

The onus of proof lies on you, not me.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I view the subconscious (if it exist, which I do accept) as an unknown source of knowledge that cannot be explained in an observable fashion. That may be an excuse for a host of other issues. I do not see it as the will. To me the will is just a personal drive or self determination.

You just take one part of what will actualy is. Will also exist on subconscious level. How can you deny that? What else are instincts then manifestation of will on subconscious level? And how can you separate subconscious from personal drive or self determination?

 

[timtofly]

You just take one part of what will actualy is. Will also exist on subconscious level. How can you deny that? What else are instincts then manifestation of will on subconscious level? And how can you separate subconscious from personal drive or self determination?

Because there is more to the subconscious than just a driving force, at least it seems that way from my observations.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Because there is more to the subconscious than just a driving force, at least it seems that way from my observations.

You just need to take into account the part which concerns the will itself then. Subconscious is full of different driving forces. Quite often someone or something else projects its will into your subconscious part first and only with some interval you become aware of that influence consciously.

 

[timtofly]

You just need to take into account the part which concerns the will itself then. Subconscious is full of different driving forces. Quite often someone or something else projects its will into your subconscious part first and only with some interval you become aware of that influence consciously.

If your will was not the only driving force competing for your self identity, then that would restrict it further. I don't think that there are any other driving forces. I just think that there are thoughts that seem more compelling than other thoughts. Where those thoughts come from and how they are manupulated is a totally different subject. The brain is constantly taking in data whether we want it to or not. That data is being stored whether or not we use it now or later.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If your will was not the only driving force competing for your self identity, then that would restrict it further. I don't think that there are any other driving forces. I just think that there are thoughts that seem more compelling than other thoughts. Where those thoughts come from and how they are manupulated is a totally different subject. The brain is constantly taking in data whether we want it to or not. That data is being stored whether or not we use it now or later.

I guess what I am saying is that what you call your conscious will(mental or other) is just a top of an iceberg of some larger will which is present in subconscious or even superconscious level of your being. Without getting to know the whole of this will you cant realy claim to have free will or only in a degree - limited free will.
By getting knowledge of this hidden reality/potential you are discovering something more true/ more free.

 

[Souron]

You haven't presented any evidence whatsoever why we should believe that we do. All you're saying is: "Common sense dictates..."

The onus of proof lies on you, not me.

I've presented little evidence, because it's uncontested. I clearly seem in control of my choices and so do you.

The onus of proof lies on you to establish how that contradicts determinism.

 

[timtofly]

I guess what I am saying is that what you call your conscious will(mental or other) is just a top of an iceberg of some larger will which is present in subconscious or even superconscious level of your being. Without getting to know the whole of this will you cant realy claim to have free will or only in a degree - limited free will.
By getting knowledge of this hidden reality/potential you are discovering something more true/ more free.

How would you convince others of the "iceburg" and how they can obtain such knowledge? I think that was the whole point of determining free will? According to Warpus, you have to give some proof of your claims. It seems they deny free will although they have not provided any evidence other than there is none. The first step would be, even to agree what frame work you are even working in so they can agree with you on the definitions.

 

[Chiteng]

Physics pretty much asserts that we are all flies caught in the matrix.
Free will is simply an illusion because we cannot grasp time in all dimensions.

Faith asserts that if you have faith, then you have free will.
Which one makes you happier?

 

[timtofly]

Physics pretty much asserts that we are all flies caught in the matrix.
Free will is simply an illusion because we cannot grasp time in all dimensions.

Faith asserts that if you have faith, then you have free will.
Which one makes you happier?

Who says faith allows one free will? Seems to me "faith" is doing the "will" of the represented religion. How is that free will?

 

[Chiteng]

Who says faith allows one free will? Seems to me "faith" is doing the "will" of the represented religion. How is that free will?

Like all things, religion can be packaged and sold.

Faith however is a personal choice.

You have it, or you dont.

 

[timtofly]

Like all things, religion can be packaged and sold.

Faith however is a personal choice.

You have it, or you dont.

What is this Faith that we are choosing?