Do we have free will? Is the world indeterministic?

[Mechanicalsalvation]

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.

My ambition is just to present certain POV not to make any strong claims or to convince others but I surely must have some degree of conviction myself to hold these views so here is simple why:

I can observe three basic parts(physical body, emotions, mental faculty)of my own being which non of these I have really deep knowledge or supreme control on personal level. Yet logicaly if I want to use my personal will most effectively this is exatly what I need - maximal cooperation and harmony inside my own being (integrity). But I can also see that through discipline I can exert or expand level of my control, understanding and increase of my capacity. I can expand the "top of an iceberg" in self-conquest. So one of my main convictions is my practical experience.

 

[timtofly]

My ambition is just to present certain POV not to make any strong claims or to convince others but I surely must have some degree of conviction myself to hold these views so here is simple why:

I can observe three basic parts(physical body, emotions, mental faculty)of my own being which non of these I have really deep knowledge or supreme control on personal level. Yet logicaly if I want to use my personal will most effectively this is exatly what I need - maximal cooperation and harmony inside my own being (integrity). But I can also see that through discipline I can exert or expand level of my control, understanding and increase of my capacity. I can expand the "top of an iceberg" in self-conquest. So one of my main convictions is my practical experience.

I am with you so far.

 

[Traitorfish]

I can observe three basic parts(physical body, emotions, mental faculty)of my own being

What reason do we have for thinking that the latter two are anything other than functions of the body?

 

[warpus]

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.

If the question of free will was "uncontested" you should be able to point me to plenty scientific papers discussing the phenomenon and showing that it exists.

I don't know why you are now bringing determinism into this btw.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What reason do we have for thinking that the latter two are anything other than functions of the body?

This discrimination is realy mainly question of practicality. I find it highly practical to do so. I consider my emotional side and mental equilibrum so important that I am willing to give it special care regardless the fact that I dont know its exact relation to physical body.

 

[Traitorfish]

But you described them as "basic parts" which can be "observed", which suggests the distinction is something we come across as already-existent. To call it a matter of practicality is to say that, instead, it's an abstraction we make after encountering an initial unity.

 

[Souron]

If the question of free will was "uncontested" you should be able to point me to plenty scientific papers discussing the phenomenon and showing that it exists.

I don't know why you are now bringing determinism into this btw.

Firstly, I said the existence of evidence is uncontested. That is, we obviously seem to have free will. Also obviously, some people nonetheless argue we don't have it.

Secondly, what kind of scientific studies are relevant to this matter of philosophy? There is certainly literature on how people make choices, which of course presupposed that they do.

Thirdly, the relevance of determinism is that Ayatollah So's original point that started this discussion was chiefly asserting compatibalism. From that it follows that determinism exists; few people would assert that determinism is compatible with free will, but free will doesn't exist, as there'd be no legs to stand on. Some people will still say that our subconscious rules our choices more than we know, but that is a different debate. So determinism is quite relevant.

 

[Souron]

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.

Personal drive relates to willpower, so I'd like to avoid the term, unless you're making a point about how willpower relates to freedom. But "self determination" seems very similar to "free will". Why cannot your self determination be considered free will?

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.

It sounds like you're saying that you have less freedom if you're angry and aren't aware of it, than if you're angry and you know it. But you're not saying that we should be aware of our emotions in order to fight them when needed, but for awareness own sake. Am I understanding correctly?

I think emotions are sometimes thought of as internal, and sometimes external, but for someone who is intimately aware of them, and meditates on them, they would be comfortable considering them as always internal. I'm not sure if you would say this contradicts your view.

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?

The truth is best of course. But I disagree that having memory in exactly one direction creates an illusion of free will. Rather, having memory of the past is what empowers us to be agents in the present. Is is the nature of time that enables our minds to function the way they do, storing vital information, and discarding the rest.

 

[timtofly]

What reason do we have for thinking that the latter two are anything other than functions of the body?

Blood is just another function of the body. If we could not see it, would that make it any less valuable or that it is not a seperate part of the body?

We see the results of certain aspects in the human experience that points to something that cannot be observed directly. No one can explain them away either. We have different terms for the brain and the mind. While the mind is just another function of the body, it is used in a unique way that differentiates from just a brain functioning.

People for thousands of years have been talking about the human condition as having more than a body, but a soul, and a mind where soul and body connect. The reason we use the other two terms is to put a name to that which cannot be observed directly, but the effects of such are just as real as the human existence itself. If you just want to relegate the unexplained to just another function of the body, would that not be admitting that something is there? It certainly does not explain them away any.

Personal drive relates to willpower, so I'd like to avoid the term, unless you're making a point about how willpower relates to freedom. But "self determination" seems very similar to "free will". Why cannot your self determination be considered free will?

I do not mean to imply that free will is not self determination. The more education there is the more there is freedom. We limit even our own will in the term responsability. Most reject free will in the fact that we have no freedom whatsoever, or so it seems. Others just reject the fact that we have limits/determinism. I did say that free will is seperate on the basis that will alone is not free.

You and Sill view will itself as being free will. I have been told that spirit is part of the drive. One is to bring the will into control, but if the spirit is broken, then there is no drive. Now this concept may be what is causing a difference in my point and yours. The will to me does not make choices. That is the mind. The will is not free if there is no ability to make choices. Calling self determination free, but taking away all of the choices does not make sense to me. I suppose it is just easier not to invent different terms to explain things, but when it comes to knowledge the principal of dividing and conqering seems to apply. Breaking things down into what they are and how they work is to me the ability to learn and gain knowledge.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

It sounds like you're saying that you have less freedom if you're angry and aren't aware of it, than if you're angry and you know it. But you're not saying that we should be aware of our emotions in order to fight them when needed, but for awareness own sake. Am I understanding correctly?

Quite so. Consciousness seems to be everything. There is view of course that "ignorance is bliss" which is quite true to an extent. But there is also saying that "what you do not consciously overcome yourself will mercilesly overcome you".

I think emotions are sometimes thought of as internal, and sometimes external, but for someone who is intimately aware of them, and meditates on them, they would be comfortable considering them as always internal. I'm not sure if you would say this contradicts your view.

You can make the discrimination either way. For example by the kind of yoga I do I separate my being into inner (soul and psychic being(heart)) and outer (physical, vital, mental). Any feelings, thoughts or actions which are associated with the inner members can be viewed as inner and the same goes for outer part.
Its realy no hard and fast rule and it can get little more complex. E.g. I can differentiate between inner and outer vital or inner and outer mind depending if I see that the emotions or thoughts are influenced and in cooperation with inner members/ souls light.
I have red some accounts by advanced yogis of the inner composition of human being and its very complex issue but for most people who live on the surface and are in drag by different forces of outer nature(including ones ego) and other cosmic forces it doesnt matter.
Finally from certain POV you can say there is no difference between inner or outer world. Its only temporary discrimination of someone who perhaps needs to focus ones energy in specific way.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

But you described them as "basic parts" which can be "observed", which suggests the distinction is something we come across as already-existent. To call it a matter of practicality is to say that, instead, it's an abstraction we make after encountering an initial unity.

Surely you can view these as abstract basic parts which can be observed. The distinction one makes realy depends on ones need. If what you want to do is to use purely physical treatment e.g. drugs then seeing whole of yourself as only physical may suffice.

 

[Traitorfish]

Surely you can view these as abstract basic parts which can be observed. The distinction one makes realy depends on ones need. If what you want to do is to use purely physical treatment e.g. drugs then seeing whole of yourself as only physical may suffice.

Abstractions are derives from observations, they aren't observed in themselves.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Abstractions are derives from observations, they aren't observed in themselves.

Thats sounds like something very much in support of my therory that things like mind and emotional being actualy do exist.

 

[Traitorfish]

Of course they do, but they don't exist as something distinct from the body. Physicalism does not necessarily entail reductionism.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

dbl post

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Of course they do, but they don't exist as something distinct from the body. Physicalism does not necessarily entail reductionism.

Can you then speak about mental part of the body? Or how else would you define the mind?

Wiky:

A mind is the complex of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, thinking, reasoning, perception, and judgement—a characteristic of human beings, but which also may apply to other life forms.

Edit: Actualy these cognitive faculties seem to be something so different or special from within ones own being that I would consider it as something clearly distinct from the rest of the physical body.

 

[warpus]

Firstly, I said the existence of evidence is uncontested. That is, we obviously seem to have free will. Also obviously, some people nonetheless argue we don't have it.

It does seem that we have it, but that in no way puts any weight behind the hypothesis that we indeed do possess it.

"It seems that the sky is blue because it reflects the colour of the oceans"

Case closed.. right?

Thirdly, the relevance of determinism is that Ayatollah So's original point that started this discussion was chiefly asserting compatibalism. From that it follows that determinism exists; few people would assert that determinism is compatible with free will, but free will doesn't exist, as there'd be no legs to stand on. Some people will still say that our subconscious rules our choices more than we know, but that is a different debate. So determinism is quite relevant.

It only becomes relevant if you are trying to disprove a hypothesis of free will existing. And besides, the universe isn't deterministic, so the point is kind of moot.

 

[Traitorfish]

Can you then speak about mental part of the body? Or how else would you define the mind?

I would tend to think about the mind as a function of the body, rather than a part of it; "part" implies it occupies some space (literal or conceptual) distinct from the (non-mental) body, but I think that the two are necessarily coterminous.

Actualy these cognitive faculties seem to be something so different or special from within ones own being that I would consider it as something clearly distinct from the rest of the physical body.

I can see how you'd reach that conclusion, but I don't think that it's consistent our actual experience of life. For example, we might call reading a mental activity; I take in abstract symbols, I process them, and I derive from that certain meanings. But I can't read without eyes, without the physical process external and internal to my body that allow my eyes to perceive reflected light and for my brain to translate that light into a usable form. Without these physical bridges between the text and my mind, the mental process of reading comes apart instantly. The distinction we make between the "physical" and "mental" dimensions of this process of reading is something that occurs entirely after the fact, something which emerges in our reflection upon that process, rather than something that we come across in the direct experience of the process itself.

 

[Gatsby]

After giving these subjects a thought, I find those ideas increasingly unlikely. You might just as well say that, rather that we have free choice, are choices are made by processes in our brain set off by our peers and our environment. Moreover, how likely is it that things occur purely randomly? If you throw a ball it'll inevitably lose attitude because of factors that exist outside and before this event, so why would there be a possibility of deviation from any of this?

Please, discuss.

Do you have robust definitions for "free choice", "random" and "determinism"? We can't really tackle a question like this without laying a solid groundwork of definitions first...

 

[Souron]

I do not mean to imply that free will is not self determination. The more education there is the more there is freedom. We limit even our own will in the term responsability. Most reject free will in the fact that we have no freedom whatsoever, or so it seems. Others just reject the fact that we have limits/determinism. I did say that free will is seperate on the basis that will alone is not free.

You and Sill view will itself as being free will. I have been told that spirit is part of the drive. One is to bring the will into control, but if the spirit is broken, then there is no drive. Now this concept may be what is causing a difference in my point and yours. The will to me does not make choices. That is the mind. The will is not free if there is no ability to make choices. Calling self determination free, but taking away all of the choices does not make sense to me. I suppose it is just easier not to invent different terms to explain things, but when it comes to knowledge the principal of dividing and conqering seems to apply. Breaking things down into what they are and how they work is to me the ability to learn and gain knowledge.

I hesitate to ask, but can you define all the components of the mind involved in choice? Breaking things down into different names can be useful, but only if you clearly state what each name represents.