Do we have free will? Is the world indeterministic?

[timtofly]

So why can't free will just be the "ability" to choose? Your choices may be determined for you, but the abilty to choose is still just you.

 

[warpus]

What I want to do is attack the dilemma on its supposed strong point: the determinism horn. Suppose that a specific future is indeed coming. (As far as I know, that may be so.) So what? The future in question depends on us. It is caused by (in part by) conscious, (moderately) rational and intelligent, willful beings: and that is precisely where free will comes in.

But if it's already determined, then we aren't willful beings.

If we're just a part of a deterministic machine, and the future is already set, then we can't play a part in determining it.

You're kind of saying: "Let's say the universe is deterministic and we have free will. Therefore we have free will."

 

[topsecret]

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.

Did you post this by choice, or were you forced? Perhaps it randomly happened.

 

[Ayatollah So]

So why can't free will just be the "ability" to choose? Your choices may be determined for you, but the abilty to choose is still just you.

I think you're on the right track.

But if it's already determined, then we aren't willful beings.

If we're just a part of a deterministic machine, and the future is already set, then we can't play a part in determining it.

You're kind of saying: "Let's say the universe is deterministic and we have free will. Therefore we have free will."

Hell yeah we're willful beings! We form intentions, and we want to do what we intend - what else does "will" mean to you?

The second assertion is just flat out wrong. If the universe is deterministic, which parts of the universe don't play a part in determining its future? If you took out the Andromeda galaxy for example, would its satellite galaxies still orbit around some central point? Of course not, they'd fly off in an inertial direction. The Andromeda galaxy plays a part in determining the motions of other galaxies. The items in the universe matter. They affect things. The item in the universe called "you" also matters, and affects things.

Some things affect other things blindly, through gravity for example. But other things affect things intelligently, consciously, through their decisions.

I'm saying: Let's say the universe is deterministic, and try to logically derive a conclusion that contradicts free will. Hey, no one has succeeded in doing so, and prospects for such a proof look very dim. Therefore, determinism is compatible with free will.

 

[warpus]

Hell yeah we're willful beings! We form intentions, and we want to do what we intend - what else does "will" mean to you?

...

I'm saying: Let's say the universe is deterministic, and try to logically derive a conclusion that contradicts free will. Hey, no one has succeeded in doing so, and prospects for such a proof look very dim. Therefore, determinism is compatible with free will.

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

That's very easy to do.. Walk into a thread where people are debating whether God exists or not and say: "Assume that God exists! Okay now, somebody contradict my assumption. If you can't, I win."

Logic doesn't work that way.

 

[Souron]

Well "assume the univerce is deterministic and we have free will" is precisely how you would start a proof for the non-existance of free will, since the assertion is that that would lead to a contradiction. If you can name such a contradiction, the your arguement is that. If no contradiction exists, the compatibalism is correct.

However I think talking about it that way evades the actual area of contention, which is the definition of free will. I gave a compatibalist definition of free will earlier in the thread so way to argue against it would be to either propose a different one, or explain why my definition is not actually compatible with determinism.

 

[timtofly]

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

That's very easy to do.. Walk into a thread where people are debating whether God exists or not and say: "Assume that God exists! Okay now, somebody contradict my assumption. If you can't, I win."

Logic doesn't work that way.

Is choosing your response a free logical choice, or was it a random thought that you posted? How well do random thoughts produce logical outcomes? I am not saying that they don't, because very seldom do we have truly random thoughts that lead no where. There is usually a determinism even in randomness, since most humans are logical thinkers. I think there are some who try to brake out of that "mold", but normally they would be considered insane.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So why can't free will just be the "ability" to choose? Your choices may be determined for you, but the abilty to choose is still just you.

Wouldn't "Will" suffice to describe that?

 

[warpus]

I just think, since it's even hard to agree on the meaning of the term "free will", the starting position should be that it doesn't exist.

From there, you can try to prove that it does. That seems sensible to me. It's how I would approach any other similar situation involving something where the existence of something is in question (God, unicorns, etc.)

 

[timtofly]

Wouldn't "Will" suffice to describe that?

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 hate to get biblical here, but needing to know there even was a subconscious factor, IMO was what put us in the mess we are in to begin with. If we did not have to make a choice that had moral implications, we would be free to live with every choice we made. Humans would never have knowledge that choices were "wrong". In the state of mind we have now, we cannot even fathom how consequences of such free choices would turn out. In fact we would see it as very deterministic because nothing wrong would ever come from any choices. IMO the illusion today is that we can make choices and even bad ones and still not experience any negative consequences. That to me gives a false confidence in the ability to go in a morally wrong direction.

 

[Souron]

I just think, since it's even hard to agree on the meaning of the term "free will", the starting position should be that it doesn't exist.

From there, you can try to prove that it does. That seems sensible to me. It's how I would approach any other similar situation involving something where the existence of something is in question (God, unicorns, etc.)

Nobody denies that there is evidence of free will. Even people who claim that free will is an illusion, necessarily concede that there is something giving that illusion. We seem to have free will. If that is not in contradiction with any other observation then it should be taken as true.

Also free will isn't a thing, so comparing it's existence to physical things is inappropriate. I disagree that questions of this sort necessarily have a burden of proof on a particular party. Some do, some don't.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yes it would in a non-deterministic universe.

How so? My point in case it got lost was that the "ability to choose" pretty much is what having a will means. A free will however would mean to not only be able to choose, but to do so freely. What means freely? Without constraint. Obviously, that isn't the case. Time is the first constraint. You can not consider all choices in time. Another constraint is knowledge and mental computing power. And then of course there are your neural pathways and how your body as a whole shapes your mind.
In the end, there is not only constraint, but absolute constraint.

I found the rest of your post a little hard to comprehend, but I admittedly also gave up quickly, because I think that you are a little confused due to the whole debate being marked by a lot of confusion. Which I shamelessly claim to have just resolved, bear with me if you like.

Some, as Souron did, argue that what establishes ones mind to begin with are not constraints. I answer that this depends on the perspective (may seem trivial, but I explain how and why this is crucial). And I further think that we all must be clear on what those perspectives are and what they mean if we want to get something productive going. There are two relevant perspectives I can see.
(1) Aims to look at the matter not through human eyes, but objectively. That means that will is just another natural phenomena as there are many. That means that consciousness is recognized, but not attribute any special role. It s reduced to a strange phenomena one can't quit explain, but which has no bearing on the absolute constraintness of whatever will a consciousness may produce.
(2) Is about looking at it through human eyes. Now consciousness is the starting point of it all. In statistical terms, it is the endogenous factor. It is the factor to which anything is seen in relation to. From that perspective, what established our mind to begin with is not relevant, what matters is that the result exists. And this result, what we perceive as our minds, is in relation to the exogenous factors of our environment not free a such (time, resources, info etc.), but it is at least free to a degree.

In conclusion: Objectively, a resounding no. There is no free will. But from the perspective of being a human, there is some freedom to the will.

What does this tell us? I am not sure, but it seems to come down to weather we are ready to treat consciousness as just another phenomena, or if we are not prepared to do so.

 

[timtofly]

What is will? That would be IMO self determination. Self is the whole including choices, emotions, reasoning, the will/ego. Ones own experience is the first constraint. Normally a person does not have a say into which experience they are put. There is no free will there.

Adding to one's knowledge base allows for more choices. There is still the cultural constraint of the human subset group one is in so the will is still constrained but to a lesser degree.

If a human is never given an opportunity to choose anything else, they may live their whole life constrained by the few choices they have.

It seems to me that most associate free will with freedom from the consequences of their choices. If they make a wrong one, there are "free" do over choices.

IMO though free will, not the will itself is just the ability to choose. The will does not really make choices it usually just goes in the direction of least resistance.

Culture is the human constraint humanity places on itself. Nature or "natural law" is the determinism of the universe we live in. Now some will argue that nature is only what we as humans have determined it to be through our objectivity. It in itself has no determinism value. If that were the case we would not have to protect ourself fom nature. These contraints in nature have always been, even if we had no knowledge of them. This may sound funny, but most of the universe is compelled to constrain us to only exist on this planet. That is very deterministic in my realm of knowledge. I would not rule out that our knowledge may one day even allow us the choice to overcome that constraint.

Now to defend my reasoning that the will is not the ability to choose. Choice comes from options. The will is not an option. The will is the driving force. Making choices is the ability to guide the will, but not the will itself. I would add that the will is seperate from reasoning also. IMO reasoning is just the thought process involved in justifying the will itself. In fact there are a lot of people that just exist from day to day without giving any meaning to their existance at all. They just exist while giving in to certain urges without thinking that those urges will have consequences they may regret. They live in the moment and that is all. Goals are things that we set to boost the will to a different level than it is now.

The lack of freedom does rely on the lack of choices, but even one choice gives more freedom than no choice. The illusion of free will is the list of choices we have and how content we are with those choices.

All of this may not make sense, but it is my feed back to your two points. Your first point being the will is just another phenomenon of the human experience. I agree with that to a certain extent, but add I think everything has a purpose and meaning. The second point that there is a will or consciousness has been established to define how we have the ability to reason in the first place.

Is the big question now; Do we really have choices? Remember, IMO free will is the ability to make (not create) choices. If we have no choices, then we have no free will because there are no choices to choose from. I don't think that we can even create our choices. I think we have to gain the knowledge that such choices exist. Overcoming the restraints in physics would be a huge goal in self determination/will.

Most would look at this as "natural" evolution. I just see it as gaining knowledge to reach the next step.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What is will? That would be IMO self determination. Self is the whole including choices, emotions, reasoning, the will/ego. Ones own experience is the first constraint. Normally a person does not have a say into which experience they are put. There is no free will there.

Adding to one's knowledge base allows for more choices. There is still the cultural constraint of the human subset group one is in so the will is still constrained but to a lesser degree.

I also see will as something more complex then just mental power. Thats is just one side of it albeit in present state of human life most prominent.

The deeper knowledge one posses more free will one can execute. Knowledge one gets mainly through an experiences or better to say going beyond ones limitations - through self-transcendence.
When it comes to constraints from being human or living in human society I dont see really that much of it for when one gets to know the different paths and approaches and different turns which humanity or its different cultures has threaded up till now there is so much to choose from (the many genius and giants in different fields are examples of that). What one needs to do IMO is to stick to something which one considers best for himself and develop through that.

If a human is never given an opportunity to choose anything else, they may live their whole life constrained by the few choices they have.

It seems to me is that life is full of opportunities but its rather us who do not allow ourself to be availed of them. Whoever seeks for more knowledge will have opportunity to gain it eventually as opposed to someone who is content with what he has...

It seems to me that most associate free will with freedom from the consequences of their choices. If they make a wrong one, there are "free" do over choices.

This is very interesting point and I think is quite valid to expect kind of free will which is beyond "wrong" or "good" choice but its probably rather very advanced stage.

IMO though free will, not the will itself is just the ability to choose. The will does not really make choices it usually just goes in the direction of least resistance.

O.K. but if the will itself (complex state of human being) isnt free than the choices you can make are very restricted. In you words the more knowledge base (freedom, capacity) one has the more is free.

Culture is the human constraint humanity places on itself. Nature or "natural law" is the determinism of the universe we live in. Now some will argue that nature is only what we as humans have determined it to be through our objectivity. It in itself has no determinism value. If that were the case we would not have to protect ourself fom nature. These contraints in nature have always been, even if we had no knowledge of them. This may sound funny, but most of the universe is compelled to constrain us to only exist on this planet. That is very deterministic in my realm of knowledge. I would not rule out that our knowledge may one day even allow us the choice to overcome that constraint.

Culture like anything else is help and constraint in the same time. Once you go beyond certain type of culture you create higher type of it. How come there is any culture at all or that you can go beyond it? Becouse its the part of universal laws. These laws are not restricted only to physical universe but also to vital (emotional), mental and other (overmental) plains.

Now to defend my reasoning that the will is not the ability to choose. Choice comes from options. The will is not an option. The will is the driving force. Making choices is the ability to guide the will, but not the will itself. I would add that the will is seperate from reasoning also. IMO reasoning is just the thought process involved in justifying the will itself. In fact there are a lot of people that just exist from day to day without giving any meaning to their existance at all. They just exist while giving in to certain urges without thinking that those urges will have consequences they may regret. They live in the moment and that is all. Goals are things that we set to boost the will to a different level than it is now.

You dont guide the will (like you said the will is the driving force hence it is the leader) the will is guiding you. You can say that you use your mental will which represents the conscious in you to fulfill yourself complexly including your hidden self - your subconscious and superconscious parts.
IMO the will doesnt need justification. Its part of existence so just like your existence doesnt need justification your will doesnt need one either. What usualy needs to be justified are the means and methods of the fulfilment of the will.
To live in the moment is great IMO. To live from moment to moment is not so great.
IMO by setting goals you temporarily increase your determination so that your will power can easier operate in you life. You dont guide this will. Its already there you just allow it to do its proper job.

The lack of freedom does rely on the lack of choices, but even one choice gives more freedom than no choice. The illusion of free will is the list of choices we have and how content we are with those choices.

There can be instance that someone has two choices and both are "bad" and I have one which is "good" than I still can say I am better off and can have relatively more freedom. But this way we come to talk about quality of freedom and will.

All of this may not make sense, but it is my feed back to your two points. Your first point being the will is just another phenomenon of the human experience. I agree with that to a certain extent, but add I think everything has a purpose and meaning. The second point that there is a will or consciousness has been established to define how we have the ability to reason in the first place.

Is the big question now; Do we really have choices? Remember, IMO free will is the ability to make (not create) choices. If we have no choices, then we have no free will because there are no choices to choose from. I don't think that we can even create our choices. I think we have to gain the knowledge that such choices exist. Overcoming the restraints in physics would be a huge goal in self determination/will.

IMO we have limited free will. We can make choices but are restricted by our own limitations which we must go beyond - becouse thats where the will is eventualy driving us.

Most would look at this as "natural" evolution. I just see it as gaining knowledge to reach the next step.

Gaining knowledge to reach the next step is natural evolution IMO.

 

[timtofly]

I think that you are saying that the will is deterministic and not free because it can be constrained. If the will is deterministic, would that not give it intrinsic value (another debate going on)?

While the will is part of nature, as in it seems to be a fact we have one. I would say that each step is not evolution, but artificial. Education while enjoyed by millions, does not affect each person the same. There are points in time where an educated brake through is "earned" not evolved. That is the difference between creating a new choice and learning or discovering a new choice.

If the will is the leader, then everything it does would be acceptable. I still think that the will is seperate from desire and only choices gained through knowledge create our desires. The will has no capacity for right or wrong choices, therefore it is not the leader, but only the driving force.

 

[warpus]

Nobody denies that there is evidence of free will. Even people who claim that free will is an illusion, necessarily concede that there is something giving that illusion. We seem to have free will. If that is not in contradiction with any other observation then it should be taken as true.

Also free will isn't a thing, so comparing it's existence to physical things is inappropriate. I disagree that questions of this sort necessarily have a burden of proof on a particular party. Some do, some don't.

Just because something appears to be this and that doesn't necessarily mean that it is. Thousands of years ago the Earth "appeared" to be flat, for example. Hundreds of years ago it "appeared" to be in the centre of the Universe.

Your chain of logic appears to be as follows:

1. Assume that free will exists
2. Proclaim victory

There's just something wrong with that sort of thinking.

 

[timtofly]

Just because something appears to be this and that doesn't necessarily mean that it is. Thousands of years ago the Earth "appeared" to be flat, for example. Hundreds of years ago it "appeared" to be in the centre of the Universe.

Your chain of logic appears to be as follows:

1. Assume that free will exists
2. Proclaim victory

There's just something wrong with that sort of thinking.

Can't we still assume that there are people to whom the world appears flat? What "appears" and what is "actual" still could be the same thing. To me the earth appears to be round and never once did it occur to me to be flat. The sun looks like a ball and the moon looks like a ball, why would I assume the earth was not a ball also? I don't think that any one has claimed victory. I was born in 67, so I may have been influenced by certain other pictures taken of the earth from the moon, but...

 

[warpus]

All I'm saying is that you can't really start assuming things in a debate about something which is undecided, except for things that would be sensible to assume, such as the age of the Universe, or the number of toes on an average human's feet.

 

[Souron]

Just because something appears to be this and that doesn't necessarily mean that it is. Thousands of years ago the Earth "appeared" to be flat, for example. Hundreds of years ago it "appeared" to be in the centre of the Universe.

Your chain of logic appears to be as follows:

1. Assume that free will exists
2. Proclaim victory

There's just something wrong with that sort of thinking.

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.

Also, I, and I'm sure other proponents of compatibalism here are familiar with the arguments you would make, of how free will appears incompatible with determinism. Pointing out that there is some burden on you to make that case, is a point made to pressure you to state you argument outright, not a problem with how we've come to our conclusions.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I think that you are saying that the will is deterministic and not free because it can be constrained. If the will is deterministic, would that not give it intrinsic value (another debate going on)?

What I would say is that certain aspects of what we call will are deterministic like sense of self-preservation, need for fulfilment, etc. but in other aspects it is used quite free in accordance with ones development, needs etc. The simple fact that this will is challenged by apparent restrictions or is to different degree constrained doesnt mean that it is not free but IMO acts as sort of catalyst - generaly we are using our will to push the barriers...

While the will is part of nature, as in it seems to be a fact we have one. I would say that each step is not evolution, but artificial. Education while enjoyed by millions, does not affect each person the same. There are points in time where an educated brake through is "earned" not evolved. That is the difference between creating a new choice and learning or discovering a new choice.

But the evolution is not happening only as evolution of species but as well as an evolution of individual spirit/soul with its unique will. Naturally not everybody will give the same importance or will have the same capacity to make use of education.
The evolution through experience or education is happening not necesssarily as something artificial(there are instances of death end evolution branches from evolution tree as well) but maybe as something temporary which can give the specie some larger base for some future development. We know there has been knowledge lost from the past the same way there will be lost knowledge from our age but the humanity will probably go on in kind of spiral-like progress.

If the will is the leader, then everything it does would be acceptable. I still think that the will is seperate from desire and only choices gained through knowledge create our desires. The will has no capacity for right or wrong choices, therefore it is not the leader, but only the driving force.

IMO the souls will is the undisputable leader. It slowly comes to the fore with its infinite capacity in the course of individuals evolution not like despot but like a real gentleman only after being properly invited. Meanwhile it works behind the veil and supports the rest of the being (physical, mental, emotional, psychic) in its uncertain blind searchings and haphazard development.