Soapbox: An evergreen to be finally put down - Free Will

[Terxpahseyton]

People say: I can make a decision. I can decide to pick up a toothbrush and stick it into my ear, I can decide to go out there and lick on the sidewalk. Yes - I - Can! But: I can also decide to not do so. So I also can't!
Conclusion: I have free will!
And at exactly this juncture, ladies and gentlemen, the prime mistake occurs. Having correctly summarized that a person is able to make decisions, it is concluded, that those are free decisions, that a person has a free will. Yet, so far it has only been established that a person makes decisions, that a person has will. And by the mere existence of such a will it was concluded, that the will was free.
But is that so?
To answer that, we need to answer two other questions: What is will. And what is freedom when used as an adjective of will.

What is the "free" in free will?
In absolute generality, freedom means the lack of .. something. It can be the lack of a policemen putting me into prison merely for me speaking my mind. It can be the lack of the need to spend money to get something. Recognize those? Yes, yes, freedom of speech and some free product. So what we need to keep in mind here, is that "free" is of an inherently relative nature rather than an absolute one. It doesn't tell us what there is, but what is not there. For instance, freedom of speech doesn't tell you what people say when exercising this right, it merely tells you what will not happen (the police arresting you for it). Likewise, that a product is free gives me no damn clue about the product. I just know what will not happen. That I'll have to pay for it.
So when we speak of free will, it entails no comment about what I will choose. It merely says what will not happen while I'll choose whatever I'll choose. That something beyond me, something not of my choosing, will not force me to choose whatever this exterior force has chosen instead of me. That in fact no exterior force, nothing whatsoever has any bearing on the choice I make other than me. That is a free will.
So is that so? It is reasonable to assume that by identifying what a will is, we will be able to identify weather or not it is free off such an exterior force.

What is will?
There are two basic approaches to this. We can talk about how we experience will. That is the subjective perspective. And we can talk about how we observe will. That is the objective perspective.

(A) The objective perspective: Comes down to your brain. Neurons firing and all that jazz.
(B) The subjective perspective: You making a decision.

Now both perspectives embody a remarkable contradiction.

In (A) we from all we know have just another case of chemical reactions, physical laws at play. We can hence reasonably assume that everything the brain does is brought about by forces beyond the brain. The brain is not free. It is a slave to the circumstances of its existence and endurance.

In (B) we find that your subjective experience is from all we know a mirror, a reflection of (A). But the remarkable contradiction is that:
We know (A) is unfree, we know (B) is a reflection of (A), but in the environment of (B), while being what we are, we still can choose whatever the hell we want.
So how come that our subjective experience is the exact copy of a totally unfree system of causations, yet we experience ourselves to in deed be free?

Answer: Subjective experience is intensely overrated. But I'll give yall a pass on that, given that you know nothing else. Think about it. In principle there are a million thinks you now can think of, a million things to feel, to associate, to yearn for etcetera. But there is always only a very tiny specific subset of those things which somehow influences your mind. Your choosing? Nope. But ey, lets just call it self-identity and pretend it is you rather than the enslavement embodied by your brain and its miserable existence of oppression by the hand of natural law you have the pleasure to be a freak phenomena of. Obviously, not I determine what happens but the reactions in my brain do, I am just the guy who jumps and says "Right - that was my whole plan all along! No, really...". I am just the expression of an enslaved system, an expression which confuses enslavement with self-identity.
In the end weather our will is free is the wrong question. The real question is: Is there a will? And the answer is: Nouuupe. But we like to think so All there is is experience. The experience of love. Of joy. Of hate. Of vision and all the senses. And those senses make us experience decision our brain makes for us forced to by exterior factors as - will.

To say we have will is like saying that when one sees the Sun: "I haz Sun!" No you don't, but enjoy the view.

 

[lovett]

What is the "free" in free will?

In absolute generality, freedom means the lack of .. something......So when we speak of free will....It merely says what will not happen while I'll choose whatever I'll choose....that in fact no exterior force, nothing whatsoever has any bearing on the choice I make other than me. That is a free will.

Here, you move from an analysis of what freedom claims entail -lack of 'something'- to an account of what is necessary for freedom of the will -lack of any exterior force whatsoever. The initial analysis just entails something neeeds to be missing; some exterior force. It does not entail all exterior force must be absent. So you move from a restricted claim to a universal claim with no argument in between. Given this is the crux of your position, you badly need to supply some argument.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

To say we have will is like saying that when one sees the Sun: "I haz Sun!" No you don't, but enjoy the view.

You are demonstrating a lack of awareness of the meanings inherent in lolspeak.

When a cat says "I has Sun", the cat means that lying in the sunbeams is pleasant, the Sun feels nice and warm, and life is good. The cat is content, which is a Good Thing.


In The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood has one of her characters make a point about freedom - there is "freedom to" and "freedom from." I've noticed the American tendency is to clutch onto "freedom to" and many seem unable to understand why "freedom from" can be preferable in some circumstances.

 

[galdre]

Why are so many determined to say we don't have free will? The only thing I can think is that there are a lot of people who don't want to be held accountable for the decisions they've made.

 

[Phrossack]

Why are so many determined to say we don't have free will? The only thing I can think is that there are a lot of people who don't want to be held accountable for the decisions they've made.

They're against free will because they want to be.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@lovett
As my argument rests on a universal dependency of our brain and in turn a universal and even direct dependency of what is "me" on my brain, some kind of partial or specific dependency is naturally ruled out as an option. But fair enough that I kind of went with a foregone conclusion I only later on substantiated, without directly referring to it when it happened.
Also, I would think the crux of my argument is to declare will itself an illusion.

Why are so many determined to say we don't have free will? The only thing I can think is that there are a lot of people who don't want to be held accountable for the decisions they've made.

You are incapable to think that people simply are interested in this question and having arrived at a conclusion want to share it? What is wrong with you?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You are demonstrating a lack of awareness of the meanings inherent in lolspeak.

I merely used lolspeak style while staying with good old English regarding what it actually says.

But good point regarding the two different approaches to freedom. But well they are only different starting points really. One angle can cover it all. Just that it may get a bit complicated at times whereas the other one makes it easier to express at times.
For instance I can say freedom to walk dawn the allay or freedom from all things which would hinder me to walk down the allay. Obviously the former is more handy, but the latter works to.

 

[Kaitzilla]

...
So how come that our subjective experience is the exact copy of a totally unfree system of causations, yet we experience ourselves to in deed be free?

Answer: Subjective experience is intensely overrated. But I'll give yall a pass on that, given that you know nothing else. Think about it. In principle there are a million thinks you now can think of, a million things to feel, to associate, to yearn for etcetera. But there is always only a very tiny specific subset of those things which somehow influences your mind. Your choosing? Nope. But ey, lets just call it self-identity and pretend it is you rather than the enslavement embodied by your brain and its miserable existence of oppression by the hand of natural law you have the pleasure to be a freak phenomena of. Obviously, not I determine what happens but the reactions in my brain do, I am just the guy who jumps and says "Right - that was my whole plan all along! No, really...". I am just the expression of an enslaved system, an expression which confuses enslavement with self-identity.
In the end weather our will is free is the wrong question. The real question is: Is there a will? And the answer is: Nouuupe. But we like to think so All there is is experience. The experience of love. Of joy. Of hate. Of vision and all the senses. And those senses make us experience decision our brain makes for us forced to by exterior factors as - will.

To say we have will is like saying that when one sees the Sun: "I haz Sun!" No you don't, but enjoy the view.

I think when someone escapes the human condition and no longer needs food, water, or air, and can go and do whatever they want, that will prove we have free will.

This unhuman person will then be hunted down and killed of course

 

[lovett]

@lovett
As my argument rests on a universal dependency of our brain and in turn a universal and even direct dependency of what is "me" on my brain, some kind of partial or specific dependency is naturally ruled out as an option. But fair enough that I kind of went with a foregone conclusion I only later on substantiated, without directly referring to it when it happened.
Also, I would think the crux of my argument is to declare will itself an illusion.

No, you've misunderstood.

You give us an analysis of freedom. Basically, you think freedom is freedom from some sort of influence. But from that analysis alone it does not mean we need to be free from all and every conceivable influence. So, we say things like 'free as a bird' and what we mean by that is that birds are free from certain particular influences. Birds aren't locked down by society, or lack of wings or anything like that. But we don't think birds need to be free of all and every conceivable sort of influence; the laws of physics influence birds, for instance. So all the analysis of freedom gets you is that to be free means to be free from particular external influences. But that is not what you need. What you need is an argument that to be free, we need to be free from all and every conceivable influence. And that is exactly what you have not provided.

 

[galdre]

You are incapable to think that people simply are interested in this question and having arrived at a conclusion want to share it? What is wrong with you?

Well either I have chosen to disregarde this argument because, having considered it in the past, I have found it to be without merit, or my attitude is predetermined biologically in which case in which case nothing is 'wrong' with me it's just the way my brain is wired.

 

[uppi]

In (A) we from all we know have just another case of chemical reactions, physical laws at play. We can hence reasonably assume that everything the brain does is brought about by forces beyond the brain. The brain is not free. It is a slave to the circumstances of its existence and endurance.

You are essentially saying that the the response of the brain is fully determined by external forces. According to the laws of physics this is not true in the strict sense. And I would say we do not know enough of how the brain operates to say whether this is true or false in the practical sense.

 

[timtofly]

To opt out of this thread is free will.

 

[classical_hero]

You are demonstrating a lack of awareness of the meanings inherent in lolspeak.

When a cat says "I has Sun", the cat means that lying in the sunbeams is pleasant, the Sun feels nice and warm, and life is good. The cat is content, which is a Good Thing.

Well he is free to misinterpret it all he likes.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Oh man, I thought this thread was about Will rotting in prison, and we were demanding that the authorities free him

 

[Kaitzilla]

...

In (B) we find that your subjective experience is from all we know a mirror, a reflection of (A). But the remarkable contradiction is that:
We know (A) is unfree, we know (B) is a reflection of (A), but in the environment of (B), while being what we are, we still can choose whatever the hell we want.
So how come that our subjective experience is the exact copy of a totally unfree system of causations, yet we experience ourselves to in deed be free?

...[/B]

Wait, I think I've got it!

We use our unfree brains to simulate a situation in which we are in fact free(imagination). We make a decision in that virtual world, then transpose it back into the unfree world and try to make it happen.

It may not always work, but when it does, it gives us the illusion of being free


There was also an attempt to predict the future for the rest of time theoretically by tracking the position and motion of all particles.
But they discovered the Uncertainty Principle made that impossible, so free will (tightly constained) still remains.

 

[Winston Hughes]

You are incapable to think that people simply are interested in this question and having arrived at a conclusion want to share it?

It doesn't look to me that you're addressing 'free will' as a question at all; it seems like you're simply defining it out of existence.

Starting from lovett's definition, we can examine the twin concepts of 'freedom' and 'will' from myriad perspectives, yielding all manner of interesting ideas and discussions about the nature of choice, action, and responsibility. Starting from your definition, by contrast, it seems those angles of approach are (in your words) 'put down', with all choice reduced to compulsion, all action reduced to slavish obedience, and all notions of responsibility rendered irrelevant.

So, unless you've got somewhere a whole lot more interesting to take this approach, it seems to me that defining 'free will' as something only a god could possess is a philosophical dead end.

 

[Souron]

What is will?
There are two basic approaches to this. We can talk about how we experience will. That is the subjective perspective. And we can talk about how we observe will. That is the objective perspective.

(A) The objective perspective: Comes down to your brain. Neurons firing and all that jazz.

In (A) we from all we know have just another case of chemical reactions, physical laws at play. We can hence reasonably assume that everything the brain does is brought about by forces beyond the brain. The brain is not free. It is a slave to the circumstances of its existence and endurance.

You defined freedom as free, or at least partially independent of, from external influence. The laws of physics are not an external influence. The brain is influenced by external forces, but its behavior is dictated by internal forces. Internal forces are not a restriction on free will. They are a mechanism of will. So it is possible for a brain to be free.

(B) The subjective perspective: You making a decision.

This is a useful perspective, because it's the one we associate best with thought and will. You make a decision. That decision is not necessarily free: we can imagine being enslaved or coerced, or physically bound. In thought experiments, mind control is also a hypothetical limit on will. But it can be free when none of these limits apply or have much sway. This perspective justifies the definition of free will as "free from external influence" because it intuitively fits with our reasoning about what makes a free decision here; enslavement, coercion, bonds, and mind control are all external influences.


Also, when defining free will, it's important to ask "why does it matter?". Does freedom matter? The answer at first thought seems to be yes. Firstly, because we would rather be free than not. Secondly, it matters because we can take full responsibility for the choices we make, but less for choices forced upon us. Does our definition of free will matter in the same way? If not, then were not defining free will consistently. But I argue that when we define free will as freedom from external influence then it matches.

 

[Souron]

Wait, I think I've got it!

We use our unfree brains to simulate a situation in which we are in fact free(imagination). We make a decision in that virtual world, then transpose it back into the unfree world and try to make it happen.

It may not always work, but when it does, it gives us the illusion of being free

It's certainly true that we think of ourselves as a free agent inside our bodies, but there's no reason to call that an illusion.

When that doesn't work, that sounds something like trying to move a paralyzed or restrained limb.

 

[JollyRoger]

You can have free will, and a few bucks towards legal zoom will get you close to free will. A good will will cost you even more.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You are essentially saying that the the response of the brain is fully determined by external forces. According to the laws of physics this is not true in the strict sense. And I would say we do not know enough of how the brain operates to say whether this is true or false in the practical sense.

To spell it out more clearly (only gave a weak hint in the OP*), the brain is not directly universally determined by exterior forces, true. But all forces taking place in the brain itself ultimately are directly determined by exterior forces or in case of a non-deterministic universe exterior forces, and pure chance taking place in its inner lives. But for the purpose of self-control, exterior force and inner pure chance come down to the same thing: no control. The same goes for being "merely" indirectly universally controlled. Weather directly or indirectly, it still leaves the brain with no control, mere by the laws of nature pre-determined reaction.
To illustrate: If I give a pendulum a push, it will keep swinging out of the necessities of its own movement. So we are dealing with an interior factor - its momentum of movement - which is at play. But the nature of this interior factor is determined by the nature of the push it received and beyond that the laws of nature. Both things are factors the pendulum wields zero influence over but yet control its destiny. Hence it doesn't matter weather the pendulum keeps on swinging by itself, it is still universally determined by exterior factors, even if not directly. Likewise, it doesn't matter weather once we have a brain and consciousness the brain develops a life of its own - like the pendulum - regarding the question weather it is universally determined by factors out of its control.
I used the term exterior factors rather than factors out of its control, but it became clear to me now that this was a mistake and "factors out of its control" is the more correct way to express the situation and make my point. That is so, because the laws of nature aren't so much exterior as they are beyond (and hence out of control).

*

The brain is not free. It is a slave to the circumstances of its existence and endurance.

No, you've misunderstood.

You give us an analysis of freedom. Basically, you think freedom is freedom from some sort of influence. But from that analysis alone it does not mean we need to be free from all and every conceivable influence. So, we say things like 'free as a bird' and what we mean by that is that birds are free from certain particular influences. Birds aren't locked down by society, or lack of wings or anything like that. But we don't think birds need to be free of all and every conceivable sort of influence; the laws of physics influence birds, for instance. So all the analysis of freedom gets you is that to be free means to be free from particular external influences. But that is not what you need. What you need is an argument that to be free, we need to be free from all and every conceivable influence. And that is exactly what you have not provided.

nothing whatsoever has any bearing on the choice I make other than me.

Other than me, factors beyond me. Again: I do not have to argue that I need to be universally free of factors beyond me (yes I changed the terminology a bit here, sorry but it is much clearer and better that way - my argument stays the same relative to what I want to convey at least). Because I argue that I am universally not free. That puts the question for some kind of partial unfreeness at rest, as universal unfreeness naturally includes partial unfreeness. Hence your concern is superfluous for my particular line of argument.
And how our brain and hence "us" is universally unfree I have explained more clearly in my response to uppi, so please feel encouraged to take a look before responding.