Being with free will cannot be created in causal way

[Bahman]

To me creation of anything (without free will) from nothing is less mysterious than existence of a being with free will.

1. Causality is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.
2. Free will is the ability to choose between minimum two options and breaks the chain of causality otherwise the ability is not free will hence a delusion.
3. This means that free will is an anomaly in casual universe since it breaks the chain of causality and it can not come to existence nor be created in causal way since causality cannot lead to something non-causal.
4. This means that creation of free will is not possible in causal way.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

…

1. Causality is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.

Agreed

1. Free will is the ability to choose between minimum two options and breaks the chain of causality otherwise the ability is not free will hence a delusion.

Completely non-sequitur (I think that’s the appropriate classification for this). Choosing between two option in no way breaks the chain of causality; and you present no argument to even suggest why it would; you simply state it, which does not make it so. If you’d care to elaborate on why you hold this flawed position, I’d gladly respond.

If anything, the ability to chose between two options strengthens the reality of choice and free will, because when you choose you are not only accepting the consequences of that choice, but also accepting the consequences of the choice not made.

I won’t bother responding to your last two points; since your second point doesn’t hold water it follows that any conclusions arrived at through it also do not hold water.

Sorry, but you could have one choice, or one million choices, that choice (the deliberate decision to favor one perceived result over another) signifies that you have free will.

Also, on a more presentation-oriented note; please try to form all thoughts as complete sentences, it took me a number of readings to understand what you were trying to say at the end of your second statement… or, at the very least, use appropriate punctuation.

 

[inocente]

1. Free will is the ability to choose between minimum two options and breaks the chain of causality otherwise the ability is not free will hence a delusion.

Don’t think so. The ability to make rational choices depends on cause and effect, without that order it would be no different to tossing a coin.

 

[Back2Church]

To me creation of anything (without free will) from nothing is less mysterious than existence of a being with free will.

1. Causality is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.
2. Free will is the ability to choose between minimum two options and breaks the chain of causality otherwise the ability is not free will hence a delusion.
3. This means that free will is an anomaly in casual universe since it breaks the chain of causality and it can not come to existence nor be created in causal way since causality cannot lead to something non-causal.
4. This means that creation of free will is not possible in causal way.

Could you expand on #2?

My initial thought is that I don’t see how free will can be seen as breaking causality, since a free will choice is itself a cause.

Plus, a free will choice is not made in a void. There are causes that set the scene for a free will choice to be made. This is not to say that choices are determined, but there are definitely causes which bring about the necessity of the choice.

For instance, you are walking along a road and you come to a fork. The fork in the road is the cause for the free willed individual to make a choice, but which way he chooses to go is not determined (unless the individual submits his choice to other factors, but that’s still his choice).

So the cause for the individual to be walking down the right path, rather than the left, was his choice, and causality was never broken. So I’m not sure I get what you mean by saying free will has to break the chain of causality.

Also, in #2 you make it sound as if breaking causality is necessary for a choice to be defined as a free will choice. But that sounds like a rather deterministic definition, since choices must always go against causality. If a choice is truly free, then it is free to follow causality if it so chooses (and I think most free will choices do).

So if you could expand and clarify exactly what you mean, that would be great.

 

[dmar198]

Free will…breaks the chain of causality otherwise the ability is not free will hence a delusion.

If you frame this as a logical syllogism it becomes clearer where it falls apart.

(1) If a decision is not caused, it breaks the chain of causality.
(2) If a decision is caused, it is not free.
(3) #1 is impossible in a causal universe.
(4) Therefore, decisions are caused, and not free.

I think the problem with this syllogism is in #2 - “If a decision is caused, it is not free.” There are two possible kinds of causes: those that are determined to produce a single effect and those that are free to produce several possible effects. The will may be the second kind of causal agent. Therefore, your syllogism fails, and the will may be free.

 

[wanstronian]

To me creation of anything (without free will) from nothing is less mysterious than existence of a being with free will.

1. Causality is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.
2. Free will is the ability to choose between minimum two options and breaks the chain of causality otherwise the ability is not free will hence a delusion.
3. This means that free will is an anomaly in casual universe since it breaks the chain of causality and it can not come to existence nor be created in causal way since causality cannot lead to something non-causal.
4. This means that creation of free will is not possible in causal way.

I agree with your conclusion. There is no evidence that free will exists. This fact correlates with the most plausible worldview - materialism.

Agree with others that your point#2 is somewhat garbled.

 

[Bahman]

Completely non-sequitur (I think that’s the appropriate classification for this). Choosing between two option in no way breaks the chain of causality; and you present no argument to even suggest why it would; you simply state it, which does not make it so. If you’d care to elaborate on why you hold this flawed position, I’d gladly respond.

First, options are delusion in causal universe without free will. We just think that we have options and we think wrong. What is the truth in causal universe that we just have one option at a time, yet we still dilute ourselves with false belief.

Second, if options are real at the same time then it is the job of free will to break the chain of causality and pick one option over other. Free will does break the chain of causality when two options are feasible in causal way since causality cannot break itself. We are in a mixed mind state when we are dealing with a situation with two feasible options. This state of mind can only evolve causally to the same of mind state when two feasible option still exist. One need to strive to power of free will to exit from this mind state by choosing one option and discarding another. Discarding one option means breaking the chain of causality for that option since that option cannot come true.

 

[Bahman]

Don’t think so. The ability to make rational choices depends on cause and effect, without that order it would be no different to tossing a coin.

So you deny free will since you think that all options can be rationalized? And what is the source of tossing the coin inside our mind?

 

[Bahman]

Could you expand on #2?

The idea is that a state of mind evolve in causal way until it is disturbed with free will. The problem however arises when we are dealing with a situation with at least two options since our state of mind is a mixed state at which both options persist to exist and evolve in causal way. To exit from this state of mind, one need to strive on power of free will to cut the chain of causality for one option and leave room for one otherwise this state of mind evolve causally forever with no outcome since causality cannot break itself.

My initial thought is that I don’t see how free will can be seen as breaking causality, since a free will choice is itself a cause.

Free will is self-cause, in another word it is not caused with other cause otherwise it is a delusion. Free will initiate a process at which a causal chain breaks at one point and continue in different manner.

Plus, a free will choice is not made in a void. There are causes that set the scene for a free will choice to be made. This is not to say that choices are determined, but there are definitely causes which bring about the necessity of the choice.

True, as you said causes cannot act on free will since free will does need any cause and could appear as self-cause.

For instance, you are walking along a road and you come to a fork. The fork in the road is the cause for the free willed individual to make a choice, but which way he chooses to go is not determined (unless the individual submits his choice to other factors, but that’s still his choice).

So the cause for the individual to be walking down the right path, rather than the left, was his choice, and causality was never broken. So I’m not sure I get what you mean by saying free will has to break the chain of causality.

Causality has to be broken in this nice picture that you explained since the choices persist to exist in mind of person and evolve in causal way until the decision is made since causality in this case leads to two feasible choices one has no preference over other hence causality cannot lead to a choice in this example. You need a self-cause that break this symmetry and give preference to one over another and that is the job of free will. This also means that free will has to be intrinsic property of any conscious being.

Also, in #2 you make it sound as if breaking causality is necessary for a choice to be defined as a free will choice. But that sounds like a rather deterministic definition, since choices must always go against causality. If a choice is truly free, then it is free to follow causality if it so chooses (and I think most free will choices do).

Free will comes to play when there is a conflict in two options in which causality cannot resolve it. It is necessary for any conscious being since otherwise mind stays in a state with no solution.

So if you could expand and clarify exactly what you mean, that would be great.

I already expanded #2 in detail, please let me know if you want more explanation.

 

[Bahman]

If you frame this as a logical syllogism it becomes clearer where it falls apart.

(1) If a decision is not caused, it breaks the chain of causality.
(2) If a decision is caused, it is not free.
(3) #1 is impossible in a causal universe.
(4) Therefore, decisions are caused, and not free.

I think the problem with this syllogism is in #2 - “If a decision is caused, it is not free.” There are two possible kinds of causes: those that are determined to produce a single effect and those that are free to produce several possible effects. The will may be the second kind of causal agent. Therefore, your syllogism fails, and the will may be free.

Or accept that our universe is not a completely causal universe since a self-cause entity like free will exist. A cause that produces several possible effects does not resolve the problem of decision making since free will is the ability that reduce effects by breaking the chain of causality so one can come up with a single solution not vice versa.

 

[inocente]

So you deny free will since you think that all options can be rationalized? And what is the source of tossing the coin inside our mind?

Que? I challenge you to write down an example of a (non-trivial) thought process which you believe exhibits free will (the final thought was not proscribed by fate), but in which one thought doesn’t lead to or have an effect on another.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Que? I challenge you to write down an example of a (non-trivial) thought process which you believe exhibits free will (the final thought was not proscribed by fate), but in which one thought doesn’t lead to or have an effect on another.

Here we go again. The immediate causality is the act itself, the decision. The ultimate causality is the act by which God chose to create a being with free will. That is both a part of Divine Revelation and the Dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.

It is hard to believe anyone actually believes we lack free will.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Que? I challenge you to write down an example of a (non-trivial) thought process which you believe exhibits free will (the final thought was not proscribed by fate), but in which one thought doesn’t lead to or have an effect on another.

You want me to prove free will? You either accept that there is a free will or not. Each has its consequence. I however believe in free will since I can think of a thought process in which at least two equally likely options are involved. Without free will, mind evolve in causal way leading to outcome with two options again and this leads to infinite regression, since non of the options has any preference over another hence this cycle goes forever. One need free will to cut this cycle at one point discarding one option in favour of another.

 

[Bahman]

Here we go again. The immediate causality is the act itself, the decision. The ultimate causality is the act by which God chose to create a being with free will. That is both a part of Divine Revelation and the Dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.

It is hard to believe anyone actually believes we lack free will.

Linus2nd

How free will could be immediate causality when there is nothing to cause it? Free will is self-caused. And how God could create a non-causal entity in causal way?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

How free will could be immediate causality when there is nothing to cause it? Free will is self-caused. And how God could create a non-causal entity in causal way?

God creates the soul with the attributes of intellect and free will. The intellect perceives a situation which demands a decision. The will has three choices. It may decide positively or negatively or it may choose not to decide. Therefore it is free. Perhaps we could say that it is the " situation " which is intellect which is the immediate cause since it is the one that proposes the situation. I am just speculating. I’ll try to find a better answer.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

You want me to prove free will? You either accept that there is a free will or not. Each has its consequence. I however believe in free will since I can think of a thought process in which at least two equally likely options are involved. Without free will, mind evolve in causal way leading to outcome with two options again and this leads to infinite regression, since non of the options has any preference over another hence this cycle goes forever. One need free will to cut this cycle at one point discarding one option in favour of another.

No, I don’t want you to prove free will. I gave you a specific challenge to write down an example of a (non-trivial) thought process which you believe exhibits free will (the final thought was not set by fate), but in which one thought doesn’t lead to or have an effect on another.

I set that challenge being fairly certain you can’t do it using your current notion of free will

BTW infinite regression isn’t a problem. When there’s not much difference between two options, it causes us to consider them in more detail until we locate a difference. If we can’t think of any, we pick another strategy. Feedback is one of the ways in which we learn. Some computer systems can do it too, for instance have a look at neural networks.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, I don’t want you to prove free will. I gave you a specific challenge to write down an example of a (non-trivial) thought process which you believe exhibits free will (the final thought was not set by fate), but in which one thought doesn’t lead to or have an effect on another.

I set that challenge being fairly certain you can’t do it using your current notion of free will

BTW infinite regression isn’t a problem. When there’s not much difference between two options, it causes us to consider them in more detail until we locate a difference. If we can’t think of any, we pick another strategy. Feedback is one of the ways in which we learn. Some computer systems can do it too, for instance have a look at neural networks.

Put your high tops on there is a snake in the grass, there always is in these little puzzles.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Put your high tops on there is a snake in the grass, there always is in these little puzzles.

That’s like saying you doubt fridges will ever be more than science fiction - you’re a bit behind the times.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s like saying you doubt fridges will ever be more than science fiction - you’re a bit behind the times.

?? I meant - these puzzles are designed so the vendor wins, there is always a " catch 22. " If you agree to participate, you loose. Its a designed outcome. That is why I never engage.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

?? I meant - these puzzles are designed so the vendor wins, there is always a " catch 22. " If you agree to participate, you loose. Its a designed outcome. That is why I never engage.

Sorry, you lost me - what puzzle?