Can we make conscious free decision?

[Bahman]

Not everything in life is reasoned out logically. Sometimes decisions are based upon the mood of the day, spur of the moment and not necessarily thought out logically. There are others who changes their mind every few seconds or so. Just now A looks good, wait, B looks ok too a few moments later but what the heck let us go with C. That was my wife.

And there are many many variables that may not be quantifiable or clearly identifiable that goes towards decision making, so called sixth sense, or just a flippant attitude towards certain things. They do exercise their free will i.e. they really want to exercise the power to make a decision but in another person’s mind that was the most terrible decision ever made.But to that decision maker, no reason need to be given, sometimes the reason proferred if pressed is “I like it that way” but if prodded more " the other way is also ok, no big deal. Actually, all the other options are all ok.". You could have a range of nonsensical reasons to justify something which may be illogical to one but entirely acceptable to another.

I didn’t meant sole logically when I talk about reason, by reason I meant any new thing that could be experienced and could bring an agent attention to a subject matter, whether is need like hunger, some thoughts, some spiritual experience, etc. This is called consciousness, the awareness from the subject matter caused with a new experience.

Now, here is the question: is consciousness necessary and enough for a decision?
There are only two options, yes or no. We are not free if our decisions are based on sole consciousness since the consciousness is simply the awareness from subject matter and if that is enough you fall in chain of causality meaning that there is no room left for the freedom. We could be free if the consciousness is necessary but not sufficient for a decision. The question is then what is that entity that is sufficient for a decision, and grant us power and freedom as well? That I call subconsciousness or intellect. It is logically impossible to understand how intellect make this decision because the we need to bring out the role of intellect to consciousness, once it is experienced the related decision is not free afterward until new intellect is built up. The story is a little long but we could discuss it further if you wish. For example what is really intellect and how it is built.

The whole thing about free will is that
a) the decision maker has the power
b)not coerced
c) does not assume decision maker is omniscient. He may be lacking certain information or thought he knew certain knowledge but was actually mislead. The usual conditions apply i.e.

Know what he doesn’t know, doesn’t know what he doesn’t know etc.

So the question whether decision made in the absence of full information (which usually no one possess) but the decision maker is aware as to the ramifications based upon what he knows, is a conscious free decision or not has to be a yes. You knew what you did.

So the answer to the question whether we can make conscious free decision is no (please also read previous comment) since consciousness is necessary for decision but it is not enough to grant freedom hence those decisions made based on sole consciousness are not free.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have done a extensive study for example here, here and other stuff but apparently the research still on going meaning that is waste of time to read a book. What I need is article rather than book.

What I am claiming is very simple: Awareness or experience is necessary condition for decision making since it is informative but it is not sufficient for one strong reason, namely if awareness was sufficient then we couldn’t be free because that is the state of subject matter which dictate you what to do. Hence our free decision cannot be made consciously although the consciousness is necessary. Lets see if we can agree on this so we can discuss more.

Why the urgency? I gave you good advice. You aren’t going to find the truth by reading, willy-nilly, what is on the net. At least you can read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Linus2nd

 

[ericc]

We are not free if our decisions are based on sole consciousness since the consciousness is simply the awareness from subject matter and if that is enough you fall in chain of causality meaning that there is no room left for the freedom. We could be free if the consciousness is necessary but not sufficient for a decision.

I am sorry but I got lost here. Could you expound on why we are not free if our decisions are based on sole consciousness? To be more exact, not free from or of what?

For example, a decision on a subject matter. I am aware of what it is. I made a decision based upon whatever information I have (experience, education etc). The decision was not coerced. This is mundane everyday decision making. In what sense I am not free? In fact there is nothing to restrict to me to throw a dice to decide the outcome if I feel I like to do it that way this particular day for no particular reason.

Now, change the decision to evil-doing. For example, I decide to kill someone today for money. I am aware of the decision and the ramifications. I have several targets I can choose today to do my dastardly act but I have only time to do 1 killing. May be tomorrow I will retire from this assassination business. So I threw a dice to decide who to kill. (We introduced some randomness here). I fired my gun at poor Person B who was unfortunately chosen by my dice. B bent down just at the right moment and a bystander got hit instead and died (the bullet ricocheted against a wall and hit this bystander). I didn’t intend to harm the bystander but obviously some evil was done. Did I not made a conscious free decision to be evil but not towards the bystander? Would we have a valid freewill defense against evil? Or is there something unfree about this?

 

[Bahman]

I am sorry but I got lost here. Could you expound on why we are not free if our decisions are based on sole consciousness? To be more exact, not free from or of what?

So you are far from to understand my point. Awareness or experience of subject matter is necessary condition for decision making since it is informative but it is not sufficient for one strong reason, namely if awareness was sufficient then we couldn’t be free because that is the state of subject matter which dictate what you should do. Hence our free decision cannot be made consciously alone although the consciousness is necessary.

For example, a decision on a subject matter. I am aware of what it is. I made a decision based upon whatever information I have (experience, education etc). The decision was not coerced. This is mundane everyday decision making. In what sense I am not free? In fact there is nothing to restrict to me to throw a dice to decide the outcome if I feel I like to do it that way this particular day for no particular reason.

In simple word, how you could be free when a decision is involved if you know the reason (whatever it is like, like, dislike, need, logical reason, etc which all appears in consciousness), for your decision prior to decision? You could in fact say that I could resist the reason which means your resistance is either based on another reason which you are not free again or it is not based on reason. The second case is where the subconscious mind or intellect comes to play a role. There are however three important point in here the first and the most important one is that we cannot have consciousness of intellect hence we cannot experience or understand it. Second, our intellects are basically the knowledge of what we conceived from different experience over all life built on and based on our instincts. Simply, the intellect is collective memories (knowledge but not information) of our experiences but not a set of differentiable memories. It has its own dynamic which depends on each single experience we perceive and it grows without limit depending on how knowledgeable we are.

Now, change the decision to evil-doing. For example, I decide to kill someone today for money. I am aware of the decision and the ramifications. I have several targets I can choose today to do my dastardly act but I have only time to do 1 killing. May be tomorrow I will retire from this assassination business. So I threw a dice to decide who to kill. (We introduced some randomness here). I fired my gun at poor Person B who was unfortunately chosen by my dice. B bent down just at the right moment and a bystander got hit instead and died (the bullet ricocheted against a wall and hit this bystander). I didn’t intend to harm the bystander but obviously some evil was done. Did I not made a conscious free decision to be evil but not towards the bystander? Would we have a valid freewill defense against evil? Or is there something unfree about this?

As It was stated the consciousness is necessary for decision making since you have to be aware of subject matter but being aware of subject matter is not sufficient for decision making since if it was enough then the state of subject matter reflected into your consciousness dictate you what you should do hence you couldn’t be free.

Please let me know if anything is unclear so we could discuss things in further details.

 

[ericc]

In simple word, how you could be free when a decision is involved if you know the reason (whatever it is like, like, dislike, need, logical reason, etc which all appears in consciousness), for your decision prior to decision?

In other words, by your definition of pure “freeness” there is no one capable of being free by virtue of one’s life upbringing, education, experience. From that angle, yes, I agree that no one is truly free since everyone one of us are alive and learning individuals. This would include babies (they can differentiate between like/dislike) and even the insane as they have their own worldview. So since there is no such individual with such pure freeness, this can only be a conceptual abstract with no practical usefulness.

Nevertheless, the context of how freewill is usually applied is not due to absence of life’s experiences, but whether there are external forces coercing a decision making process GIVEN that individual background. How one is judged is based upon the whole basket of variables when decision making happens.

According to C. S. Lewis:

“We see only the results which a man’s choices make out of his raw material. But God does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it.”

“Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who has a pathological horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is quite possible that in God’s eyes he has
shown more courage than a healthy man may have shown in winning the V.C. When a man who has been perverted from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing, does some tiny little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God’s eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a friend.”

 

[Bahman]

In other words, by your definition of pure “freeness” there is no one capable of being free by virtue of one’s life upbringing, education, experience. From that angle, yes, I agree that no one is truly free since everyone one of us are alive and learning individuals. This would include babies (they can differentiate between like/dislike) and even the insane as they have their own worldview. So since there is no such individual with such pure freeness, this can only be a conceptual abstract with no practical usefulness.

Nevertheless, the context of how freewill is usually applied is not due to absence of life’s experiences, but whether there are external forces coercing a decision making process GIVEN that individual background. How one is judged is based upon the whole basket of variables when decision making happens.

According to C. S. Lewis:

“We see only the results which a man’s choices make out of his raw material. But God does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it.”

“Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who has a pathological horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is quite possible that in God’s eyes he has
shown more courage than a healthy man may have shown in winning the V.C. When a man who has been perverted from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing, does some tiny little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God’s eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a friend.”

And what is left to be judged? God cannot judge people because their actions are the resulted from their old experience.

 

[KingCoil]

Free will has two words the first one is very difficult to understand in determinism framework…

• Too long, please introduce your thread with a shorter statement. ]*

From my own part, we do exercise free will in choosing what is not for the best in regard to our own sake or even for the sake of mankind, or even most pleasing to God, by preferring something less.

For example, right now in my land politicians and men in the government like sanators and congressmen and secretaries of department and other lesser dignitaries have stolen so much money from tax-payers for so long, and they all claim that their conscience is at peace and God knows they have done no wrong.

They are all Christians even Catholics.

But if they were atheists they will surely insist that they ave no choice.

But as Christians and even Catholics they know that they exercise free choice, because I have not come to one who insists that he did not have free choice.

Well, my point is the exericise of free will or free choice is the decision to do something which is not to the best for one’s own sake, or for the sake of mankind, or the most pleasing to God.

So, those politicians government people I imagine see nothing wrong with stealing, it ain’t no sin because it is the accepted tradition of the land, but they know that it is not the best thing to do as leaders of the country.

And that is free will.

KingCoil

 

[ericc]

And what is left to be judged? God cannot judge people because their actions are the resulted from their old experience.

That is a presumptuous statement. You are saying that God can not judge because you have reasoned out that he couldn’t, shouldn’t and what have you? Anyway that is a problem you don’t have to worry about. God knows exactly your thoughts. Try not to reduce God’s judging capability to mere man’s. To put it succinctly, there is no free lunch. During Judgement day, one will be held accountable to one’s deeds. You will have a chance to defend your case but I think it is a futile exercise as unlike in the human world, the prosecutor (God) has all the knowledge that the defendant has. He knows all your thoughts, all the excuses, all your carefully prepared defenses, i.e. all you know is laid bare. This is a case of where Justice is guaranteed and where punishment is proportionate.

Yeah, try pleading that you are a product of your environment and see how far that takes you out of culpability.

 

[Bahman]

From my own part, we do exercise free will in choosing what is not for the best in regard to our own sake or even for the sake of mankind, or even most pleasing to God, by preferring something less.

What do mean with free will and exercising it? In another word if “will” is free then hence it should be based on nothing, in another word will should be self-caused. How could we hold a rational or irrational action having the knowledge on the context if it is so?

Well, my point is the exericise of free will or free choice is the decision to do something which is not to the best for one’s own sake, or for the sake of mankind, or the most pleasing to God.

How “will” could be free if it is always oppose a divine justice?

 

[Bahman]

Yeah, try pleading that you are a product of your environment and see how far that takes you out of culpability.

What we are if we are not product of our environment? What is that extra thing which gives a character? Is this extra thing intrinsic or we have control on it? Why we should be judge based on something which is intrinsic and if otherwise how we could have control on our being?

One is either know the answer to these question or don’t. How God could convince us that we are not by product of our environment if we cannot convince ourselves.

 

[ericc]

What we are if we are not product of our environment? What is that extra thing which gives a character? Is this extra thing intrinsic or we have control on it? Why we should be judge based on something which is intrinsic and if otherwise how we could have control on our being?

One is either know the answer to these question or don’t. How God could convince us that we are not by product of our environment if we cannot convince ourselves.

Of course we are a product of the environment! I am not denying that. That x% deficiency in freeness may be explained in part by that. But you can only use that as a reason /excuse for let say certain %. One is not totally excused relying on that x% deficiency. In other words, just because you are not 100% free does not mean the missing % of freeness is the cause of your evil deeds and therefore can be absolved of all blame. Of course one may trust that God is fair in apportioning that blame.

The problem of evil remains. Why do one seek to do evil and another don’t. Religion teaches you not to. We all have hidden desires, some of which are not good and of course we can blame it on our environment. But with the help and grace of God, we can beat this temptation and not unleash it and blame it on our environment.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Of course we are a product of the environment! I am not denying that. That x% deficiency in freeness may be explained in part by that. But you can only use that as a reason /excuse for let say certain %. One is not totally excused relying on that x% deficiency. In other words, just because you are not 100% free does not mean the missing % of freeness is the cause of your evil deeds and therefore can be absolved of all blame. Of course one may trust that God is fair in apportioning that blame.

The problem of evil remains. Why do one seek to do evil and another don’t. Religion teaches you not to. We all have hidden desires, some of which are not good and of course we can blame it on our environment. But with the help and grace of God, we can beat this temptation and not unleash it and blame it on our environment.

Our environment does not limit our freedom, it makes it more difficult to make the right decision.But no matter how difficult the choice, we are still free. It is only by the grace of God that we are able to overcome our evil inclinations. It is a battle to the very end of life.
That is why we have the Church and the Sacraments. They give us the armour of Christ.

Linus2nd