Free Will, can it logically exist?

[MindOverMatter]

What do you guys think?

A naturalist cannot believe in freewill; neither can they believe in anything; for it is not they who choose or believe. Thats why naturalism is the most inconsistent belief system ever invented.

 

[MindOverMatter]

My goal here is simply to provide evidence against logic’s infallibility.

So let me get this straight. Your using logic to provide evidence against logics infallibility?
If logic is fallible, then our ability to determine truth, and speak meaningfully, breaks down.

Of course, in our world, there are even more absurd inconsistencies in logic. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation, being (certainly not lightly) the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics inevitably yields the concept that one can create a scenario in which a cat (or any being) can be considered to be both alive and dead at the same time!

First of all, just because many people accept it, does not mean its true. Secondly, Quantum events work at the quantum level of reality, that is why its called quantum. In this case, it is not logically possible that a cat can be both alive and dead.

99.9999999% of people would scoff at this absurdity,

For good reason. And they don’t have to reject quantum physics either!

 

[o_mlly]

So, a friend of mine mentioned this argument, and it made sense to me. I am mentally trapped, as I currently accept two opposing facts as true.

The argument goes like this:

---

Human beings are either governed by fixed physical rules, or they are not.

If humans are governed by fixed physical rules:…

If I may reconstruct your term to a conditional statement in the active voice:

If fixed physical rules govern human actions then free will does not exist.

Contra positive:
If free will does exist then physical rules do not rule human actions.

A particular physical rule is hunger – a strong desire or need for food which in a healthy human always follows a prolonged lack of food.

I am healthy and hungry and I do not eat. (I choose to continue fasting.)
Therefore, free will exists because the physical rule does not govern my action.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[JimG]

No, the evidence is the fact that consciousness exists. Trust me it is impossible through material means. Just think about it. How can atoms in motion produce consciousness? Ive discussed this in another board, I’ll bring the argument here if you need it.

I would say that the evidence is not so much just consciousness, but self consciousness–the existence of a subject capable of using the word “I” in reference to himself, and not only conscious but conscious of his consciousness. It is a consciousness that is able not only to be aware of the outside world but of the inside world.

Cows are conscious. But it is not apparent that they are self-aware in the same way that human beings are. Neither do they reflect on their future fate nor engage in internet forums.

 

[JimG]

JimG, I must disagree with you on another account, as you probably predicted I would. Determinism was disproved (or at least, “extremely evidenced against”) some years ago, so I’d be more inclined to believe material beings are governed by “fixed physical rules”. Especially since it does conflict with Catholic beliefs. May I ask why it is you believe that?

NB, This does not mean that I believe quantum indeterminacy accounts for constructs such as free will. Simply that it is not “obvious” that it, or anything else materialistic, doesn’t.

I didn’t really make a distinction between determinism and being governed by fixed physical rules.

When you say that determinism has been disproved, I presume you mean that even knowing in full detail the state of a given system at any particular point in time would not allow you to determine its future state. That would inidicate to me that all the fixed physical rules that we can possibly know will not allow us to predict anything for certain,* and I guess that has something to do with Quantum Theory, but you know more about that than me. Even quantum mechanics, though, has its own rules.

Traditional Catholic philosophical thinking about the body and soul isn’t really dualistic in its application even though it posits the existence of both matter and spirit. The human soul, though immaterial and thus not extended in space, is nevertheless thought to be the animating principle for every part of the human body–not just the brain. And further, the union between body and soul is considered to be so intimate that we are one entity, not two. Body and soul can be separated only by doing violence to our existence–i.e., by death, and the soul survives (as not a complete human being) only because of its immateriality. It has no parts to come apart or decompose.

*(Off topic, but it just occurred to me that if that is the case, what does it say about our predictions of climate change, the projections of which are based on imperfect attempts at computer modeling?)

 

[glowingembers]

I’ll restate the OP’s argument simply:

We act for a reason or without a reason (randomly). In both cases we don’t have free will and are not responsible for our actions. Our action is determined by a reason or by chance. And if you’d like to argue “Ok, but I can at least choose a reason…”, well, how do you choose it? Again, either for a reason or randomly.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’ll restate the OP’s argument simply:

We act for a reason or without a reason (randomly). In both cases we don’t have free will and are not responsible for our actions. Our action is determined by a reason or by chance. And if you’d like to argue “Ok, but I can at least choose a reason…”, well, how do you choose it? Again, either for a reason or randomly.

Being influence by reasons or having reasons is not the same as being determined by something. When presented with eating something or not eating something, we can choose. We can choose against that which we desire. The only thing we cannot choose is our nature as human-beings.

Our reasons for choosing either one or the other is irrelevant; the choice is still personal and free. The question is, are we choosing or is physical reality causing our choice. To put it another way, is something outside our selves making choices for us. Experience tells me that i am freely choosing.

 

[glowingembers]

Being influence by reasons or having reasons is not the same as being determined by something. When presented with eating something or not eating something, we can choose. We can choose against that which we desire.
And how do we choose so? Because of a reason or without any reason. Our “choice” follows from a reason or from randomness.
MindOverMatter;5117274:

Experience tells me that i am freely choosing.

Experience tells me that when I watch TV I see a continuous movement on the screen.

 

[mlchance]

“Logical” is not a necessary condition for something to exist. Witness the unexplainable return of Bob Saget’s television career.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MindOverMatter]

And how do we choose so? Because of a reason or without any reason. Our “choice” follows from a reason or from randomness.

The nature that is “Self” and reason. Randomness is just motion with no determinate cause. Our choices, in so far as they are free, are determined by the nature that is “self”.

Experience tells me that when I watch TV I see a continuous movement on the screen.

What is this term you speak of? “Me”? “you”? “I” When “i” watch TV? What is that? What are you talking about?

 

[glowingembers]

What is this term you speak of? “Me”? “you”? “I” When “i” watch TV? What is that? What are you talking about?

Me, the union of randomness and reason.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Me, the union of randomness and reason.

Randomness doesn’t work toward any meaningful purpose or any particular end. People obviously do. And its the self that reasons; not randomness or atoms.

look…you are obviously in love with this idea of yours, so it is unlikely that my vast and towering intellect will convince you. So lets just leave it at that. Thanks for the chat.

 

[glowingembers]

Randomness doesn’t work toward any meaningful purpose or any particular end.

It can, when it is filtered through a reason. Like blind nuclear energy that is directed through sophisticated circuitry to the production of useful electric current. And not to mention the weird quantum randomness where random events can synchronize each other (possible use in superconductivity and quantum computing).

 

[Robert1]

Here’s a story I would like to retell:

A man tells his family that his believes he is dead. Quite taken by this, his family tries to console him and explain that he is, in fact, not dead. They tried countless arguments but the man would not believe that he was alive.

Finally they took him to a doctor and had a team explain to the man that only living people bleed. After some time of deliberation the man finally conceded that it was true: only living people bleed.

With that a doctor plunged a needle into his vain and took it out. Blood began to emerge, at which point the man exclaimed, Great Scott! I guess dead people bleed too!

— The point being here that there is likely no argument that we can conjure up that would make you happy. While this is not sound argumentation, if you believe that free will does not exist, why not just close your eyes and let life take care of itself?

If you believe that free will does not exist, what of the ramifications for morality? How can a person be held accountable for something they did not choose?

Please read the section on free will located in the Catholic encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

GK Chesterton’s book Orthodoxy also has much to say on this idea as well

The fact is these ramifications need to be addressed not only by a believer in free will, but also by a non-believer in free will

 

[MindOverMatter]

It can, when it is filtered through a reason.

Filtered through what?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Here’s a story I would like to retell:

A man tells his family that his believes he is dead. Quite taken by this, his family tries to console him and explain that he is, in fact, not dead. They tried countless arguments but the man could not and would not believe that he was alive.

Its like living in a nightmare.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

So let me get this straight. Your using logic to provide evidence against logics infallibility?
If logic is fallible, then our ability to determine truth, and speak meaningfully, breaks down.

Logic fails where it lacks relevant information (i.e. superstition)
Intuition (often called “feelings”) allows us to expose missing relevant information (“It’s sounds logical but just doesn’t feel right”)
Which must later be verified with logic,
Since intuition can also fail to identify truth.

…Since we can hold two opposing ideas
Simultaneously, side by side,
We can freely choose either one,
For no reason at all…

I just want to add…

Since,

Unity = Life = Goodness = “God”

Then,

Unity unites
Two opposing ideas
Simultaneously, side by side,
Such as
“Unity” and “Disunity”

If we choose “Disunity,”
We surrender our freedom to choose,

If we choose both,
We surrender our freedom to choose,

If we choose “Unity,”
We maintain or regain our freedom to choose.

And Therefore,

Life comes before there is freedom to choose. (Perhaps this is obvious )

 

[Matthew_J]

So let me get this straight. Your using logic to provide evidence against logics infallibility?
If logic is fallible, then our ability to determine truth, and speak meaningfully, breaks down.

I was wondering whether someone was going to hit me up on this. But I do think it’s taking my argument far above and beyond what I intended (perhaps by my own fault). I am not suggesting that logic is too untrustworthy for use in constructing any philosophical conclusions whatsoever. I am simply suggesting that, where logic either contradicts itself or a widely accepted observation, it might not be wise to construct conclusions with 100% confidence based on logic alone. Especially in cases where logic contradicts itself.

Consider this. Do you believe in free will, even though it seemingly cannot logically exist? If so, then you’re effectively supporting my suggestion.

First of all, just because many people accept it, does not mean its true.

I did think I made that fairly clear? Why else would I have gone to such trouble elaborating on the calibre of those who do support the Copenhagen interpretation?

Secondly, Quantum events work at the quantum level of reality, that is why its called quantum. In this case, it is not logically possible that a cat can be both alive and dead.

The scenario I refer to was proposed by Erwin Schroedinger in 1935 as a direct consequence of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Considering that this is the bloke who originally developed the wavefunction and a true pioneer of quantum mechanics, were he alive, I would be unlikely to argue with him. Give the thought experiment a read, if you haven’t already.

Also, as you conveniently put, I agree that it is not logically possible for cat to be both alive and dead at once. But not that it is impossible, at least from a strictly physical standpoint. I am not suggesting that it is definitely possible either, I myself am fairly undecided on the Copenhagen interpretation.

*For good reason. And they don’t have to reject quantum physics either! *

They have to reject the Copenhagen interpretation…

I didn’t really make a distinction between determinism and being governed by fixed physical rules.

Probably my fault. I interpreted wasmit’s use of the phrase that way and assumed you would do the same.

When you say that determinism has been disproved, I presume you mean that even knowing in full detail the state of a given system at any particular point in time would not allow you to determine its future state.

Very close but not quite. I mean this: “knowing in full detail the state of a given system at a particularly point in time does not imply that the state of the system at a later point in time can be determined with 100% accuracy.” It’s a statistical game, and the uncertainty in the state of the system increases as time goes by.

Even quantum mechanics, though, has its own rules.

Yes, but they are not deterministic. I am fairly certain wasmit was referring to causality in his/her OP, hence why I brought quantum mechanics into the picture in the first place.

Traditional Catholic philosophical thinking about the body and soul isn’t really dualistic in its application even though it posits the existence of both matter and spirit. The human soul, though immaterial and thus not extended in space, is nevertheless thought to be the animating principle for every part of the human body–not just the brain. And further, the union between body and soul is considered to be so intimate that we are one entity, not two. Body and soul can be separated only by doing violence to our existence–i.e., by death, and the soul survives (as not a complete human being) only because of its immateriality. It has no parts to come apart or decompose.

And here obviously is a subject I am not so educated in. But it remains one I definitely would like to be. Thankyou for your (name removed by moderator)ut

*(Off topic, but it just occurred to me that if that is the case, what does it say about our predictions of climate change, the projections of which are based on imperfect attempts at computer modeling?)

When you are looking for an average, overall change in a system, your observations can be gathered with far more certainty. For example, in a gas, it is very very difficult to predict the distribution of the gas particles in a period of time, even without taking into account their quantum behaviour. But collective properties can be fairly accurately obtained; such as pressure, volume and temperature. It is the same with quantum mechanics. Consider a system comprised of say, a basketball. This basketball is comprised of billions of particles ungoing quantum behaviour, but the average position of those particles (to us, the position of the basketball) can be fairly accurately obtained. When dealing with a system as vast and complex as the Earth and its atmosphere, and collective properties as vast as the average surface temperature of the Earth, the effect of quantum mechanics is basically nil.

Is that making sense or is it all just dribble?

As to climate change’s validity, I am not really educated enough to comment. I’ve heard both sides of the story, and whilst my head is swaying towards the “it’s a load of ****” side of the argument, I am happy to treat the situation as if the human contribution to climate change is significant. Simply because we have much more to lose if we don’t believe in climate change and are wrong. Besides, I’d say making the world greener is a step in the right direction anyway. It makes sense to save on electricity and so forth, even if it does nothing else but save you money.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

You put it very well, in a materialist world there is no free will. Its just so obvious, I don’t understand why people have such a hard time with this. Even atheist often don’t realize there isn’t free will.

As to your “feeling”, I believe its irrelevant. In fact in there was a science writer recently named Michael Brooks who wrote a book about the “13 most baffling scientific mysteries of our time” and one of the chapters was dedicated to the illusion of free will. So it makes no difference whether you feel you have free will, the evidence shows that you don’t. I find it annoying when people use feelings to figure out the truth.

But anyways the Catholic answer isn’t a paradox or that the matter in our brain somehow produces free will, its actually dualism of the mind. A brain made of physical atoms should not be able to produce free will or even consciousness. So I do believe in free will and consciousness, however its impossible to reconcile those concepts with a physical materialist brain. They naturally lead you to dualism.

I think I may have been misunderstood,

Physical acts of freedom
Comes from the freedom to choose (within the soul).
Which comes from Unity (Life) itself.

Just some missing relevant information.

 

[cranster]

Of course free will exists, and can exist logically. Not all choices are made as the result of external stimuli.

This makes me wonder what external stimuli would cause a man to choose to be scourged, crowned with thorns, and crucified?