Free will is an illusion because we are rational being

[JuanFlorencio]

Yes.

Lets assume that we are dealing with a situation with a few options. The options or situation are result of the person we are and how we are affected with external stimulus. We could have access to options once the situation is realized, in another word when options are part of our knowledge, or our unconscious mind. This is done by experiencing the situation consciously. Decision however is made by conscious mind through one introspection.

And…, how do you say you put your high priority options in the upper part of your brain, and the low priority ones in the lower part?

 

[Bahman]

To simplify and summarize you are claiming

1. Free will is the ability to decide between a set of options that we ourselves prioritize using our own will and intellect.
2. Our will and intellects dictate what we will choose.
3. Therefore we do not have free will

Yes.

However, our will and intellects are us. We are the ones using them for our good. Thus, we are choosing the best option based on a set of criteria. The alternative would be to choose randomly. But that would be less free will because you are letting random results dictate to you what you should choose.

We only choose randomly when our options are equally liked otherwise we always choose the best.

Free will is really the ability to choose what is good. Don’t we all want what we consider to be good? Even people who like evil consider that to be good. We choose what we think will be good for us. The discernment is in recognizing what is truly good for us. And learning to reject something we may think is good but isn’t actually good for us like something that will hurt us in the long run. For instance eating only potatoe chips everyday…

And how we could be free if we always choose what is good for us?

 

[Bahman]

And…, how do you say you put your high priority options in the upper part of your brain, and the low priority ones in the lower part?

We prioritize options by giving different weights to them. The process of giving weight is unconscious collective process meaning that we have no control on it.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

We prioritize options by giving different weights to them. The process of giving weight is unconscious collective process meaning that we have no control on it.

Very smart! If you cannot say how something happens in your mind, then it must happen unconsciously! No?

Have you ever have to deliberate between your options? Some of us need to deliberate sometimes, and it is a conscious process. But if you have never been in that situation, you are unable to understand it. Without that experience, any explanation I could give would be useless.

 

[Bahman]

Very smart! If you cannot say how something happens in your mind, then it must happen unconsciously! No?

I was not playing smart!

Have you ever have to deliberate between your options? Some of us need to deliberate sometimes, and it is a conscious process. But if you have never been in that situation, you are unable to understand it. Without that experience, any explanation I could give would be useless.

There are three basic steps in any decision: (1) realizing options, (2) priortization of options and (3) picking up the best option. Free will if there is any comes to play in the last step. Yet we always rationally choose from our prioritized options hence there is no room for free will.

Moreover, we as rational agents could be conscious of one thing at a time hence prioritization of options has to be unconscious.

 

[davidv]

I was not playing smart!

There are three basic steps in any decision: (1) realizing options, (2) priortization of options and (3) picking up the best option. Free will if there is any comes to play in the last step. Yet we always rationally choose from our prioritized options hence there is no room for free will.

Moreover, we as rational agents could be conscious of one thing at a time hence prioritization of options has to be unconscious.

Why do you limit the will to the third step? If we have a will, it must be involved in all three. 1. It determines which options to consider. 2. It determines the criteria for the prioritization. 3. It decides which action to pursue.

What is your source for this three step process? Are you sure that it accurately represents our thinking?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I was not playing smart!

There are three basic steps in any decision: (1) realizing options, (2) priortization of options and (3) picking up the best option. Free will if there is any comes to play in the last step. Yet we always rationally choose from our prioritized options hence there is no room for free will.

Moreover, we as rational agents could be conscious of one thing at a time hence prioritization of options has to be unconscious.

Certainly the scope of our consciousness is limited, and for some individuals it is more limited than for others. I don’t know your case. You might know yourself better, and I cannot say anything about you. As for me, I am conscious of complex situations; and when the situation is extremely complex, an scheme on a black board helps me have a thorough view of it.

Now, I think, Bahman, that instead of starting with definitions from I don’t know where, we should start with our own experiences, and so, I propose you to focus on this kind of reflections. In his post 59, Nyx already presented something in this direction, but probably it was not appealing to you.

Let’s take as an example an adult “A” who lives in a society “X”. Society “X” is characterized by a certain normal set of promoted, accepted and tolerated behaviors “x”, plus a set of disapproved behaviors ("x’ "). In his turn, adult “A” could be characterized by a subset of those behaviors (“a”) plus a set of unacceptable behaviors ("a’ "). The life of “A” goes smoothly until something really unexpected happens to him. Then we say that “A” is facing a problem. It might be that some behaviors which are not normal for “A”, but which belong to the set “x” might solve the problem; it might be that other person, not necessarily belonging to the same society could visualize a solution difficult to realize for a member of society “X”.

First thing we can observe is that “A” could pass through some of the following states:

• He is in panic because he doesn’t see any acceptable exit to his problem.
• He visualizes some options, and though no one of them is aligned with his usual behaviors, none is entirely unacceptable to him.
• He visualizes some options: some of them are aligned with his usual behaviors, and some are unacceptable to him.
• He visualizes some options, but all of them are unacceptable to him.

Let’s suppose also, as sometimes happens, that for all cases the possible options have certain disadvantages that involve him and others.

That would be my description for a general situation of “A”.

Before continuing though, I think we should reflect on this: what does it mean that “A” is in trouble? Inanimate beings are never in trouble. I would say vegetables aren’t either. Animals sometimes are in trouble and if their problems are relatively simple (to us, of course, when we consider their abilities), they go ahead successfully. And, finally, we are in trouble many times as well.

Why is it that a being can be in a problematic situation? What is the basic condition?

The simplest answer I can conceive is this: a being can be in trouble if he desires something. Then, if its circumstances represent an obstacle to the consecution of its desires, it faces a problem.

Do you agree, so far?

 

[Bahman]

Why do you limit the will to the third step? If we have a will, it must be involved in all three. 1. It determines which options to consider. 2. It determines the criteria for the prioritization. 3. It decides which action to pursue.

What is your source for this three step process? Are you sure that it accurately represents our thinking?

The act of decision only applies to the third step by definition. The other two steps are only related to decision making.

 

[Bahman]

Certainly the scope of our consciousness is limited, and for some individuals it is more limited than for others. I don’t know your case. You might know yourself better, and I cannot say anything about you. As for me, I am conscious of complex situations; and when the situation is extremely complex, an scheme on a black board helps me have a thorough view of it.

I agree that we could be conscious of complex situations but our focal focus could be only one at a time.

Now, I think, Bahman, that instead of starting with definitions from I don’t know where, we should start with our own experiences, and so, I propose you to focus on this kind of reflections. In his post 59, Nyx already presented something in this direction, but probably it was not appealing to you.

Let’s take as an example an adult “A” who lives in a society “X”. Society “X” is characterized by a certain normal set of promoted, accepted and tolerated behaviors “x”, plus a set of disapproved behaviors ("x’ "). In his turn, adult “A” could be characterized by a subset of those behaviors (“a”) plus a set of unacceptable behaviors ("a’ "). The life of “A” goes smoothly until something really unexpected happens to him. Then we say that “A” is facing a problem. It might be that some behaviors which are not normal for “A”, but which belong to the set “x” might solve the problem; it might be that other person, not necessarily belonging to the same society could visualize a solution difficult to realize for a member of society “X”.

First thing we can observe is that “A” could pass through some of the following states:

• He is in panic because he doesn’t see any acceptable exit to his problem.
• He visualizes some options, and though no one of them is aligned with his usual behaviors, none is entirely unacceptable to him.
• He visualizes some options: some of them are aligned with his usual behaviors, and some are unacceptable to him.
• He visualizes some options, but all of them are unacceptable to him.

Let’s suppose also, as sometimes happens, that for all cases the possible options have certain disadvantages that involve him and others.

That would be my description for a general situation of “A”.

Before continuing though, I think we should reflect on this: what does it mean that “A” is in trouble? Inanimate beings are never in trouble. I would say vegetables aren’t either. Animals sometimes are in trouble and if their problems are relatively simple (to us, of course, when we consider their abilities), they go ahead successfully. And, finally, we are in trouble many times as well.

Why is it that a being can be in a problematic situation? What is the basic condition?

The simplest answer I can conceive is this: a being can be in trouble if he desires something. Then, if its circumstances represent an obstacle to the consecution of its desires, it faces a problem.

Do you agree, so far?

I agree.

 

[davidv]

The act of decision only applies to the third step by definition.

Why?

The other two steps are only related to decision making.

Decision making is done by the will.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I agree that we could be conscious of complex situations but our focal focus could be only one at a time.

To understand something means to establish relations between elements. And some of us are able to establish relations between more elements than other persons. Actually, understanding very complex situations usually require analysis, which consists in dividing the complex situation into several simpler situations. The unique, impenetrable complex situation is artificially decomposed into many others which are individually easier to comprehend. Then, Realizing our limitations, as I have said, some of us adopt the practice to represent the whole complex situation symbolically on a black board or on a paper, so that we can visualize more relations between the elements of the decomposed situation. We then proceed by synthesis grouping the relations we have established to build systems that we call “notions”, “ideas” or “concepts”. Then we work with these new elements to build even more sophisticated relations. Without this we would be unable to build theories like the physics of Newton, or quite elaborated systems like the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. But not everybody has the same ability to build or even comprehend those intellectual constructions.

I agree.

Do you agree then that, in terms of “desire”, it is possible and correct to separate beings like planets, rocks, rivers, vegetables and the like from those beings that we call “animals”?

 

[Bahman]

Why?

Decision making is done by the will.

Because freedom of will only applies when we can choose anything we want in a prioritized set of options.

 

[Bahman]

To understand something means to establish relations between elements. And some of us are able to establish relations between more elements than other persons. Actually, understanding very complex situations usually require analysis, which consists in dividing the complex situation into several simpler situations. The unique, impenetrable complex situation is artificially decomposed into many others which are individually easier to comprehend. Then, Realizing our limitations, as I have said, some of us adopt the practice to represent the whole complex situation symbolically on a black board or on a paper, so that we can visualize more relations between the elements of the decomposed situation. We then proceed by synthesis grouping the relations we have established to build systems that we call “notions”, “ideas” or “concepts”. Then we work with these new elements to build even more sophisticated relations. Without this we would be unable to build theories like the physics of Newton, or quite elaborated systems like the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. But not everybody has the same ability to build or even comprehend those intellectual constructions.

I agree with your comment.

Do you agree then that, in terms of “desire”, it is possible and correct to separate beings like planets, rocks, rivers, vegetables and the like from those beings that we call “animals”?

Yes, I agree.

 

[davidv]

Because freedom of will only applies when we can choose anything we want in a prioritized set of options.

How does the will get turned on and turned off, that is, applies or does not apply?

Why do the options need to be prioritized? The will could chose to select the first option it considered without exploring any more.

 

[Meemai]

Rationality can only be known as we know it. Rationality does not subject itself to us, rather we subject it to ourselves.

Now then if there would be pure rationality, it would mean we could work stuff out like a computer. We would analyse crunch numbers and chose. Hence a computer has no free will it is programmed.

Needless to say a computer needs a lot of juice to work out every possibility, and it could be possible such a computer will never hit a end statement.

Now then rationality as we humans have it. Means we can make choices and see things as they appear to us. Either a priori analytic of a priori synthetic. A posterori we can only see synthetic. Meaning we learn new things out of experience.

Now I have experienced at times a moment in which I did not know what to do and felt stuck. Could ask someone else could just so something.

But let me ask you this close your eyes and think about three ransom animal named and type them in here. How did you priortize which animal names to pick you could have picked three others? I have no pets myself. Ask me this today and ask me this in a week could be way different.

And if an illusion feels real and stays for all your life, how Is that possible?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I agree with your comment.

Yes, I agree.

In our efforts to understand reality, we look for analogies between different aspects of it in which we discover similar structures. But “reality” and “understanding of reality” are always different. As we enrich our experiences, we are able to develop more powerful conceptions. Let’s try to understand what “desire” is, keeping in mind that “desire” and our “understanding of desire” are not the same thing.

If we release a piece of wood from a certain height, we know that it will fall till it reaches an obstacle which prevents it from continuing in its falling. We know that its speed will increase regularly, and we know that its path will be rectilinear. Nothing of it will change if what is below is water, or mud, or grass, or…, whatever. We say that when we release the piece of wood, its potential energy (due to the presence of a gravitational field) changes into kinetic energy, and when it hits the surface its kinetic energy changes into heat. Once on the surface, the piece of wood will not try to recover its original height.

A cat which has the misfortune of falling from a roof will be subject to the same phenomena. It certainly will transform more exergy into heat, because as it falls it will meow and revolve in the air, trying desperately and uselessly not to fall. But once on the floor, if it feels it is in danger there, perhaps it will climb to the roof again.

The cat, just like the piece of wood, is a source of exergy, but compared to the piece of wood, it acts in strange ways: we say that it displays certain spontaneity, and what we want to mean by it is that it introduces relatively unexpected interactions into its environment. As it is continuously releasing exergy, it needs to recover it from its surroundings. It forms a system with them in such a way that it functions as a nucleus of action which tends to preserve its existence and its stability. It does not exhibit an absolute spontaneity though, because it follows certain behavioral patterns -relatively flexible -, which we call instincts. Those behavioral patterns allow the cat to endure, to a certain extent, changes in its environment because it looks for the conditions of its survival. And it seems that we can properly say that the cat “looks for something” because its behaviors show that it has memory. In other words, it seems that it has certain representations. And if the cat acts -“mounted” on its instincts-, in such a way that it is able to look for the “conversion” of its representations into realities (effectively or ineffectively), then we could say that it desires something.

It is important to stress the relative flexibility of animal instincts. If the cat is menaced by a dog, the cat might fight back or escape, but it can do it in many different ways. The specific way in which it will respond in each particular case is not determined. However, it is not my intention to exaggerate: if I throw a stone, I can know which path it will follow; if I scare a cat, most probably it will run away instinctively, but I don’t know which path it will follow. That is it.

It is also important not to confuse an instinctive reaction (which does not seem to require a representation) with a behavior “mounted” on instincts and which requires representations. I would not use the term “desire” to refer to pure instinctive reactions.

So, I would call “desires” to those “looking for something” behaviors (which include representations) that animals display to preserve their existence and their stability.

Do you agree?

 

[Tomdstone]

Do you agree?

I don’t see what gravity has to do with free will.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I don’t see what gravity has to do with free will.

Nothing, Tomdstone, nothing… the example of the piece of wood is there for contrast. It is just a technique to expose a subject.

Perhaps you might want to read the previous posts, because I don’t intend to say either that cats “have” free will.

 

[Bahman]

In our efforts to understand reality, we look for analogies between different aspects of it in which we discover similar structures. But “reality” and “understanding of reality” are always different. As we enrich our experiences, we are able to develop more powerful conceptions. Let’s try to understand what “desire” is, keeping in mind that “desire” and our “understanding of desire” are not the same thing.

If we release a piece of wood from a certain height, we know that it will fall till it reaches an obstacle which prevents it from continuing in its falling. We know that its speed will increase regularly, and we know that its path will be rectilinear. Nothing of it will change if what is below is water, or mud, or grass, or…, whatever. We say that when we release the piece of wood, its potential energy (due to the presence of a gravitational field) changes into kinetic energy, and when it hits the surface its kinetic energy changes into heat. Once on the surface, the piece of wood will not try to recover its original height.

A cat which has the misfortune of falling from a roof will be subject to the same phenomena. It certainly will transform more exergy into heat, because as it falls it will meow and revolve in the air, trying desperately and uselessly not to fall. But once on the floor, if it feels it is in danger there, perhaps it will climb to the roof again.

The cat, just like the piece of wood, is a source of exergy, but compared to the piece of wood, it acts in strange ways: we say that it displays certain spontaneity, and what we want to mean by it is that it introduces relatively unexpected interactions into its environment. As it is continuously releasing exergy, it needs to recover it from its surroundings. It forms a system with them in such a way that it functions as a nucleus of action which tends to preserve its existence and its stability. It does not exhibit an absolute spontaneity though, because it follows certain behavioral patterns -relatively flexible -, which we call instincts. Those behavioral patterns allow the cat to endure, to a certain extent, changes in its environment because it looks for the conditions of its survival. And it seems that we can properly say that the cat “looks for something” because its behaviors show that it has memory. In other words, it seems that it has certain representations. And if the cat acts -“mounted” on its instincts-, in such a way that it is able to look for the “conversion” of its representations into realities (effectively or ineffectively), then we could say that it desires something.

It is important to stress the relative flexibility of animal instincts. If the cat is menaced by a dog, the cat might fight back or escape, but it can do it in many different ways. The specific way in which it will respond in each particular case is not determined. However, it is not my intention to exaggerate: if I throw a stone, I can know which path it will follow; if I scare a cat, most probably it will run away instinctively, but I don’t know which path it will follow. That is it.

It is also important not to confuse an instinctive reaction (which does not seem to require a representation) with a behavior “mounted” on instincts and which requires representations. I would not use the term “desire” to refer to pure instinctive reactions.

So, I would call “desires” to those “looking for something” behaviors (which include representations) that animals display to preserve their existence and their stability.

Do you agree?

I agree. I however don’t understand where do you want to go.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I agree. I however don’t understand where do you want to go.

I am trying to see, together with you, if we can or cannot be free given the fact that we sometimes display rational behaviors. I presented a general description of a human situation; but to analyze it properly we need to build some notions. That is what I am doing now.