Free Will Is An Illusion

[DanAl]

I will agree to those two premises.

But what if tell you that those premises are faulty since we’re free-willing intellects and that the statements the will wills like heat heats are brute facts. How would you defuse that premise?

Let me ask you this. Do you believe that we have free will even if determinism holds true? (Most people don’t, but some people do.)

What Kant calls “that wretched subterfuge”? Freedom from constraint as compatibilists hold and the two stage model are reductionist schemes, diachronic in nature and under further analysis they all collapse into eliminativism about freedom: only determinism and chance remain.

 

[hangnail]

Determined by prior cause or by chance…what happened to by ourselves?

Is our decision-making process a completely deterministic process? If not, then it must be a partially indeterministic one by default. Why? Because determinism and indeterminism are the only two logical possibiities.

 

[hangnail]

Can you prove that solipsism is wrong and that the real world is not an illusion?

No. I don’t think I can. That probably explains why I am partial to metaphysical idealism.

 

[hangnail]

How would the dichotomy of these two choices explain human creativity?

That’s the subject for another thread (that I might start). But the short answer is by drawing a comparison between the two principles of Darwinian evolution (random variation and natural selection) and the “two-stage model of free will.” (Randomness is vital for true novelty and creativity. Also, I am not denying final causality (or teleology). But we must understand that final causality is a determinant factor which is ultimately determined by God.)

 

[DanielJT]

Is our decision-making process a completely deterministic process? If not, then it must be a partially indeterministic one by default. Why? Because determinism and indeterminism are the only two logical possibiities.

In this post you made, the definition for indeterminism states that it is a theory which believes the will is free.

I see how a purely deterministic view excludes free-will, since each new choice is based solely on past causes. But you are presenting for an “indeterministic” view is that some choices are based on previous causes but others are random and new. As a sort of combination, not an opposite.

Perhaps this is the problem with your assertions, because the opposite of determinism is not indeterminism, but rather freedom?

That’s the subject for another thread (that I might start). But the short answer is by drawing a comparison between the two principles of Darwinian evolution (random variation and natural selection) and the “two-stage model of free will.” (Randomness is vital for true novelty and creativity. Also, I am not denying final causality (or teleology). But we must understand that final causality is a determinant factor which is ultimately determined by God.)

Why is this a topic for a new thread? You ask for a challenge to your assertions, which I have given you, but the challenge is deferred to a latter undetermined time.

The idea of human creativity poses a problem for your theory which is related to the questions I stated above with the first quote.

If I am living a life and making decisions based on past causes you might say that I am on a certain path. But that path can be broken by making a new decision not based on anything I have done before. I refer to my idea of the cavemen drawing upon the cave walls, an act that was at first a non-act.

You might state that because a random occurrence has come about there is no choice being made. I am saying that the choice to break away from the norm is the very essence of choice, as is the choice to stick with the current “path” with the knowledge that breaking from it is an option.

So, I will say it again, the problem here is not that determinism and indeterminism are the two options that both lack in free-will, but that determinism and free-will are the only two options.

Which means that free-will does exist.

 

[hangnail]

I’ve read about the two-stage model before. I don’t agree that predetermined events + random events = freedom. I think the only realistic solution is that the free will causes its own actions.

Our decision-making process is either a deterministic one or it is not. If it is not, then some random event(s) must be occurring within it. Logic dictates this much. And if you do not agree, then we will have to agree to disagree. Because we cannot continue this debate if we cannot come to an agreement on what constitutes logic.

Several things, I think. For one, even if nothing else changed in the replay, I would not have to decide that whatever popped into my head first would be my choice. I could decide that the opposite of whatever popped into my head would be my choice

You have to demonstrate that you could have chosen otherwise given the same situation and circumstances. If you argue that your rationale for making the choice in the second scenario would have been different, then it would not have been the same situation and circumstances. The fact is that there is no rational reason for choosing “heads” over “tails” or vice versa. So, your choice cannot be rationally determined. In fact, I believe this thought-experiment makes a compelling case for the validity of the “two-stage model of free will.”

Since you seem to think that one is not responsible for his or her decisions, perhaps you can help me understand a moral difficulty I think your belief system may lead to. If we are not responsible for our actions, it would seem to follow that you think you aren’t responsible if you do bad stuff.

That’s correct. I do not believe I am responsible in a metaphysical sense. My actions still have consequences. But I know that my voluntary actions are either predetermined by a cause greater than me or reducible to some element of chance. “I” am not really in control. The belief that I am is simply an illusion (regardless of how compelling it may be). (This does not mean that I cannot learn from past mistakes. But my learning will play a determinant factor in any future actions that I take.)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if that is what you believe, then the only reasons not to do something that society thinks is evil is (A) because it doesn’t appeal to you and/or (B) because society may react negatively to such behavior in some way, and getting that reaction doesn’t appeal to you. Can you think of any other reasons not to do something evil, in your system?

Yes. I might not want to create “bad” karma. (But whether my actions lead to bad karma is ultimately out of my control for reason I have already explained.)

If we are not responsible for our actions, then it seems to follow that we should just do whatever we want or whatever we think will help us in this life, whether that is helping Hitler or fighting against him. What do you think of that moral difficulty?

I’m seeking what I believe is in my best interest as are you. That’s what I think.

 

[Tomdstone]

Our decision-making process is either a deterministic one or it is not.

It is partly deterministic.

 

[hangnail]

Why would the location of the event relative to time determine whether it was random or not?

Because it is meaningless to speak of a prior cause (or lack thereof) for something that is eternal. God exists in eternity. As such, there is no “before” or “after” for God. There’s just the ever-present “now.” (God’s decision-making process is nontemporal; ours is temporal.)

 

[hangnail]

I second dmar198 here. What about temporality renders free will impossible?

Free will is compatible with determinism if there is nothing outside the agent influencing the voluntary act. There is nothing outside of God influencing his eternal (nontemporal) self-determining act. However, our “self-determinism” occurs within a temporal causal network that we are not able to extricate ourselves from.

 

[CaptFun]

Sooo … somebody felt they HAD to write that?

I don’t feel I had to read it. I DID read it. I DID write this.

Didn’t have to though.

And I Don’t have to leave. But I think I will now.

FREE choices right on down the line IMO.

:tiphat: < I WAS compelled by an irresistable impulse to post this snarky hat tip though.:bigyikes:

 

[Amandil]

(I have a feeling that I can already guess this one…)

Hangnail-what is your definition of free will?

What is freedom?

What is the will?

 

[hangnail]

What if BOTH are true? Then we certainly have free will.

Well, this depends on how you define free will. That being said, if you believe free will is compatible with determinism, then every action you have taken was predetermined and could not have been otherwise.

 

[hangnail]

You and I are playing a gambling game and you flip a coin and I make a random choice because you are flipping a random coin and I am playing a game of chance with you. This is chance because that is the game you determined we should play. And now you want to go back in time and wonder if I made a random and meaningless choice or if the choice was made for me based on meaningless cause-and-effect chains?

In reality, this is a meaningless thought experiment because, in it, we are playing a meaningless game of chance that holds no weight on reality.

It wasn’t a “meaningless” game. If gambling games were meaningless, then no one would be playing the lottery. People play gambling games because they hope to win money. That’s the purpose. The fact is that the game of life is either predetermined by the powers that be or the product of chance or some combination thereof. Logic dictates this much.

Have you considered the coin in all of this? Was it the coins destiny to land as it did? Or was the coin an innocent bystander in the whole thing, only giving way to the precarious whims of gravity and wind-resistance?

I don’t believe the coin had a point of view, if that’s what you’re asking. At any rate, I really don’t see the relevance of the question.

Your question claims a complete escape from self, but the reality of our lives, the always having to choose without repose, is a forced commitment to fully realize the self. It is said that a man truly knows himself when put into a difficult situation. Well, God has put us into a refinery of sorts where every second is begging you to reveal your true self.

Spending less time worrying about the coin and more time worrying about who you are would be a better use of the time spent. (because it will get spent)

To reiterate: The game of life is either predetermined by the powers that be or the product of chance or some combination thereof. Logic dictates this much.

By the way, I’m not forcing you to read my thread. You have freely chosen to do so. Right?

 

[Tomdstone]

Well, this depends on how you define free will. That being said, if you believe free will is compatible with determinism, then every action you have taken was predetermined and could not have been otherwise.

Who predetermined it?

 

[hangnail]

I am the only that has provided an explanation of libertarian free-will and it is that it is a brute fact, the will wills there’s no more explanation behind it and even gave reasons as to why this is a fact. I have yet to see a response to that post.

The problem appears to be that you don’t like your “choices” - determinism or indeterminism.

 

[hangnail]

Our soul determines what we will choose, so there is determinism in that sense.

But that’s not what I asked you. So, let me rephrase: Do you believe free will is compatible with determinism (this position is technically known as “compatiblism”)?

 

[hangnail]

Our choices are causally determined by our free will.

Compatibilism holds that free will is compatible with a strictly deterministic decision-making process and environmental process.

 

[hangnail]

This may be cheating but I found this at this website:

Okay. I read it. The bottom line is that either determinism holds true or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t the indeterminism holds true by default. If you believe in free will, then you will have to reconcile it with either determinism or indetermnism. (Any definition of free will that defies logic is not an option.)

 

[hangnail]

‘course I am refusing. Saying that the will wills or that we’re willing intellects are brute facts “does not change anything” is not an argument, it is an assertion. If anything you are the one refusing to acknowledge other alternatives and argue against them.

Free-will is self-evident and needed for morality. Determinism and indeterminism in our actions is not self-evident in many cases and it undermines morality and obligation.

I believe that determinism and the indeterminism are the only two logical possibilities. If you cannot accept that, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Free will is compatible with determinism if there is nothing outside the agent influencing the voluntary act. There is nothing outside of God influencing his eternal (nontemporal) self-determining act. However, our “self-determinism” occurs within a temporal causal network that we are not able to extricate ourselves from.

There are a number of issues with your argument - issues that can be taken apart but will require more than one post to do so.

Let’s start with the above.

You claim we cannot “extricate” ourselves from the temporal causal network. It would appear that consciousness does do precisely the work of extricating us. We are aware of being in a causal network. If we were simply a part of the network we wouldn’t be aware of that fact but would simply respond as caused with no awareness. Being conscious of the network means we have already transcended it and can look backwards, forwards and at our current position to alter the “network” without being caused, by any necessity, to do so.

Another poster brought up the idea of teleology. He made a point that you haven’t considered seriously enough. If our choices were merely determined by past or current causal states, consciousness would be redundant. We wouldn’t need it. Consciousness, along with intentionality, means we can conceive of new future possibilities and create the conditions for achieving them. Ergo, our choices are not determined but willed.

There are issues with your determinism / indeterminism dichotomy but I will address those in another post. For now, your argument is afflicted by the fallacy of retrospective determinism.

Another angle you haven’t addressed is the possibility that God’s grace (which you characterize as eternal self-determinism) is made available to us. In other words, we may be culpable precisely because God’s eternal self-determinism extends and underwrites our free will. By not taking advantage of that possibility we are culpable for what we have been made capable of by grace and not merely self-will or our own power to effect change. This, I submit, is Augustine’s position in On Grace and Free Will.