Impossibility of free will

[FurtherSuntime]

It’s a good question, and it’s fair to say that we feel like we have free will because we are ignorant, at a conscious level, of the numerous occurrences and processes that influence and cause our decisions.

What difference does it make? Well, that depends, to a large extent, upon your perspective on free will and the role it plays in our lives as social beings. One of the main arguments against free will, although it is rarely phrased in such terms (except by those arguing against the concept) is that if we can’t blame the person for actions that harm others, what possible outlet is there for our sense of vengeance?

But there is still - at least, according to the compatibilist version of free will, with which I tend to agree - a very real and practical sense in which what we think of as the person, that is, the individual, bodily entity, is responsible for the way they respond to circumstances, both internal and external. We are part of the causal web, even if we are not ultimately the free-floating or contra-causal authors of our every thought and action, and considering ourselves to hold some responsibility for our actions does actually have an effect upon our behaviour.

If we hold each other responsible for our actions, that sense of accountability becomes part of the framework that informs and essentially causes our actions. If it comes down to brass tacks, a person - such as a psychopath - who rejects the social, interactive aspect of personal responsibility thus represents a danger to the majority of people who do accept this bargain with their fellows. Whether it is considered just to restrain the psychopath depends upon whether you value the wellbeing of those who might otherwise be harmed by that person who accepts no personal responsibility for his/her actions, or who sees no reason to treat others as he/she would like to be treated.

There’s an interesting - and, if looked at dispassionately, slightly weird - notion that the free will of any given human being is the highest good that can be conceived, a notion that lies at the core of modern Christian thinking (and is generally offered as a defeater - though unsuccessful, in my opinion - for the philosophical problem of evil). This gets very convoluted when considered in the light of the possibility that contra-causal free will might not obtain. Is it just to lock up a potentially dangerous person, given they have no real “control” over their actions? Well, that has to be weighed against the harm they might otherwise inflict upon other, equally innocent beings.

Lots to think about. I’m not very good at free will discussing…and theres something about it that I don’t like…I don’t know what it is, just a flag… We could justify jail time for the simple known and discovered explained essence of a persons being. No free will required.

Problem with that is the explained essence of a persons being can improve. So relative to the idea in eliminating free will in the above scheme, the noted essence of being only, cannot describe the whole individual. IOW the essence of being argument is fine for justicebut avoids the properties of learning-growing and so on. The essence of being can change.

Relative to the will, there would be a representation of freedom to do so (change-grow or otherwise, thus freedom will.

I think relative to our reality we have an impression of free will , through an impression of freedom. But these things are all relative. But maybe relative is as far as what could be reasonably ok. We seem to have free will relative to our existing situation…I wonder what the question is, behind the question of free will? I can never understand why free will gets so much attention. It seems difficult to talk about for myself.

 

[tonyrey]

My major in college was psychology. Believe me, it is far more complicated than that. A neurosis would contradict what you just wrote. It is also possible to lie to yourself. It is possible to be in self-denial. Our human make-up is far more complicated than what your describe.

If there is no free will, then we have only one option, the one we are programmed to do. All the other options are merely hypothetical. In the same way the computer has only the option of what its designer intended to do. So the options are not with the computer to choose, there are with the designer. Once the designer decides what the computer to do, the computer has no other option. So if we have no free will, then our option is only one, just as with the computer. That is what it means to be programmed.

Whenever I hear someone talking about someone talk about being hard-wired in our belief about the world, they always use religion as an example. But if we are hard-wired, then an example will do? So I have a few examples. Do you agree with these statements?
We are hard-wired into believing that science reflects the reality of the world.
We are hard-wired into believing that doctors heal more people than witch doctors.
We are hard-wired into believing that superstition is not true.

I do not deny that this is the case. But you need to look at historically how you came to your thinking. It is going from one extreme to another.

In the Middle Ages, man was free to use reason to find truth, but within the boundaries set by the magisterium of the Catholic Church. Contrary to popular opinion, the Church did tell the people what to think (btw, if there is no will, then than that actually what would not be wrong, would it?). Rather the Church allowed us to freely use our minds as long as it did not stray into heresy. People read Plato and Aristotle. Cathedrals were built to also be space observatories. The scientists in the Middle Ages laid the ground work for all subsequent science – John Buridian, Nicole Oresme, Copernicus, etc. Isaac Newton said “If I see further than others, it is because I am sitting on the shoulders of giants”. Those giants were in the Middle Ages.

Luther then came to the scene and said the people did not need the pope, but can find truth in the Bible on their own. The Catholics used similar arguments, as you are using. They would argue that each individual cannot be trusted to find ALL the truth on his own. Luther disagreed.
Then the Enlightenment came. It went further than Luther. Man not only does not need the pope, but man does not even need the Bible. Reason was their goddess. This gave birth to Rationalism. Man is capable of knowing all the truth through reason.

Now we are in Post-modernism. Post-modern man is now to the other extreme from Rationalism. It is now no longer that man can find truth through reason. Reason is suspect since we are all hard-wired into thinking that our own truth is reasonable. This bring the death to reason.

So what I am saying is the in the Middle Ages, there was moderation. Reason was used but not exalted. Because man was made in the image of God, he could use his reason to find truth. But since man is also a sinner, he cannot fully trust his reason.

What you say has an element of truth. We can have a brain disease. This is why we cannot fully trust our reason. We are not TOTALLY free. We still have our fallen nature. This is where Rationalism went wrong. It exalted the view that man was made in the image of God, but it forgot that our God-like image has been corrupted by sin. But you go too far the other way, of not seeing that our God-like image is there.

The Bible says that we have this treasure in an earthen vessel. The treasure is us made in God’s image. But it is contained within the earthen vessel. Rationalism only sees the treasure. Post-modern man only sees the earthen vessel.

Inexorable logic.

 

[tonyrey]

It does not require physical exertion to investigate our thoughts, Sair, and become more

aware of our intellectual habits and more logical as a result of analysing them!

 

[ASimon]

ASimon,

Either there is free will or there isn’t. Either we are free to choose as we please, or something/s control however we are to act. Do you agree?

Yes.

So, why is it more reasonable to say that we have no control over what we choose? Why is it less reasonable to say that we make free choices based on influences/experiences we have received?

It’s more reasonable to say we have no control over what we choose because our understanding of the causal factors of human behavior do not allow for any “will” to act independently of those factors. It’s no more reasonable to assume such a “free will” into the clockwork than it is to assume God is out there at the head of everything, absent any real evidence he exists at all.

Which one of the three G, E, or U, takes the most “control” in deciding how we are to act?

Don’t really know.

How would you define influence?

As a noun, I define it as a coercive element that leads one to act in a certain way. As a verb, I would say it means to coerce.

 

[ASimon]

If there is no free will, then we have only one option, the one we are programmed to do. All the other options are merely hypothetical. In the same way the computer has only the option of what its designer intended to do. So the options are not with the computer to choose, there are with the designer. Once the designer decides what the computer to do, the computer has no other option. So if we have no free will, then our option is only one, just as with the computer. That is what it means to be programmed.

The difference here is that the programming of you never stops. If I asked you to tell me what you will do next July 22nd at 11:04am and 17 seconds, you will have many, many hypothetical choices open to you, limited not at all by the fact that you probably don’t even know where you’ll be in that moment. But as we get closer to that moment, the number of choices available to you will narrow (as a matter of circumstance), and all the while, all your experiences (including the ones between now and then) will begin to the determine your action. So, by the time, we get to that moment, there will be effectively one action, the one you were being programmed with all along.

Whenever I hear someone talking about someone talk about being hard-wired in our belief about the world, they always use religion as an example. But if we are hard-wired, then an example will do? So I have a few examples. Do you agree with these statements?
We are hard-wired into believing that science reflects the reality of the world.
We are hard-wired into believing that doctors heal more people than witch doctors.
We are hard-wired into believing that superstition is not true.

I don’t agree with any of them. I said we are hardwired to form beliefs that best track with reality. But that this does not mean that two people, living in roughly the same time and place, can’t wind up believing that wildly different, and contradictory ideas are true. It may mean that one is right, or that both are wrong, but they both can’t be right.

 

[Sair]

The difference here is that the programming of you never stops. If I asked you to tell me what you will do next July 22nd at 11:04am and 17 seconds, you will have many, many hypothetical choices open to you, limited not at all by the fact that you probably don’t even know where you’ll be in that moment. But as we get closer to that moment, the number of choices available to you will narrow (as a matter of circumstance), and all the while, all your experiences (including the ones between now and then) will begin to the determine your action. So, by the time, we get to that moment, there will be effectively one action, the one you were being programmed with all along.

A pertinent comment, I think. How many of us (those of us who are old enough, of course!) can look back to a time 10, 20, even 30 or more years ago and say that at that time, we knew - or at least, confidently predicted - where we would be and what we would be doing at the present time? As a teenager, I had a very clear idea of how I wanted my life to pan out, but frankly, not that much of what I then determined has come to pass, and my life has taken several turns that I most certainly did not foresee. Looking back, I am not sorry that my life has run the course it has, but it’s not a course I had necessarily planned.

 

[tonyrey]

The difference here is that the programming of you never stops. If I asked you to tell me what you will do next July 22nd at 11:04am and 17 seconds, you will have many, many hypothetical choices open to you, limited not at all by the fact that you probably don’t even know where you’ll be in that moment. But as we get closer to that moment, the number of choices available to you will narrow (as a matter of circumstance), and all the while, all your experiences (including the ones between now and then) will begin to the determine your action. So, by the time, we get to that moment, there will be effectively one action, the one you were being programmed with all along.

That argument begs the question! What evidence is there that we are entirely programmed by events beyond our control?

I don’t agree with any of them. I said we are hardwired to form beliefs that best track with reality. But that this does not mean that two people, living in roughly the same time and place, can’t wind up believing that wildly different, and contradictory ideas are true. It may mean that one is right, or that both are wrong, but they both can’t be right.

Once again you are assuming we are “hardwired”. How do you justify that opinion?

 

[tonyrey]

A pertinent comment, I think. How many of us (those of us who are old enough, of course!) can look back to a time 10, 20, even 30 or more years ago and say that at that time, we knew - or at least, confidently predicted - where we would be and what we would be doing at the present time? As a teenager, I had a very clear idea of how I wanted my life to pan out, but frankly, not that much of what I then determined has come to pass, and my life has taken several turns that I most certainly did not foresee. Looking back, I am not sorry that my life has run the course it has, but it’s not a course I had necessarily planned.

The fact that life hasn’t run the course you planned doesn’t prove your decisions had no effect at all. One accident can put a stop to anyone’s plans!

 

[tonyrey]

Lots to think about. I’m not very good at free will discussing…and theres something about it that I don’t like…I don’t know what it is, just a flag… We could justify jail time for the simple known and discovered explained essence of a persons being. No free will required.

Problem with that is the explained essence of a persons being can improve. So relative to the idea in eliminating free will in the above scheme, the noted essence of being only, cannot describe the whole individual. IOW the essence of being argument is fine for justicebut avoids the properties of learning-growing and so on. The essence of being can change.

Relative to the will, there would be a representation of freedom to do so (change-grow or otherwise, thus freedom will.

I think relative to our reality we have an impression of free will , through an impression of freedom. But these things are all relative. But maybe relative is as far as what could be reasonably ok. We seem to have free will relative to our existing situation…I wonder what the question is, behind the question of free will? I can never understand why free will gets so much attention. It seems difficult to talk about for myself.

You have made a good point. We act** as if** we have free will and are choosing for ourselves rather than being compelled to do things against our will. The sceptic needs to explain both how the idea originated and why it is the basis of our daily lives.

 

[sandomenico]

It’s more reasonable to say we have no control over what we choose because our understanding of the causal factors of human behavior do not allow for any “will” to act independently of those factors. It’s no more reasonable to assume such a “free will” into the clockwork than it is to assume God is out there at the head of everything, absent any real evidence he exists at all.

As a noun, I define it as a coercive element that leads one to act in a certain way. As a verb, I would say it means to coerce.

ASimon,

Then haven’t you based your argument on empirical scientific verification and not logic?

Are G, E, and U physical or non-material things?

I don’t exactly agree with your definition. I would say influence (in the common understanding) means to direct a way of thinking or action. Coercion demands force, and influence does not necessitate that; in fact, I would say most influence came without it, after a subtler fashion.

God love you,
sandomenico

 

[ASimon]

That argument begs the question! What evidence is there that we are entirely programmed by events beyond our control?

Did you choose your genetics? (The answer is no.)
Did you choose what kind of upbringing you received? (The answer is no.)
Did you choose any experience you’ve ever had in your life? (Again, the answer is no.)

And finally, is there anything else in your makeup that’s doing the choosing for you. If you say yes, you must justify this assertion. Where did you get this capacity to choose, independent of your GEU?

Once again you are assuming we are “hardwired”. How do you justify that opinion?

This much is quite simple. We don’t know a ton about the brain, but we do understand how it’s structured, and can observe the same basic traits in other mammels. We’re very likely evolutionarily selected for having brains that can recognize patterns and allow us to respond (find explanations for those patterns).

 

[tonyrey]

• What evidence is there that we are entirely programmed by events beyond our control?*

We certainly do choose to have experiences every time we decide what to do, when to do it, where to do it, how to do it and for whom to do it. Our lives are a constant succession of choices - when we make the right ones. (Otherwise it’s just a series of choices!)

And finally, is there anything else in your makeup that’s doing the choosing for you.

That question begs the question! To a certain extent we can change ourselves for better or worse.

If you say yes, you must justify this assertion. Where did you get this capacity to choose, independent of your GEU?

Your question assumes that we are nothing more than receptacles - which are not usually deemed to have any power at all! We are rational, autonomous beings whose power is most adequately explained by a far greater Being than ourselves.

Once again you are assuming we are

“hardwired”. How do you justify that opinion? This much is quite simple. We don’t know a ton about the brain, but we do understand how it’s structured, and can observe the same basic traits in other mammels. We’re very likely evolutionarily selected for having brains that can recognize patterns and allow us to respond (find explanations for those patterns).

The hypothesis that the immense complexity and exquisite organization of the cerebral hemispheres are ultimately the result of random, purposeless events is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of conscious, rational and autonomous beings.

 

[ASimon]

We certainly do choose to have experiences every time we decide what to do, when to do it, where to do it, how to do it and for whom to do it. Our lives are a constant succession of choices - when we make the right ones. (Otherwise it’s just a series of choices!)

And again, what authors those choices at the moment you make them? This question isn’t “begging the question,” by the way. And even if it were, you could still answer it. That is, if you had a response that did not, in itself, assume unfalsifiable assumptions.

Your question assumes that we are nothing more than receptacles - which are not usually deemed to have any power at all! We are rational, autonomous beings whose power is most adequately explained by a far greater Being than ourselves.

Like this. Whatever my question supposedly assumes, you need only answer it to put the whole issue on ice. Instead, you accuse me of assuming my own conclusion in one breath, then posit a contradictory position with the added assumption of an unfalsifiable God-head, in the next. Which completely ignores a side issue - that even if we assumed a God did exist, it wouldn’t necessarily guarantee us free will (God could be explicitly controlling everything we do).

 

[tonyrey]

And again, what authors those choices at the moment you make them? This question isn’t “begging the question,” by the way. And even if it were, you could still answer it. That is, if you had a response that did not, in itself, assume unfalsifiable assumptions.

We do! Are you a rational, responsible agent or an irrational, irresponsible product?

Like this. Whatever my question supposedly assumes, you need only answer it to put the whole issue on ice.

Done!

Instead, you accuse me of assuming my own conclusion in one breath, then posit a contradictory position with the added assumption of an unfalsifiable God-head, in the next.

You asked me “Is there anything else in your makeup that’s doing the choosing for you?” as if it is true beyond all doubt that our “makeup” - rather than we - do the choosing.

I assumed nothing but simply stated:

We are rational, autonomous beings whose power is most adequately explained by a far greater Being than ourselves.

To attribute greater power to particles than persons - which is what materialism amounts to - is a grossly inadequate hypothesis unless it is substantiated by detailed, verifiable and experimental evidence of particles transforming themselves into persons. It doesn’t correspond to the fact that all sane persons behave as if they have free will, nor to the need for free will in order to be rational, nor to the legal presumption of individual responsibility.

Which completely ignores a side issue - that even if we assumed a God did exist, it wouldn’t necessarily guarantee us free will (God could be explicitly controlling everything we do).

If God exists He must be directly responsible for all the evil in the world - which is absurd because evil is self-destructive. It follows that God cannot exist unless we have free will!

 

[ASimon]

We do! Are you a rational, responsible agent or an irrational, irresponsible product?

I am a rational, irresponsible product. Rational because I follow the evidence where it leads. Irresponsible because the evidence doesn’t leave us room to claim free will.

Where are you getting your free will? Keep in mind what I said earlier about attributing it to God is a philosophical non-starter.

You asked me “Is there anything else in your makeup that’s doing the choosing for you?” as if it is true beyond all doubt that our “makeup” - rather than we - do the choosing.

If you had “free will,” this capacity would be a part of your makeup. You’d be able to account for where it is, and how you got it.

If God exists He must be directly responsible for all the evil in the world - which is absurd because evil is self-destructive. It follows that God cannot exist unless we have free will!

Why can’t God be responsible for self-destructive evil in the world? I know why you think that he can’t, but this just reinforces my point. You don’t just need an unfalsifiable assumption (“God”) to conclude free will, you need this God to be your specific God. So you’re digging yourself even deeper into a hole, while claiming you’ve reached the peak of some sort of special mountain.

 

[tonyrey]

We

Blindly?

Irresponsible because the evidence doesn’t leave us room to claim free will.

Then more evidence would enable you to make up your mind!

Where are you getting your free will? Keep in mind what I said earlier about attributing it to God is a philosophical non-starter.

Keep in mind the principle of adequate explanation. What do persons and particles have in common apart from particles?

You asked me "Is there anything else in your makeup

that’s doing the choosing for you?" as if it is true beyond all doubt that our “makeup” - rather than we - do the choosing.

You are assuming your makeup is entirely physical.
If you had “free will,” this capacity would be a part of your makeup. You’d be able to account for where it is, and how you got it.

How do you define “you”?

If God exists He must be directly responsible for all the evil in the world - which is absurd because evil is self-destructive. It follows that God cannot exist unless we have free will!

Why can’t God be responsible for self-destructive evil in the world?

He would then be evil and therefore self-destructive- which is incompatible with being the Creator.

I know why you think that he can’t, but this just reinforces my point. You don’t just need an unfalsifiable assumption (“God”) to conclude free will, you need this God to be your specific God.

Why mine in particular? Do you think I’m the only rational being? Where does that leave you?

So you’re digging yourself even deeper into a hole, while claiming you’ve reached the peak of some sort of special mountain.

According to you I have no option and you have no option but to be on the peak.
Are you compelled to think you’re in that proud, privileged position? You have a very, very long way to fall.

 

[ASimon]

Blindly?

I prefer helplessly. Since I can’t control what evidence I find compelling any more than I can control what the evidence is in the first place.

Then more evidence would enable you to make up your mind!

Probably.

Keep in mind the principle of adequate explanation. What do persons and particles have in common apart from particles?

Your adequate explanation doesn’t help you get out from under this problem. God as the source of free will is still an incoherent idea, and “God Of The Gaps”-style reasoning won’t make it any more coherent.

How do you define “you”?

Non sequitur.

He would then be evil and therefore self-destructive- which is incompatible with being the Creator.

Incorrect. He would only be incompatible with your Creator. I have no problem imagining God as an evil, self-destructive being. I may not want to live under his dominion, but I don’t lie to myself about how the only God that could ever exist for this Universe is an omnibenevolent one.

Why mine in particular? Do you think I’m the only rational being? Where does that leave you?

Where this issue is concerned, I don’t find you rational at all.

According to you I have no option and you have no option but to be on the peak.

This is true. I can still point it out, though.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

You have made a good point. We act** as if** we have free will and are choosing for ourselves rather than being compelled to do things against our will. The sceptic needs to explain both how the idea originated and why it is the basis of our daily lives.

Thanks and for some reason I have trouble reading through these things. I will give it a break and come back later if its still on the go, had a thought yesterday concerning freedom for the free will and reduced it to torture for analogy. I found it came in handy as the whole principal of free will can be graphed on to a system, using freedom and non-freedom in two extremes.

Now we have created a system where every act or willful thought-act can be represented for clarity and distinct discovery. I’m thinking visuals with clearly marked quantities of unrest and ultimate freedom could target the characteristics and properties including relationships between freedom and non freedom. Notice very interestingly, absolute material comfort as a resting state and absolute torture have things in common. Both in material extreme. I think Free Will is a system . If it is, then the highest degree of free will should be easily segregated from a graph, extracted and put out on the table for a look. ( I guess you can see why I have trouble with free will talk…anyway, another day.

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks and for some reason I have trouble reading through these things. I will give it a break and come back later if its still on the go, had a thought yesterday concerning freedom for the free will and reduced it to torture for analogy. I found it came in handy as the whole principal of free will can be graphed on to a system, using freedom and non-freedom in two extremes.

Now we have created a system where every act or willful thought-act can be represented for clarity and distinct discovery. I’m thinking visuals with clearly marked quantities of unrest and ultimate freedom could target the characteristics and properties including relationships between freedom and non freedom. Notice very interestingly, absolute material comfort as a resting state and absolute torture have things in common. Both in material extreme. I think Free Will is a system . If it is, then the highest degree of free will should be easily segregated from a graph, extracted and put out on the table for a look. ( I guess you can see why I have trouble with free will talk…anyway, another day.

Interesting ideas! I look forward to your next post.

 

[tonyrey]

Blindly?

Then you can’t control the conclusions you reach. Are you just a spectator waiting to see the final explanation?

Then more evidence would enable you to make up your mind!

Probably.

Isn’t your mind is made up for you rather than by you?

Keep in mind the principle of adequate explanation. What do persons and particles have in common apart from particles?

Your adequate explanation doesn’t help you get out from under this problem.

What do persons and particles have in common apart from particles?

God as the source of free will is still an incoherent idea…

Why?
.

… and “God Of The Gaps”-style reasoning won’t make it any more coherent.

The “Matter without Free Will” hypothesis isn’t even based on reasoning! As you have pointed out it is the product of helpless robots.

How do you define “you”?

Non sequitur.

Only if you don’t come into the picture because you’re a helpless robot.

He would then be evil and therefore self-destructive- which is incompatible with being the Creator.

Incorrect. He would only be incompatible with your Creator.

The Creator is not mine!

I have no problem imagining God as an evil, self-destructive being.

That is not surprising! It suits your case…

I may not want to live under his dominion, but I don’t lie to myself about how the only God that could ever exist for this Universe is an omnibenevolent one.

I certainly don’t want to live under the dominion of the absurd hypothesis that we can’t even think for ourselves - and I don’t lie to myself that I can understand the nature of Ultimate Reality so well that I know it is Godless, valueless and purposeless.

Why mine in particular? Do you think I’m the only rational being? Where does that leave you?

Where this issue is concerned, I don’t find you rational at all.

That’s not surprising because you believe no one thinks for themselves or reaches their own conclusions. In short neither you nor I nor anyone else is rational; we are just cogs in a machine which just happen to know what is happening…

What poor devils we are! You must agree it’s very bad luck we happened to be born at all. Ah well, we have to accept our fate philosophically…

But wait! We have no choice: either we do or we don’t, so we’re bound to be miserable whatever happens… What a terrible life!:frighten:

According to you I have no option and you have no option but to be on the peak.

This is true. I can still point it out, though.

Can you? Now let me see: “can” seems to suggest…