Impossibility of free will

[jochoa]

If the will we form is new, that just makes it new. Where do the new ideas that found our new will come from? If you’re saying that we come up with those ideas ourselves, then you’re already asserting our free will as a way to prove we have free will, which doesn’t work as an argument.

Please consider the following concept:
When thinking of a new idea, yes it is necessary to base the new idea on past personal experiences/knowledge, and the new idea will be a combination/mixture of past experiences/knowledge. However, since the new idea will require the exact individual who is melding together the past personal experiences, a new idea requires free thought to meld the experiences together. Since thoughts are willed; we can create new ideas; and new ideas require free thoughts, then any person who wills creative/imaginative thoughts has free will.

Every new idea you have, and every singular basis for every new idea you have, comes to you through your experiences, which you had no hand in choosing for yourself. If I asked you to name a country in the world, I know one thing - You have absolutely zero chance of selecting a country you’ve never heard of. The fact that you’ve never heard of it is obviously not your choice, and if I were to name you a country that you had never heard of, you would then be aware of it (experience), but it wouldn’t be an experience you chose to have, either.

Fair enough. However, please consider the following: If a person knowingly has three options to will of which s/he can choose one. In consideration of the three options, the person has a general idea/knowledge of what experiences will be had as a result of willing each option. Is one somewhat choosing the soon-to-come experiences?
For example:
I must choose to will one of the following tomorrow.

1. Go to work. Try my best to meet the expectations of my boss and co-workers on an excellent level. Be as patient and kind as I possibly can in all relationships.
2. Go to work. Not care about the quality of my workmanship because I want to be lazy. Treat others as I feel they treat me. Even treat others with impatience and meanness as to let them know they have offended me.
3. Stay at home. Call in sick. Sleep late. Watch a marathon of rerun sitcoms.
   Now I consider some probable experiences which will be had from each will.
4. My relationships will experience greater peace and happiness. Others will most likely treat me more patiently and kindly because humans by instinct treat others as they feel treated by the other.
5. My relationships will experience boredom, strife, misery, and anger.
6. My relationships will most likely remain neutral, however, nothing much will be personally gained because I do not need any time of recovery and rest. Though I will experience some laughter, I will probably experience many moments of boredom, which may even lead to experiences of loneliness and purposelessness, which may even lead to experiences of depression.
   Once willing the choice, will I have somewhat chosen the soon-to-come experiences?

In conclusion…
Since we have the ability to choose the experiences by choosing the corresponding will…and it is given that our experiences will shape who we are in the future, then we have the ability to shape who we are in the future by choosing a will of which we know general experiences which follow from the given will. Therefore, we have genuine free will.

 

[ASimon]

Please consider the following concept:
When thinking of a new idea, yes it is necessary to base the new idea on past personal experiences/knowledge, and the new idea will be a combination/mixture of past experiences/knowledge. However, since the new idea will require** the exact individual** who is melding together the past personal experiences, a new idea requires free thought to meld the experiences together. Since thoughts are willed; we can create new ideas; and new ideas require free thoughts, then any person who wills creative/imaginative thoughts has free will.

Okay, so where does “the exact individual” come from? In other words, what makes you “You?” You seem to be suggesting that new ideas come from past experiences/knowledge, and through a sort of special filter (“the individual”). So that, given the same knowledge and experience, two people will still come up with different new ideas.

Even if this filter existed, it still leaves the question of where it comes from, and if you freely chose it. If you didn’t, then subsequent decisions can’t be freely chosen either.

Fair enough. However, please consider the following: If a person knowingly has three options to will of which s/he can choose one. In consideration of the three options, the person has a general idea/knowledge of what experiences will be had as a result of willing each option. Is one somewhat choosing the soon-to-come experiences?

Nope. Knowing what your options are, and even knowing the consequences of each option in advance does not suggest that your ultimate decision was necessarily freely chosen.

Let’s say you went with option #1. You go to work, do a great job, and experience the expected outcome.

Then, I ask you, “Why did you select option #1?” And you respond with something like, “I picked option #1 because I wanted my relationships to experience greater peace and happiness. I also wanted others to treat me more patiently and kindly.”

And then I’d ask you, “Why are those things important to you - greater peace/understanding, and being treated with more patience and kindness?”

I’m ignoring the fact that you’ve already answered this question to some degree, by attributing this to “instinct.” Instinct falls very neatly under the umbrella of unchosen influences of one’s behavior, so I don’t think I need go any further to make my point. Still, I could pretend you didn’t say that and continue on…

You may be at some pains to explain to me why you value things like peace/understanding/patience/kindness, but you could feasibly come back with, “Because it feels good to be treated that way.”

And it does. But why does it feel good to be treated that way? Are you the reason it feels good? Could you feel differently about this if you wanted to?

My point is, the ultimate motivation behind every choice you make lies at the end of a regress into your own internal causality. Lots of times, you probably won’t even know why you like, say, chocolate ice cream rather than vanilla, but knowing why isn’t even really necessary. The issue will be whether you freely chose to want one thing more or less than any other.

 

[jochoa]

Okay, so where does “the exact individual” come from? In other words, what makes you “You?” You seem to be suggesting that new ideas come from past experiences/knowledge, and through a sort of special filter (“the individual”). So that, given the same knowledge and experience, two people will still come up with different new ideas.

I am actually intending to state that if two people were given the same knowledge and similar experiences, despite differences in their genetic makeup or upbringing, they may do both: independently form the same “new” ideas or create different new ideas. If they happen to form the same “new” ideas, then they share the same nature*. If they happen to form different new ideas, then they differ in nature.
*nature is defined as the purpose and means of a person’s will.

Even if this filter existed, it still leaves the question of where it comes from, and if you freely chose it. If you didn’t, then subsequent decisions can’t be freely chosen either.

Human nature is designed by God to fulfill various wants/desires. In doing so we will experience happiness (contentment to intense joy). One natural desire in human nature is peace (freedom from disturbance). In order to fulfill these desires, we must will patience and kindness. Though the human nature is not freely chosen, the Godly/Truly Loving Nature is freely chosen. Therefore, since we can freely choose to set our purpose and means in alignment with the Godly Nature (Jesus Christ’s Greatest Commandments), then subsequent decisions can be freely chosen.

Nope. Knowing what your options are, and even knowing the consequences of each option in advance does not suggest that your ultimate decision was necessarily freely chosen.

Fair enough. Yet, given that we are forced to operate in oneness with our genetics, upbringing, experiences, and nature. Since we can freely/personally choose a will which we know will cause certain experiences, then we can choose our experiences. Therefore, we can author our experiences, and our will is very free. And…since we can freely choose the Truly Loving Nature as our purpose and means, which will allow us to freely choose subsequent actions, our will is completely free.

Let’s say you went with option #1. You go to work, do a great job, and experience the expected outcome.

Then, I ask you, “Why did you select option #1?” And you respond with something like, “I picked option #1 because I wanted my relationships to experience greater peace and happiness. I also wanted others to treat me more patiently and kindly.”

What would you consider my response might be if I chose option #2 or #3?

And then I’d ask you, “Why are those things important to you - greater peace/understanding, and being treated with more patience and kindness?”

I’m ignoring the fact that you’ve already answered this question to some degree, by attributing this to “instinct.” Instinct falls very neatly under the umbrella of unchosen influences of one’s behavior, so I don’t think I need go any further to make my point. Still, I could pretend you didn’t say that and continue on…

Please consider the concept that willing patience and kindness in the face of impatience and meanness is far from instinctual.

Could you feel differently about this if you wanted to?

Sure I could.

My point is, the ultimate motivation behind every choice you make lies at the end of a regress into your own internal causality. Lots of times, you probably won’t even know why you like, say, chocolate ice cream rather than vanilla, but knowing why isn’t even really necessary. The issue will be whether you freely chose to want one thing more or less than any other.

Please recognize that our own internal causality is naturally free from God’s internal causality. Therefore, life’s greatest decision will be whether we freely choose to want our internal causality to be the same as God’s.

My friend, ASimon, I am thoroughly enjoying our discussion! I greatly appreciate you sharing your perspective for I am gaining much wisdom through consideration!

 

[ASimon]

Thanks, jochoa - I also appreciate your sincere willingness to approach the issue and engage the arguments head-on, A few folks around here could take a lesson from this.

Having said that, I think we’re running out of steam here (or, at least, I am). While I appreciate your sincerity, I still don’t believe you’ve been able to effectively articulate from where this capacity to freely choose originates. And if you mean to credit God for it, I also don’t think you’ve undercut the logical problem this assertion creates.

Feel free to take the last word, for now. I may chime in again down the road if somebody takes the reins and offers up something to respond to. Take care.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Probably.

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

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.

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.

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…

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…

I take it that you are not going to answer this post.

 

[jochoa]

Thanks, jochoa - I also appreciate your sincere willingness to approach the issue and engage the arguments head-on, A few folks around here could take a lesson from this.

Having said that, I think we’re running out of steam here (or, at least, I am). While I appreciate your sincerity, I still don’t believe you’ve been able to effectively articulate from where this capacity to freely choose originates. And if you mean to credit God for it, I also don’t think you’ve undercut the logical problem this assertion creates.

Feel free to take the last word, for now. I may chime in again down the road if somebody takes the reins and offers up something to respond to. Take care.

Understandable, my friend! Please consider one last question because I didn’t realize I was trying to undercut an additional problem: Why does crediting God for it create a logical problem?

 

[tonyrey]

Why does crediting God for it create a logical problem?

It is supposed by physicalists that creative power cannot even be transmitted by parents (let alone the Creator) to their children - which would be true if we really were robots incapable of controlling our thoughts, emotions, decisions or actions.