Impossibility of free will

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bobber90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JDaniel said:
continuation . . .

Yes. Scientology admits of this, too. However, they call those aspects of the mind by their correct names, names that truly describe what is taking place - and can be proven through the use of electrical meters. They call the “unconscious” mind the “reactive” mind, and the “conscious” mind, they call the “analytical” mind. The “reactive” mind never goes to sleep. It’s purpose is self-protection. While the “analytical” mind will, from time to time, fall into sleep. Yet, it is the “analytical” mind that we use while we’re awake - for making free choices, for example. Occasionally, according to Scientology, an engram, caused by a trauma leading to immediate unconsciousness, or while unconscious, such as while in sleep, causes an aberration, which causes us to make poor, often harmful decisions, especially when similar events re-stimulate the original traumatic event. Yet, they believe that “engrams” can be obliterated by careful re-confrontation. Now, I’m not a Scientologist, but I find their science much more compelling than anything modern psychology or psychiatry have to offer.

See! I told you I liked apostrophes. 👍

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
I’m far less keen on scientology’s offerings because my prejudice is that they rely upon the work of decent psychologists and scientists and then proceed to put an unwarranted sci-fi slant on it. The evidence of these experiments on short-term decision making is still startling. How can it be that the source of decisions is not conscious, but only the outcome, if free will is responsible for them?
 
Bobber90 said:
Thanks I will have a look. However, say that the universe is indeterministic, where do we find free will? Neither determinism nor indeterminism seem to provide for it - that’s the impossibility of free will!
Click to expand...
Excellent question! Please consider the following:
Free will is found in the souls of humans.

The soul is found in the thought of God. To recognize this, consider the following concepts:
A spirit can be defined as image, knowledge, and past-actions. Recognize that when you genuinely think of someone, you can only think of their exact image, the knowledge they have shared with you, and the past-actions from interactions with them. You are unable to give the thought of them free-will.

On the other hand, when God thinks of us, He is able give the thought of us free-will. Therefore, the spirit we think of, is the free-willed soul God thought of.

Now in God’s thoughtful creation of us, we are free-willed. However, in God’s physical creation of us, since everything happens exactly as He thought they would, our body is one with our spirit, and God knows what we will choose. Yet, since we are unaware of what our soul freely chose, from our perspective we are free-willed physical creations because we have the free-will and free-desire to determine how strongly we will desire and perfect being patient, kind, and motivated for the sake of peace and happiness.

Thoughts?
 
I don’t know that free will can be proven because of all the “buts” and “ands”.

I do think that free will can be experienced, since nothing is forcing someone to choose this or that in most cases. Dislikes and likes, and other parms may come into play, but then as a person is ready to make a choice, he thinks “this is too good to be true” and decides against it. So even tho many factors bear down their influence on the free will, the person can and does exorcise freedom. If this were not the case then we would be victims of fatalism, that is with no choice in any matter. But again, we experience differently most of the time.

Our society bases its laws on the idea that each individual is free and thereby responsible for their actions. From this a set of laws are developed to punish law breakers. So society is a testimony that freedom does exist and must assume responsibility for their actions.

Just a thought.
 
fred_conty said:
I don’t know that free will can be proven because of all the “buts” and “ands”.

I do think that free will can be experienced, since nothing is forcing someone to choose this or that in most cases. Dislikes and likes, and other parms may come into play, but then as a person is ready to make a choice, he thinks “this is too good to be true” and decides against it. So even tho many factors bear down their influence on the free will, the person can and does exorcise freedom. If this were not the case then we would be victims of fatalism, that is with no choice in any matter. But again, we experience differently most of the time.

Our society bases its laws on the idea that each individual is free and thereby responsible for their actions. From this a set of laws are developed to punish law breakers. So society is a testimony that freedom does exist and must assume responsibility for their actions.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
👍 If we can’t choose what to think how significant are anyone’s conclusions?!
 
jochoa said:
Excellent question! Please consider the following:
Free will is found in the souls of humans.

The soul is found in the thought of God. To recognize this, consider the following concepts:
A spirit can be defined as image, knowledge, and past-actions. Recognize that when you genuinely think of someone, you can only think of their exact image, the knowledge they have shared with you, and the past-actions from interactions with them. You are unable to give the thought of them free-will.

On the other hand, when God thinks of us, He is able give the thought of us free-will. Therefore, the spirit we think of, is the free-willed soul God thought of.

Now in God’s thoughtful creation of us, we are free-willed. However, in God’s physical creation of us, since everything happens exactly as He thought they would, our body is one with our spirit, and God knows what we will choose. Yet, since we are unaware of what our soul freely chose, from our perspective we are free-willed physical creations because we have the free-will and free-desire to determine how strongly we will desire and perfect being patient, kind, and motivated for the sake of peace and happiness.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
🙂 Free will is only an illusion for materialists!
 
tonyrey said:
👍 If we can’t choose what to think how significant are anyone’s conclusions?!
Click to expand...
Haha! I’ll answer this first because it’s so tasty looking.

Thoughts no longer signify the narrative or workings of the soul, they are simply things which happen which we seem to witness. However, they can still be true and they still mark off the point where decisions are formed (by the unconscious), so if anyone wants to know what we’re planning or what precisely is going on, they would find our thoughts are still very significant indeed. Just like a computer programmer would find learning C++ (or whatever it is now) highly significant.

Let’s say our choices are all fixed. In that case, your objection was just as unfree as my reply, so it is something for you to consider too!
 
There are other problems with free will apart from the difficulty of reconciling it with any combination of determinism or indeterminism - which no-one has attempted here apart from towards the beginning of the thread by a user who’s since disappeared(!)

These problems are to do with the internal consistency of the idea or definition of free will as well as with the concept of the self or soul that does the choosing.

The simplest way to express the former problem is that what we want to be true by free will seems self-contradictory. We seek to be uncaused causes of our own actions. Ie, free will says that in making a choice, we remove the point of deciding from the chain of antecedent causes, and yet still cause it ourselves.

This brings us on to question what [conceptually] is the self that does the causing? How can something seal itself off from antecedent causes at the moment necessary to ensure that resultant actions are not simply effects of the prior state of the universe? What causes it to seal itself off? Presumably the act of shielding a decision from antecedent causes is itself a caused event.

For those who say we can experience free will, there is the problem of the overlap of the means by which we choose and the stuff that composes the choosing part of ourselves. Both of these are made by thoughts! How can our self be composed of the very thing it is supposed to be influencing? It’s all shifting sand…

So those who say that we have a soul therefore we have free will need to address how this might happen, otherwise that answer just multiplies the unknowns and the problems. My personal belief is that even the Catechisms cannot answer these, so if anyone has a link that would be mighty handy.
 
Bobber90 said:
Haha! I’ll answer this first because it’s so tasty looking.

Thoughts no longer signify the narrative or workings of the soul, they are simply things which happen which we seem to witness. However, they can still be true and they still mark off the point where decisions are formed (by the unconscious), so if anyone wants to know what we’re planning or what precisely is going on, they would find our thoughts are still very significant indeed. Just like a computer programmer would find learning C++ (or whatever it is now) highly significant.
Click to expand...
They **can **still be true but they are far more likely to be false! There are immensely more false possibilities than true ones - like the number of arrows missing a target.
Let’s say our choices are all fixed. In that case, your objection was just as unfree as my reply, so it is something for you to consider too!
Click to expand...
It has been considered in my question:
“If we can’t choose what to think how significant are anyone’s conclusions?”

The success of science demonstrates that our thoughts are far more likely to be true than false when they are the result of** our undetermined conclusions, i.e. when we make a rational choice.**
 
tonyrey said:
They **can **still be true but they are far more likely to be false! There are immensely more false possibilities than true ones - like the number of arrows missing a target.
It has been considered in my question:
“If we can’t choose what to think how significant are anyone’s conclusions?”

The success of science demonstrates that our thoughts are far more likely to be true than false when they are the result of** our undetermined conclusions, i.e. when we make a rational choice.**
Click to expand...
It seemed as if by pointing out the consequences of no free will you sought to make free will possible! It was that implicit aim to which I was pointing by answering your objection. But yes, that’s just my assumption and clearly you have thought about that.

On the likelihood of truth/falsity of our beliefs - truth will prevail where it is important that it does because of a [deterministic] process of natural selection.

BTW, I’d be interested in what you make of post 149 as I know you are a believer in self-determinism and the soul.
 
Bobber90 said:
There are other problems with free will apart from the difficulty of reconciling it with any combination of determinism or indeterminism - which no-one has attempted here apart from towards the beginning of the thread by a user who’s since disappeared(!)

These problems are to do with the internal consistency of the idea or definition of free will as well as with the concept of the self or soul that does the choosing.
Click to expand...
I am inclined to think (and, yes, I recognise the potential for irony in my words here) that it is the latter - the concept of self - that makes free will, as a concept, so difficult to grasp. The philosophical tendency is to refer to the ‘self’ as what Dennett calls the ‘Cartesian Theatre’, a location for the self that is so small and so removed from other influences that it can be considered ‘free’ in the same way that a supernatural soul might be considered ‘free’ of physical influences. As you know, Dennett disparages this idea.
The simplest way to express the former problem is that what we want to be true by free will seems self-contradictory. We seek to be uncaused causes of our own actions. Ie, free will says that in making a choice, we remove the point of deciding from the chain of antecedent causes, and yet still cause it ourselves.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if I’m oversimplifiying here, but I would suppose that if the collection of causes perceived and then brought to bear by my brain and body are the precedent for a particular configuration of physical reality, then I can claim to have brought about that configuration. It is something for which I am responsible, even if I am not some nonphysical homunculus attached to my physical body.
This brings us on to question what [conceptually] is the self that does the causing? How can something seal itself off from antecedent causes at the moment necessary to ensure that resultant actions are not simply effects of the prior state of the universe? What causes it to seal itself off? Presumably the act of shielding a decision from antecedent causes is itself a caused event.
Click to expand...
Quite so. But the prior state of the universe includes the prior state of us. We can’t separate ourselves from the prior state of the universe, because whatever the state of “us” is, it is part of the antecedent cause of any subsequent action. It is only the clinging notion of Cartesian dualism that allows us to separate ourselves from the web of causality preceding and enveloping our every action.
For those who say we can experience free will, there is the problem of the overlap of the means by which we choose and the stuff that composes the choosing part of ourselves. Both of these are made by thoughts! How can our self be composed of the very thing it is supposed to be influencing? It’s all shifting sand…
Click to expand...
By the same token, how can our *self *even exist independently of the causal web? If the choosing part of ourselves - whatever part that is - is somehow removed from this web, how could it ever have any effect? Again, there is the problem of perception - the Cartesian ideal of the self as an entity standing apart from physical, causal reality is untenable if there are demonstrable influences bearing upon our decision-making.
 
Bobber90 said:
They can still be true but they are far more likely to be false! There are immensely more false possibilities than true ones - like the number of arrows missing a target.
It has been considered in my question:
“If we can’t choose what to think how significant are anyone’s conclusions?”
Click to expand...
Free will is not only possible but an essential condition of rationality.
On the likelihood of truth/falsity of our beliefs - truth will prevail where it is important that it does because of a [deterministic] process of natural selection.
Click to expand...
There is never any guarantee that the truth will prevail. Many species have become extinct because natural selection is a blind process.

The fact remains that in the quest for truth there are immensely more possibilities of failure than success - especially when insight and understanding are absent.
BTW, I’d be interested in what you make of post 149 as I know you are a believer in self-determinism and the soul.
Click to expand...
I shall respond to it.
Click to expand...
 
Sair said:
I am inclined to think (and, yes, I recognise the potential for irony in my words here) that it is the latter - the concept of self - that makes free will, as a concept, so difficult to grasp. The philosophical tendency is to refer to the ‘self’ as what Dennett calls the ‘Cartesian Theatre’, a location for the self that is so small and so removed from other influences that it can be considered ‘free’ in the same way that a supernatural soul might be considered ‘free’ of physical influences. As you know, Dennett disparages this idea.
Click to expand...
Yes I think that is exactly the problem, having to create a source or seat of us which is fundamentally unconnected with all the other manifest influences on our behaviour, from mood to physiology. I don’t think such a view works, though removing the self has difficult social consequences!
Sair said:
I don’t know if I’m oversimplifiying here, but I would suppose that if the collection of causes perceived and then brought to bear by my brain and body are the precedent for a particular configuration of physical reality, then I can claim to have brought about that configuration. It is something for which I am responsible, even if I am not some nonphysical homunculus attached to my physical body.
Click to expand...
That’s the thing though - I don’t think we can claim ownership of anything we conventionally say we do. Dennett says we should have a more encompassing view of ourselves, but frankly, where can we legitimately place the boundaries (however wide) if we accept there is no homunculus? You make a good case for this when you say that:
Sair said:
[T]he prior state of the universe includes the prior state of us. We can’t separate ourselves from the prior state of the universe, because whatever the state of “us” is, it is part of the antecedent cause of any subsequent action. It is only the clinging notion of Cartesian dualism that allows us to separate ourselves from the web of causality preceding and enveloping our every action.
Click to expand...
To put it practically, if there is no logically consistent homunculus, nor one which survives introspection or experimental testing, then the ‘self’ is simply a label applied to a portion of causes/effects arbitrarily located within an ongoing, monolithic stream. So if ‘we’ are held responsible for ‘our’ actions, which bit of ‘us’/the stream is going to be punished, and why?
 
tonyrey said:
That is a unsubstantiated assumption.
Click to expand...
That is the challenge. If we are considering a self/soul with respect to free will choices, then either it is a non-conscious causer of thoughts (like Harris’s account of the free will illusion), or it is a conscious causer of non-conscious mental activity (yet we are supposed to be aware of the outcome of our free will decisions). The self cannot be a consciously thinking cause of conscious thoughts, because that requires too much of a single unit: both that it manipulates and that it is manipulated consciously by its own actions.
 
tonyrey said:
Free will is not only possible but an essential condition of rationality.
Click to expand...
Not at all! Rationality doesn’t need free will. Let’s say that I am feeling hungry through no act of will, and I want to eat something. I have knowledge of how to prepare the requisite food, so I behave rationally with respect to this goal by preparing the food. No free will.
tonyrey said:
There is never any guarantee that the truth will prevail. Many species have become extinct because natural selection is a blind process.
Click to expand...
Natural selection is the non-random propagation of specific random variations, so if truth matters, it will be selected for or we will die! As you say, natural selection is as good at removing failure as promoting survival.
tonyrey said:
The fact remains that in the quest for truth there are immensely more possibilities of failure than success - especially when insight and understanding are absent.
Click to expand...
Insight and understanding are interesting things, often assumed to be impossible of a deterministic thing like a computer (eg the Chinese room thought experiment). But what is so special about understanding something rather than possessing the simple ability to return correct responses to certain stimuli? I think understanding is the attachment of emotion to stimuli-response pairings. If a computer enjoyed success in matching stimulus to response, felt fear, associated certain data with parts of a narrative of its own development, it would feel meaning and hence possess understanding. What that assertion means is that we do not need to be conscious to understand, nor do we need free will to possess insight, and certainly we don’t need insight/emotion/understanding to produce the truth or act rationally.
 
Bobber90 said:
Free will is not only possible but an essential condition of rationality.
Click to expand...
Do you always act according to the way you feel? Can’t you compel yourself to abstain from food if you realise you are overweight?
There is never any guarantee that the truth will prevail. Many species have become extinct because natural selection is a blind process.
Click to expand...
Natural selection is the non-random propagation of specific random variations, so if truth matters, it will be selected for or we will die! As you say, natural selection is as good at removing failure as promoting survival.
Click to expand...

Many intelligent species have become extinct whereas simple organisms without intelligence have survived. So much for the power of natural selection and the need for truth! As Stephen Hawking recently pointed out,** intelligence prejudices the chances of survival.** And instincts often prove to be a honey trap, i.e. a death trap. Blind chance is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the origin of rationality.
The fact remains that in the quest for truth there are immensely more possibilities of failure than success - especially when insight and understanding are absent.
Insight and understanding are interesting things, often assumed to be impossible of a deterministic thing like a computer (eg the Chinese room thought experiment). But what is so special about understanding something rather than possessing the simple ability to return correct responses to certain stimuli? I think understanding is the attachment of emotion to stimuli-response pairings. If a computer enjoyed success in matching stimulus to response, felt fear, associated certain data with parts of a narrative of its own development, it would feel meaning and hence possess understanding. What that assertion means is that we do not need to be conscious to understand, nor do we need free will to possess insight, and certainly we don’t need insight/emotion/understanding to produce the truth or act rationally.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence whatsoever that your fantasy could become a reality. Nor can you produce one jot of evidence for any of your assertions. Nor have you explained what your notion of truth is…
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top