Impossibility of free will

[jochoa]

That is, we cannot author our own intentions.

Please consider the following:

Given that intention is defined by Merriam-Webster as a determination to act a certain way; Google defines it as an aim or plan; and Dictionary.com defines it as an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result.

Given Merriam-Webster’s definition, one must choose to act a certain way.
Given Google’s definition, one can change their plans and aim.
Given Dictionary.com’s definition, one must mentally choose how to act.

All three definitions indicate the ability to author our own intentions. Since we can independently author our thoughts, intentions, and what we will, then it is safe to say our will is free.

 

[ASimon]

Please consider the following:

Given that intention is defined by Merriam-Webster as a determination to act a certain way; Google defines it as an aim or plan; and Dictionary.com defines it as an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result.

Given Merriam-Webster’s definition, one must choose to act a certain way.
Given Google’s definition, one can change their plans and aim.
Given Dictionary.com’s definition, one must mentally choose how to act.

All three definitions indicate the ability to author our own intentions. Since we can independently author our thoughts, intentions, and what we will, then it is safe to say our will is free.

Once again, if you really think the dictionary is ultimate repository for knowledge on the state of reality, I really would suggest you ditch the Bible study and just read the dictionary to one another on Sunday mornings.

None of these definitions can get behind my previous assertion. We do make choices (insofar as that we do certain things and not others), but this is a necessary condition of being alive. We often, but not always, choose what we consciously intend to choose. But in no case do we author the intention to choose what we intend to choose. To do this would require a “will” that is totally independent of our genetics, upbringing, and experience. Nobody can even assert where such a “free will” would come from, much less prove that we have it.

 

[jochoa]

But in no case do we author the intention to choose what we intend to choose.

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. Please consider the following request: Can you give me an example of an intention to choose what we intend to choose?

 

[tonyrey]

*On a false charge! In that case the verdict should be "**Not guilty ***

What is there?

If you’ve stalked and killed somebody, regardless of whether you authored the intention to do it, the state has an interest in locking you up (to keep you from doing it again).Trying to finangle the wording of the verdict into something like “Guilty, but not really” or “Not guilty, but still” only muddies the waters unnecessarily.

You are the one who is muddying the waters because you equate killing with being a crime even if everyone who kills is compelled to kill without having any choice in the matter. Do you regard a person as being in the same category as a computer?
If not why not?

The only people who find this thinking unacceptable are people who think the justice system is designed to only be a tool for emotionally-based retribution.

Not only untrue but also irrelevant!

 

[ASimon]

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. Please consider the following request: Can you give me an example of an intention to choose what we intend to choose?

That isn’t quite how I worded it, so I’m not totally sure what you’re asking me for. But if you’re asking the difference between a choice we’ve intended to choose and a choice we haven’t intended to choose, it’s the difference between instincts (pulling your hand off a hot stove), and everything else (pizza for dinner instead of salad).

 

[ASimon]

What is there?

What is there what?

You are the one who is muddying the waters because you equate killing with being a crime even if everyone who kills is compelled to kill without having any choice in the matter. Do you regard a person as being in the same category as a computer?
If not why not?

As I said before, determinism does not invalidate morality. Actions can be right or wrong. Some wrong actions are considered crimes, according to our legal system. If you commit a crime, you can be punished for it without being logically incoherent. If you commit premeditated murder, then you are the kind of person who’s DNA, upbringing, and experience has made you someone who’s willing and able to plan a murder and then commit it. We have good reason to lock you up, as someone who’s capable of doing this once can be just as capable (or even moreso) of doing it again.

Incidentally, when a tornado rips through a town, killing all manner of innocent people, we don’t treat the tornado like an intelligent agent of chaos and murder. But if we could throw the tornado in jail to keep it from being a tornado, then we would, wouldn’t we?

No computer can do what it’s not programmed to do. And neither can people.

Not only untrue but also irrelevant!

It’s neither and nor.

 

[jochoa]

That isn’t quite how I worded it, so I’m not totally sure what you’re asking me for.

I apologize for not wording it exactly as you did. You are correct, in that you stated, “…the intention…” and I asked you for “…an intention…” Therefore, what do you claim is the intention we cannot author?

But if you’re asking the difference between a choice we’ve intended to choose and a choice we haven’t intended to choose, it’s the difference between instincts (pulling your hand off a hot stove), and everything else (pizza for dinner instead of salad).

Once again, if you really think the dictionary is ultimate repository for knowledge on the state of reality, I really would suggest you ditch the Bible study and just read the dictionary to one another on Sunday mornings.

None of these definitions can get behind my previous assertion. We do make choices (insofar as that we do certain things and not others), but this is a necessary condition of being alive. We often, but not always, choose what we consciously intend to choose. But in no case do we author the intention to choose what we intend to choose. To do this would require a “will” that is totally independent of our genetics, upbringing, and experience. Nobody can even assert where such a “free will” would come from, much less prove that we have it.

a

 

[jochoa]

That isn’t quite how I worded it, so I’m not totally sure what you’re asking me for. But if you’re asking the difference between a choice we’ve intended to choose and a choice we haven’t intended to choose, it’s the difference between instincts (pulling your hand off a hot stove), and everything else (pizza for dinner instead of salad).

And the ability to author the intention we haven’t intended to choose is gracefully demonstrated for us by the brilliance of Jesus Christ embracing His Crucifixion! Please consider the following concepts regarding “The Blood of the New Covenant”:

When Jesus was treated with unjust impatience, meanness, and cruelty, even to the point of death, not only did He return the impatience and meanness with patience and kindness, He wanted to do it. To be able to want to return the impatience and meanness with patience and kindness, He had to author the intention to choose what He intended to choose.

The guiding intention to choose what we intend to choose is the desire to will what is necessary to maintain peace and happiness.
Given a world of mistakes which cause offense, peace and happiness can only be maintained and restored with acts of patience and kindness. Since there is peace and happiness in the world, we are all somewhat patient and kind. However, some of us force ourselves to be patient and kind in the face of impatience and meanness because of the authorities and laws which govern us. The trouble is that in forcing ourselves to be patient and kind, we, ourselves, will lose peace and happiness because we are not truly doing what we want to do. Therefore, we must author the intention to either want or not want to choose to do that which is best for the peace and happiness of all.

In conclusion…
The Blood of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ has shown that if we choose to want to choose to be patient and kind for the intention of the experience of happiness with an unbreakable peace for all by embracing the cross of being patient and kind in the face of impatience and meanness, we will rejoice with Him in the Fullness of Heaven sooner than later because He can trust that the peace of our relationships and self will be unbreakable, while still being able to experience happiness.

Thank you greatly, my friend! Our discussion has led to great insight for myself. I look forward to further discussion as to gain greater wisdom!

 

[sandomenico]

ASimon,

Why can a man not author his own decisions? Because he does not have a will? Or because he does not have a will that is itself independent of his “being” (DNA, upbringing, etc…)?

God love you,
sandomenico

 

[ASimon]

And the ability to author the intention we haven’t intended to choose is gracefully demonstrated for us by the brilliance of Jesus Christ embracing His Crucifixion! Please consider the following concepts regarding “The Blood of the New Covenant”:

When Jesus was treated with unjust impatience, meanness, and cruelty, even to the point of death, not only did He return the impatience and meanness with patience and kindness, He wanted to do it. To be able to want to return the impatience and meanness with patience and kindness, He had to author the intention to choose what He intended to choose.

The guiding intention to choose what we intend to choose is the desire to will what is necessary to maintain peace and happiness.
Given a world of mistakes which cause offense, peace and happiness can only be maintained and restored with acts of patience and kindness. Since there is peace and happiness in the world, we are all somewhat patient and kind. However, some of us force ourselves to be patient and kind in the face of impatience and meanness because of the authorities and laws which govern us. The trouble is that in forcing ourselves to be patient and kind, we, ourselves, will lose peace and happiness because we are not truly doing what we want to do. Therefore, we must author the intention to either want or not want to choose to do that which is best for the peace and happiness of all.

In conclusion…
The Blood of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ has shown that if we choose to want to choose to be patient and kind for the intention of the experience of happiness with an unbreakable peace for all by embracing the cross of being patient and kind in the face of impatience and meanness, we will rejoice with Him in the Fullness of Heaven sooner than later because He can trust that the peace of our relationships and self will be unbreakable, while still being able to experience happiness.

Thank you greatly, my friend! Our discussion has led to great insight for myself. I look forward to further discussion as to gain greater wisdom!

Bringing up Jesus’s example doesn’t serve any real purpose here. While I’m happy to grant (for the purposes of argument) that the figure of Christ depicted in the Gospels was probably based on a real person, I concede nothing further regarding the man’s alleged divinity, the circumstances of his life, his death, or his alleged resurrection. In short, I have good reason to doubt that the actions attributed to Christ ever even happened, to say nothing of his motivations for acting the way he did.

You’re on slightly firmer ground when you speak about the desire for peace and happiness that we all seek, but again, I don’t see this as any real challenge to my initial assertion. People often make the argument that, by acting well in the face of temptation to act badly, they are demonstrating free will. But hardly ever, I notice, do they make the same argument in reverse. In any case, this is, itself, an illusion. How do you account for the fact that you value patience and kindness in the world? When did you choose to value it? The answer is, you didn’t. You learned, probably at a very young age, that a world where everyone practices patience and kindness is better than one where they don’t. Better in what sense? The only sense in which we can speak coherently about “better” - when we talk about changes in our conscious experience of the world. We are hardwired to act in ways that improve our conscious experience of the world. Some of us do it better than others - this having much to do with how well our assumptions about the world around us track with reality. But in no case do we get ourselves out from underneath our hardwired impulses to live a life better than the one we’re living now.

 

[ASimon]

ASimon,

Why can a man not author his own decisions? Because he does not have a will? Or because he does not have a will that is itself independent of his “being” (DNA, upbringing, etc…)?

God love you,
sandomenico

Man does not have a will, much less a free will capable of acting independent of the influences of his DNA, upbringing, and experiences.

 

[tonyrey]

What is there what?

You stated:

I won’t say that determinism has no implications at all for jurisprudence, but there isn’t very much that we would need to jettison.

What do we need to jettison?

You are the one who is muddying the waters because you equate killing with being a crime even if everyone who kills is compelled to kill without having any choice in the matter. Do you regard a person as being in the same category as a computer?
If not why not?

As I said before, determinism does not invalidate morality. Actions can be right or wrong. Some wrong actions are considered crimes, according to our legal system. If you commit a crime, you can be punished for it without being logically incoherent.

You are overlooking the legal presumption of responsibility.

If you commit premeditated murder, then you are the kind of person who’s DNA, upbringing, and experience has made you someone who’s willing and able to plan a murder and then commit it. We have good reason to lock you up, as someone who’s capable of doing this once can be just as capable (or even moreso) of doing it again.

You are assuming that only those whose DNA, upbringing, and experience are conducive to plan and commit a murder do so. How do you justify that assumption?

Incidentally, when a tornado rips through a town, killing all manner of innocent people, we don’t treat the tornado like an intelligent agent of chaos and murder. But if we could throw the tornado in jail to keep it from being a tornado, then we would, wouldn’t we?

A tornado and a person are hardly in the same category! Do you treat your family and friends like dangerous natural phenomena?

No computer can do what it’s not programmed to do. And neither can people.

Is every conclusion and decision you reach entirely beyond your control?

 

[Sair]

Man does not have a will, much less a free will capable of acting independent of the influences of his DNA, upbringing, and experiences.

Indeed, if the will operated independently of everything else that constitutes a person, it’s hard to say how this could be that person’s will in any meaningful sense.

 

[tonyrey]

Man does not have a will, much less a free will capable of acting independent of the influences of his DNA, upbringing, and experiences.

1. The will doesn’t operate independently of everything else.
2. A person is not a biological machine composed of parts but **a rational being **who cannot be explained atomistically.
3. If analysis is not supplemented by synthesis one has a defective view of reality which deprives it of all value, meaning, purpose and raison d’etre.
4. Reality inevitably becomes absurd - not because it is absurd but because one’s explanation is inadequate.

 

[PRmerger]

How do you account for the fact that you value patience and kindness in the world? When did you choose to value it? The answer is, you didn’t. We are hardwired to act in ways that improve our conscious experience of the world.

Heh. This is very Catholic of you to say, Simon.

St. Paul tells us as much:

Originally posted by Paul of Tarsus: They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them.

We just know, instinctively, that patience and kindness are good, and that injustice and malice are bad. How? Because of the natural law written in our hearts. AKA our hearts are “hardwired” to know what is good and what is bad.

Some of us do it better than others - this having much to do with how well our assumptions about the world around us track with reality. But in no case do we get ourselves out from underneath our hardwired impulses to live a life better than the one we’re living now.

Again, very Catholic of you to say!

And I submit that those who “do it better than others” are Christians.

 

[jochoa]

Bringing up Jesus’s example doesn’t serve any real purpose here.

Thank you very much for further discussion! Please consider the following:
When one seeks to generate the experience of happiness with unbreakable peace in all relationships, including the self, all of the Truths of Catholicism will become evident. However, you must freely choose to will the seeking of how to make that happen. I could proceed without referring to Jesus Christ because these concepts are based on the Natural Law written on human nature, however, if I did, I would be taking credit for the work He did, knows, and put in place.

People often make the argument that, by acting well in the face of temptation to act badly, they are demonstrating free will. But hardly ever, I notice, do they make the same argument in reverse.

The reason the reverse is not demonstrating free will is because it is instinctual. If you would define your terms further, we could have a more objective discussion regarding this. For example, if acting well, meant being patient and kind; temptation meant a natural desire to do something; and acting badly meant acting impatiently and/or meanly.
-Then if one freely chose to act patiently and kindly in the face of naturally desiring to act impatiently and meanly, then one demonstrated free will because s/he went against instinct.
-And if one freely chooses to act impatiently and meanly in the face of naturally desiring to act impatiently and meanly, then there is no change in will given natural instinct, therefore no free will.

How do you account for the fact that you value patience and kindness in the world?

I learned the following part of the Law of Love:
-Patience gets Peace: The instance one is impatient in any form, there is a disturbance. Since peace is freedom from disturbance, impatience loses peace.
-Kindness gets Happiness: When living, one is forced by natural law to seek to fulfill various wants/desires. Fulfilling a want/desire achieve contentment to intense joy. Any act which attempts to fulfill a want/desire is an act of kindness. Therefore, kindness is required to experience any degree of happiness, where happiness is contentment to intense joy.
Therefore, since I valued to experience the greatest happiness without ever losing any peace, I value mastering and perfecting patience and kindness.

When did you choose to value it?

The moment I initially chose to value peace and happiness for all relationships and self through the powers of personal patience and kindness was when my marriage was facing some of its greatest struggles.

Better in what sense? The only sense in which we can speak coherently about “better” - when we talk about changes in our conscious experience of the world. We are hardwired to act in ways that improve our conscious experience of the world.

And this is why God made us to partake in His Blessed Life. So that we can search for a greater happiness than perfect happiness without losing peace. In doing so, we will search for a limitless happiness without any loss of peace for anyone. In doing so, we will have all the Truths of Catholicism revealed to us. In doing so, we will learn why Creation and the Word has been so complicated!

 

[ASimon]

What do we need to jettison?

Mostly the concept of retribution, and the emotional basis for it. The emotional “blame game” that is such a common response to immoral acts no longer makes any sense if we acknowledge that people do not choose what they choose. Granted, this may never be easy, as I think we are hardwired to react with disgust when something disgusts us, and then to project and personalize that emotion, but I think it’s doable, and I suspect we’ll ultimately be happier if we can succeed with this project.

You are overlooking the legal presumption of responsibility.

Because the legal presumption of responsibility is false. Obviously, the U.S. justice system operates under this presumption, but they’re wrong. That’s the bad news. The good news is, we needn’t overthrow everything about the justice system in light of this new understanding.

You are assuming that only those whose DNA, upbringing, and experience are conducive to plan and commit a murder do so. How do you justify that assumption?

It’s self-evident. If you murder someone, you were unlucky enough to possess the specific pieces necessary to make it happen. If you don’t murder someone, then clearly you were missing a certain piece or pieces.

A tornado and a person are hardly in the same category! Do you treat your family and friends like dangerous natural phenomena?

I probably would if they were dangerous. Look, I love my mother, but if a brain tumor manifested on her frontal lobe and she began exhibiting psychopathic tendencies, I’d want her put somewhere where she couldn’t hurt anybody. Any intelligent person would understand the link between the tumor and her behavior, and few would act as though she was truly responsible for what she did. But that doesn’t change the fact that she’d be a danger to others as well as herself.

And so it is with natural disasters. We don’t think of earthquakes as having “wills” of their own to do everything they do. But that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t throw an earthquake in jail if we could.

Is every conclusion and decision you reach entirely beyond your control?

Yes.

 

[tonyrey]

What do we need to jettison?
Mostly the concept of retribution, and the emotional basis for it. The emotional “blame game” that is such a common response to immoral acts no longer makes any sense if we acknowledge that people do not choose what they choose. Granted, this may never be easy, as I think we are hardwired to react with disgust when something disgusts us, and then to project and personalize that emotion, but I think it’s doable, and I suspect we’ll ultimately be happier if we can succeed with this project.

In other words we should regard everyone - including ourselves - as robots who cannot even think for themselves?

You are overlooking the legal presumption of responsibility.

Because the legal presumption of responsibility is false. Obviously, the U.S. justice system operates under this presumption, but they’re wrong. That’s the bad news. The good news is, we needn’t overthrow everything about the justice system in light of this new understanding.

The legal presumption of responsibility is not confined to the US but universal. Who are the authorities for this “new understanding”? Materialism as old as the hills!

You are assuming that only those whose DNA, upbringing, and experience are conducive to plan and commit a murder do so. How do you justify that assumption?

It’s self-evident. If you murder someone, you were unlucky enough to possess the specific pieces necessary to make it happen. If you don’t murder someone, then clearly you were missing a certain piece or pieces.

Assuming persons are impotent cogs in a machine…

A tornado and a person are hardly in the same category! Do you treat your family and friends like dangerous natural phenomena?

I probably would if they were dangerous. Look, I love my mother, but if a brain tumor manifested on her frontal lobe and she began exhibiting psychopathic tendencies, I’d want her put somewhere where she couldn’t hurt anybody. Any intelligent person would understand the link between the tumor and her behavior, and few would act as though she was truly responsible for what she did. But that doesn’t change the fact that she’d be a danger to others as well as herself.

The issue is not a diseased but a normal person.

And so it is with natural disasters. We don’t think of earthquakes as having “wills” of their own to do everything they do. But that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t throw an earthquake in jail if we could.

So you are not even weak-willed but have no mind of your own?

Is every conclusion and decision you reach entirely beyond your control?

Yes.

The problem then will be not how, if we engage in it, reason can be valid, but how, if it is universally valid, we can engage in it… Probably the most popular nonsubjectivistic answer nowadays is an evolutionary naturalism: We can reason in these ways because it is a consequence of a more primitive capacity of belief’s formation that had survival value during the period when the human brain was evolving. This explanation has always seemed to me to be laughably inadequate…

Thomas Nagel (atheist) - The Last Word

He is Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at New York University, well known for his critique of reductionist accounts of the mind in his essay “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” (1974) - well worth reading, clear and short:

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xjzxG-IFINUJrganizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf+%22What+Is+It+Like+to+Be+a+Bat?%22&hl=en&gl=uk

But then my suggestion is useless because you are convinced we don’t have a mind, let alone an open one! You’re compelled to think you’re a collection of purposeless particles which just happen to exist…

 

[ASimon]

In other words we should regard everyone - including ourselves - as robots who cannot even think for themselves?

We don’t choose what we choose, and we don’t choose what we think. Your appeals to facile emotionality do not serve your argument in the slightest.

The legal presumption of responsibility is not confined to the US but universal. Who are the authorities for this “new understanding”? Materialism as old as the hills!

But neuroscience is in its relative infancy, and we now we have hard scientific evidence that all our choices are decided in advance of the conscious impulses we feel to act. Sometimes well in advance.

Assuming persons are impotent cogs in a machine…

No substance here - appeal to emotionality.

The issue is not a diseased but a normal person.

No, the issue is anyone or anything with the potential to cause harm to others, either because they’ve done so already, or because it’s in their nature (as natural disasters, or as people with brain tumors in the wrong place). The point again, is to show that we don’t need to resort to arguments for “free will” to justify punishment of people.

 

[tonyrey]

In other words we should regard everyone - including ourselves - as robots who cannot even think for themselves?

If you don’t choose what to think your assertions are irrational!

Your appeals to facile emotionality do not serve your argument in the slightest.

Your ad hominem (which is also false) weakens your argument considerably.

The legal presumption of responsibility is not confined to the US but universal. Who are the authorities for this “new understanding”?

No response!

Materialism as old as the hills!

But neuroscience is in its relative infancy…

Which explains the infantile nature of materialism!

…, and we now we have hard scientific evidence that all our choices are decided in advance of the conscious impulses we feel to act. Sometimes well in advance.

An invalid deduction from the observation that our choices are related to neuronal events: the fallacy that correlation proves causation.

Assuming persons are impotent cogs in a machine…

No substance here - appeal to emotionality.

False! It is an objective statement based on the fact that the mechanistic explanation of persons is a physicalist doctrine.

The issue is not a diseased but a normal person.

No, the issue is anyone or anything with the potential to cause harm to others, either because they’ve done so already, or because it’s in their nature (as natural disasters, or as people with brain tumors in the wrong place). The point again, is to show that we don’t need to resort to arguments for “free will” to justify punishment of people.

An invalid generalisation which entails self-contradiction with its “or because it’s in their nature either” - which implies it is not in everyone’s nature!

It is also unjust to imprison individuals on the ground that they have the potential to cause harm to others - reminiscent of Hitler and Stalin…