Problems with free will, possibility, and causality

[blase6]

I vote for the later.

I have seen a common thread where you make a statement as fact, assuming the reader must agree with you because you state it. Most of the time “the will” chooses what is convenient, not what is best. Especially in the western culture, where sociologically we are hedonistic in our pursuits.

I reiterate it as fact because it is so obvious to me, that I have a great deal of trouble explaining it to others. Examine your reasons for a chosen action, and you should find that the reason you followed had some desirable advantage over the other motives. This is what I mean by “the best choice”.

No, no, no. Determinism is NOT a fact in evidence with Causality, the arguments is far beyond that point. Just by saying you can have A or C but not both ignores the B. Even if by definition A and C are opposite, does not indicate that a middle position B does not exist.

Either determinism applies to everything or it does not. There is no other logical option in this case. Anything that is not deterministic can only be understood as some kind of “random” event. And that does not allow for freedom.

In this case, you ignore the creative. Free will is the creative you ignore, and it is neither determined nor random.

I’m not sure what you mean by “creative”.

And in this we see the need to argue. It is not the best you seek, but the conversion of others to your viewpoint.

Yes, I am compelled by my desire to make myself understood. That is the best in my view.

I choose not to believe you. Not because it was determined, not because it is random, but because I choose.

What ultimately made you choose? Yourself? That is not evident.

Determinism is not just. Random is not just. Free will is just. And no, justice is not a determined or random concept.

Again, things in this world are either deterministic or random. I don’t see the possibility of an alternative.

 

[NeuralMonk]

Again, things in this world are either deterministic or random. I don’t see the possibility of an alternative.

blase6, I think for all our bantering, at the end, we come to the crux of the difference. Thank you for sharing that most insightful comment.

What is your best definition of deterministic? It seems to me that your discussions you speak of determinism as the choice being the only choice allowed by cosmic law/decree/logic.

The contra idea is randomism, which would be there is no law/decree/logic predicating an outcome. I am feeling you reject this because it is in the category of absolute knowledge.

Is that accurate?

 

[tdgesq]

I am not convinced that such a situation can happen. There will always be some aspect of one motive determining why it is chosen.

Well, you would need to demonstrate why such a situation is impossible. Experience again shows us that this happens not infrequently. I might have three distinct possibilities all based on reason that appear equally good. At that point, a choice is made. The explanation for the particular choice may very well be, “because that’s the option I wanted to take. They all look equally valid to me.” You hear it all the time.

 

[blase6]

blase6, I think for all our bantering, at the end, we come to the crux of the difference. Thank you for sharing that most insightful comment.

What is your best definition of deterministic? It seems to me that your discussions you speak of determinism as the choice being the only choice allowed by cosmic law/decree/logic.

Determinism is where in a chain of events, an event is necessitated by the event preceding it, and necessitates the one succeeding it. In a deterministic chain of events, X brings forth Y, which brings forth Z. Y is the immediate cause of Z, but X is the ultimate cause of Z. It seems this way for everything. God creates persons in their environment and disposition, and those persons choose depending on their specific awareness and disposition. There is no room for free will.

The contra idea is randomism, which would be there is no law/decree/logic predicating an outcome. I am feeling you reject this because it is in the category of absolute knowledge.

If my decisions are truly random, then I cannot have real hope, because my fate is not decided by myself, but by chance. It does not take into account my own disposition if my choice is random.

Is that accurate?

 

[blase6]

Well, you would need to demonstrate why such a situation is impossible. Experience again shows us that this happens not infrequently. I might have three distinct possibilities all based on reason that appear equally good. At that point, a choice is made. The explanation for the particular choice may very well be, “because that’s the option I wanted to take. They all look equally valid to me.” You hear it all the time.

It seems like it is just a superficial idea that all the options are equally desirable. There really is no way to tell that. There is always a slight advantage to one option, why it will be chosen. People may not be aware of that, though. I think that if such a moment of all motives being equally desirable was possible, it would only put the person in a state of entire confusion. As soon as one motive appeared more desirable than the others, then a choice could be made.

 

[John_Martin]

Determinism is where in a chain of events, an event is necessitated by the event preceding it, and necessitates the one succeeding it. In a deterministic chain of events, X brings forth Y, which brings forth Z. Y is the immediate cause of Z, but X is the ultimate cause of Z. It seems this way for everything. God creates persons in their environment and disposition, and those persons choose depending on their specific awareness and disposition. There is no room for free will.
…
If my decisions are truly random, then I cannot have real hope, because my fate is not decided by myself, but by chance. It does not take into account my own disposition if my choice is random.

There is, in humans, “will” and “free will”.

The first, will, is directed toward what is absolutely loved, what is considered “good to be united to or to become one with”, it is not caused but instead a conclusion of reason that something is desirable to me without reference to an ulterior use of what it is. Will does not have to do with desiring to drive my car with the ulterior motive that this will bring me to my home where I can relax.

Free will has to do with choices of means to effect an end that is desirable. The “means”, the object chosen by free will, is not desired as an end in itself and is not (necessarily) a desirable or lovable thing. If my love (will) is to be united to my LazyBoy, my will is like Captain Picard: “Make it so”, and my free will is like Jonathan Frakes examining whether to use the shuttle or the transporter. But reason then evaluates the alternatives to know or predict the value to the desired end.

The actual choice was the transporter, but not random (Number One wanted to fly the shuttle), but the Captain (reason) realized that the First Officer only wanted that for his own benefit of getting off the ship also, and the Captain did not wish to have company while reclining, but be alone in silence. The desire for the good (will) moderated the choice of means (free will). And the desire for good (will) is identified in the intellect which is created to want truth and to reason on its goodness as to desirability.

You might say it is random as to what we call “true” or “good”, yet our created makeup of being rational means we actually evaluate, via reason, what is actually true and good, rather than have a pre-determined definition. Our understanding of true and good is not genetically caused, but rationally evaluated. And then we Love it (move to union with it, command “Make it so!”)

 

[Bahman]

You are in trap of determinism thinking that what is true for objective reality we observe is applicable to all aspects of reality.

 

[blase6]

There is, in humans, “will” and “free will”.

The first, will, is directed toward what is absolutely loved, what is considered “good to be united to or to become one with”, it is not caused but instead a conclusion of reason that something is desirable to me without reference to an ulterior use of what it is. Will does not have to do with desiring to drive my car with the ulterior motive that this will bring me to my home where I can relax.

Free will has to do with choices of means to effect an end that is desirable. The “means”, the object chosen by free will, is not desired as an end in itself and is not (necessarily) a desirable or lovable thing. If my love (will) is to be united to my LazyBoy, my will is like Captain Picard: “Make it so”, and my free will is like Jonathan Frakes examining whether to use the shuttle or the transporter. But reason then evaluates the alternatives to know or predict the value to the desired end.

The actual choice was the transporter, but not random (Number One wanted to fly the shuttle), but the Captain (reason) realized that the First Officer only wanted that for his own benefit of getting off the ship also, and the Captain did not wish to have company while reclining, but be alone in silence. The desire for the good (will) moderated the choice of means (free will). And the desire for good (will) is identified in the intellect which is created to want truth and to reason on its goodness as to desirability.

You might say it is random as to what we call “true” or “good”, yet our created makeup of being rational means we actually evaluate, via reason, what is actually true and good, rather than have a pre-determined definition. Our understanding of true and good is not genetically caused, but rationally evaluated. And then we Love it (move to union with it, command “Make it so!”)

According to your description then, all evil is the result of ignorance on part of a person. If every person had an infinite understanding of what is truly good, then they would always pick it. Sorry, but you aren’t making any excellent argument for free will, other than simply stating that it exists.

 

[blase6]

You are in trap of determinism thinking that what is true for objective reality we observe is applicable to all aspects of reality.

…Thus you are implying that the spiritual world is not objective reality.

 

[Bahman]

…Thus you are implying that the spiritual world is not objective reality.

No, I didn’t say so, yet spiritual world is not accessible to many.

 

[blase6]

No, I didn’t say so, yet spiritual world is not accessible to many.

objective does not mean physical. It just means apart from individual observation. (The opposite of subjective)

And I don’t really know what you mean by the “spiritual world is not accessible to many”.

 

[Bahman]

objective does not mean physical. It just means apart from individual observation. (The opposite of subjective)

That I am aware. But for many people the only objective reality is physical reality.

And I don’t really know what you mean by the “spiritual world is not accessible to many”.

I meant some people have no access to spiritual world.

 

[blase6]

That I am aware. But for many people the only objective reality is physical reality.

I meant some people have no access to spiritual world.

Your second statement is contradictory. All persons, being spiritual objects, have “access” to the spiritual world, as in the connection of their being to it. But especially in this world, all the noise cuts people off from awareness of the spiritual. But it is never entire.

 

[Bahman]

Your second statement is contradictory. All persons, being spiritual objects, have “access” to the spiritual world, as in the connection of their being to it. But especially in this world, all the noise cuts people off from awareness of the spiritual. But it is never entire.

It depends very much how do you define spirituality but anyhow I do believe that we are simply a conscious being rather than spiritual being as I define spirituality as a quality beyond physical. How you could be spiritual being when you insist in causality to such a degree? That seems to me that your understanding is limited to physical reality.

 

[blase6]

It depends very much how do you define spirituality but anyhow I do believe that we are simply a conscious being rather than spiritual being as I define spirituality as a quality beyond physical. How you could be spiritual being when you insist in causality to such a degree? That seems to me that your understanding is limited to physical reality.

No, I merely see that in both the physical and spiritual world, the rules of causality are the same. Or just seem the same. The very definition of free will just seems circular, so I see it as undefined. I am still looking for how it could be meaningful.

 

[PseuTonym]

The very definition of free will just seems circular, so I see it as undefined. I am still looking for how it could be meaningful.

For many basic concepts, any definition will not merely seem to be circular. For many basic concepts, any definition is circular. In other words, the problem is not with the concept of free will. The problem is that free will is a basic concept, and that you have unrealistically optimistic expectations of being able to create a non-circular definition of a basic concept.

We could consider some examples, if it will help. For example, how would you define all of the following directions: left, right, up, down, north, east, west, and south, without using any of those words in your definition? You can get the direction down from gravity and the direction east from where you see the Sunrise. So you are given two directions. West is the opposite of east, and up is the opposite of down. We have made some progress. Now you just need to define all of the following: left, right, north, and south. Can you do it?

The principle is simple. If all words are defined, then the collection of definitions is filled with loops. The alternative is to have a list of basic vocabulary that you learned the meaning of prior to accessing the list. For the words in the list of basic vocabulary, no definitions are provided. All other words would be defined, and the definitions would use the basic vocabulary and nothing but the basic vocabulary.

 

[John_Martin]

According to your description then, all evil is the result of ignorance on part of a person. If every person had an infinite understanding of what is truly good, then they would always pick it. Sorry, but you aren’t making any excellent argument for free will, other than simply stating that it exists.

Actually, no, but, there are two ways to accomplish evil.
The first source of evil is ignorance of the true and good, whether from actual ignorance or error in reasoning, which can happen with our brains of varying suitability to move well at our soul’s direction. Evil of the choice of something that is not good is always due to ignorance or error, otherwise what is evil would never be chosen as good.

The second source of evil is when what is good is actually understood correctly and what is providential of the good is chosen by free will, yet not with the correct measure of its usefulness, but instead in a kind of “gluttony” to have the pleasure of the means (object of free will) rather than using the means for the end (union with object of the will), then being done with the means. Remaining in the means rather than moving to the end by way of the means.

None have an infinite understanding of what is truly good, but come to it through reasoning about what is experienced via the senses, then coming to conclusions of truth and goodness. It is just the way it works for everyone, whether they embrace the ideas of will and free will, what I have described actually happens in all people. Even now, you are seeking to know what is true, and what you do understand as true, you are trying to reason whether it is good, and what you do know is good you are moving to unite to. That is the way it is. You are not a rock bumping into other rocks and causing their movement, but you are moving yourself rationally after rationally coming to know what you desire.

 

[Bahman]

No, I merely see that in both the physical and spiritual world, the rules of causality are the same. Or just seem the same. The very definition of free will just seems circular, so I see it as undefined. I am still looking for how it could be meaningful.

That was mistake of other people who tried to extend the rules of causality to spiritual world. In fact what we call causality just rules in the domain that we call insentient, such as a stone always falls when we release it. Causality of course rules in physical world to a great degree always. We then take this rules granted and apply them to ourselves and reach to an conclusion that there exist not a free will.

Lets start from consciousness as I think it is more primary than free will. Once we agree on the definition of consciousness then we can properly derive a right definition for free will. Consciousness to me is the ability to experience and affect or create mental states.

Now, I have a couple of questions: Have you ever experienced doubt? How doubt could possibly exist in causal world? Where do doubts come from when we are making a decision? Where do reasons come from when we are making a decision?

Lets start from easy one: Where do reasons come from when we are making a decision? We construct reason through a process so call knowledge making which is the outcome of experience of an objective reality. These reasons are then stored in subconsciousness which is huge machine that retrieves things properly into consciousness when it is needed. Subconsciousness has a great deals in making a decision as constructing knowledge. Without consciousness no decision is possible hence no action as consciousness always needs an (name removed by moderator)ut to function.

Lets start with the next question: Where do doubts come from when we are making a decision? We first have to define doubt. Doubt is uncertainty in defining a situation. Doubt is created in consciousness. Without doubt we would turn into a machine which performs an action by receiving an (name removed by moderator)ut as we would only have subconsciousness. We could be in state of doubt as far as we wish since that is duty of consciousness and consciousness rules over subconsciousness hence we can resist external stimulus even eternal one, those which is delivered by subconsciousness. The very existence of doubt shows that our internal world is not causal.

I think I have said enough. Lets see what is your opinion about what is said so we can discuss the subject matter well.

 

[Bahman]

For many basic concepts, any definition will not merely seem to be circular. For many basic concepts, any definition is circular. In other words, the problem is not with the concept of free will. The problem is that free will is a basic concept, and that you have unrealistically optimistic expectations of being able to create a non-circular definition of a basic concept.

We could consider some examples, if it will help. For example, how would you define all of the following directions: left, right, up, down, north, east, west, and south, without using any of those words in your definition? You can get the direction down from gravity and the direction east from where you see the Sunrise. So you are given two directions. West is the opposite of east, and up is the opposite of down. We have made some progress. Now you just need to define all of the following: left, right, north, and south. Can you do it?

The principle is simple. If all words are defined, then the collection of definitions is filled with loops. The alternative is to have a list of basic vocabulary that you learned the meaning of prior to accessing the list. For the words in the list of basic vocabulary, no definitions are provided. All other words would be defined, and the definitions would use the basic vocabulary and nothing but the basic vocabulary.

That is very definition of subconsciousness and how it works. But we have consciousness hence we can define free will and free will is not the basic concept as it stands on consciousness.

 

[blase6]

Actually, no, but, there are two ways to accomplish evil.
The first source of evil is ignorance of the true and good, whether from actual ignorance or error in reasoning, which can happen with our brains of varying suitability to move well at our soul’s direction. Evil of the choice of something that is not good is always due to ignorance or error, otherwise what is evil would never be chosen as good.

If one does not know that they are committing evil, then it cannot be a morally evil action.

The second source of evil is when what is good is actually understood correctly and what is providential of the good is chosen by free will, yet not with the correct measure of its usefulness, but instead in a kind of “gluttony” to have the pleasure of the means (object of free will) rather than using the means for the end (union with object of the will), then being done with the means. Remaining in the means rather than moving to the end by way of the means.

I’m not really following you here.

None have an infinite understanding of what is truly good, but come to it through reasoning about what is experienced via the senses, then coming to conclusions of truth and goodness. It is just the way it works for everyone, whether they embrace the ideas of will and free will, what I have described actually happens in all people. Even now, you are seeking to know what is true, and what you do understand as true, you are trying to reason whether it is good, and what you do know is good you are moving to unite to. That is the way it is. You are not a rock bumping into other rocks and causing their movement, but you are moving yourself rationally after rationally coming to know what you desire.

Yes, I seek the good, like everyone else. I have no freedom to choose otherwise in that regard.