Problems with free will, possibility, and causality

[blase6]

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.

To doubt is to deny that something is true? Or do you mean uncertainty? Uncertainty is always the case when motives conflict. Once the conflict is resolved over time, then there is no uncertainty.

 

[blase6]

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.

Left, right, north and south, are all names arbitrarily assigned to orthogonal directions derived from relativity from a certain point.

The problem is that people assume without deep thought that freedom exists. It is such a basic idea for people that any attempt to define it becomes circular. But I do not see how freedom exists.

 

[Bahman]

To doubt is to deny that something is true? Or do you mean uncertainty? Uncertainty is always the case when motives conflict. Once the conflict is resolved over time, then there is no uncertainty.

How motives can conflict? There exists only one chain of causality. How they could fork and join under causal approach?

 

[John_Martin]

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

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

It is a morally evil action if something other and above one’s own reason is the measure of morality - some obey the law out of agreement with it, others out of fear, even though they think a specific infringement of the law would be “good” in their own reason.

You are correct, you have no freedom to choose concerning seeking the good. That is the Form of the Human Species, which moves to Act in our Soul/Body composition.

Your free will is in the choices you make to move toward union with that good you seek.

 

[DanAl]

Hello all,
I am having problems accepting free will. I have three main problems. The first is the apparent meaninglessness of possibility. The second is how cause and effect negate free will. The third is how the will chooses an object.

1. Possibility is a concept wherein nonexistent events are considered to contradict a truth about the existent situation, if they occurred. (In situation A object X can produce event Y or Z without contradiction. So Y and Z are possibilities). The problem is that possibility is meaningless because the things it describes do not exist unless they are actualized. Thus only actualities exist.
2. The world can be seen to operate in either a deterministic or indeterministic way.

From a Catholic view, a deterministic world would be one where God, being the creator of all else that exists, is the first cause of all that exists and happens, and is the one ultimately responsible for all events. Thus a creature could not be held ultimately responsible for its actions, because God was the ultimate cause.

An indeterministic worldview would be one where God does not determine the actions of created free persons, but allows those actions to happen independently and randomly from his will. Thus created persons would randomly either choose good or evil. This Popresents a terrifying image of God: a being who would allow persons to suffer eternally, simply out of a desire for some other persons to choose him without necessity.
In addition, it could be argued that random events are not free.

1. It can be seen that the will considers motives and chooses the motive which appears the most good. The motive can be good or evil, reasonable or unreasonable, but it must appear good to the will to be considerable. A person’s virtue/vice, fear, insanity, etc. will affect how the will perceives different motives, but the will always chooses that which appears most good. This invariable behaviour of the will prevents the possibility of free will.

1-It seems true that actualities only exist if time is linear and not eternal. Nonetheless, it seems mistaken to speak of possibilities as meaningless: we talk about them all the time, and all rational discourse about them. A general would never say that planning for the future battle is sound meaning nothing.

2-Why not both?

3- the first sentence is classic Thomist notion. Other like Duns Scotus, Peter Auriol, William of ockham among others will say that we will the good of something while minimizing out attention to other aspects: I see a Twinkies. I see its appetizing flavor which is a good, but I also see that it would break my diet which is another good. In the end I concentrate my will on its flavor and my hunger and ignore breaking my diet.

A thing viewed under one good trumps another good by action of the will.

 

[DanAl]

Hello all,
I am having problems accepting free will. I have three main problems. The first is the apparent meaninglessness of possibility. The second is how cause and effect negate free will. The third is how the will chooses an object.

1. Possibility is a concept wherein nonexistent events are considered to contradict a truth about the existent situation, if they occurred. (In situation A object X can produce event Y or Z without contradiction. So Y and Z are possibilities). The problem is that possibility is meaningless because the things it describes do not exist unless they are actualized. Thus only actualities exist.
2. The world can be seen to operate in either a deterministic or indeterministic way.

From a Catholic view, a deterministic world would be one where God, being the creator of all else that exists, is the first cause of all that exists and happens, and is the one ultimately responsible for all events. Thus a creature could not be held ultimately responsible for its actions, because God was the ultimate cause.

An indeterministic worldview would be one where God does not determine the actions of created free persons, but allows those actions to happen independently and randomly from his will. Thus created persons would randomly either choose good or evil. This presents a terrifying image of God: a being who would allow persons to suffer eternally, simply out of a desire for some other persons to choose him without necessity.
In addition, it could be argued that random events are not free.

1. It can be seen that the will considers motives and chooses the motive which appears the most good. The motive can be good or evil, reasonable or unreasonable, but it must appear good to the will to be considerable. A person’s virtue/vice, fear, insanity, etc. will affect how the will perceives different motives, but the will always chooses that which appears most good. This invariable behaviour of the will prevents the possibility of free will.

1-It seems true that actualities only exist if time is linear and not eternal. Nonetheless, it seems mistaken to speak of possibilities as meaningless: we talk about them all the time, and all rational discourse about them. A general would never say that planning for the future battle is sound meaning nothing.

2-Why not both? God controls some things, but gives leeway to his creature to decide some of the things (whether moral or immoral, foolish or wise) they want to do.

3- the first sentence is classic Thomist notion. Other like Duns Scotus, Peter Auriol, William of ockham among others will say that we will the good of something while minimizing out attention to other aspects: I see a Twinkies. I see its appetizing flavor which is a good, but I also see that i need to uphold my diet which is another good. In the end I concentrate my will on its flavor and my hunger and ignore breaking my diet.

A thing viewed under one good trumps another good by action of the will.

 

[blase6]

How motives can conflict? There exists only one chain of causality. How they could fork and join under causal approach?

In a sense, only one motive is real, since it is that motive which leads to an action. We consider other motives in our mind in any instance, but reject all but one of them when we act.

 

[blase6]

It is a morally evil action if something other and above one’s own reason is the measure of morality - some obey the law out of agreement with it, others out of fear, even though they think a specific infringement of the law would be “good” in their own reason.

You are correct, you have no freedom to choose concerning seeking the good. That is the Form of the Human Species, which moves to Act in our Soul/Body composition.

Your free will is in the choices you make to move toward union with that good you seek.

Again, a free choice does not exist if it results from whichever choice appears best. Then all evil is the result of an imperfect awareness of goodness.

 

[blase6]

1-It seems true that actualities only exist if time is linear and not eternal. Nonetheless, it seems mistaken to speak of possibilities as meaningless: we talk about them all the time, and all rational discourse about them. A general would never say that planning for the future battle is sound meaning nothing.

Well, if you look at your choices in retrospective, then you see that because of your situation, your choice was bound to happen. At that point, saying that you had a choice no longer has any meaning.

2-Why not both? God controls some things, but gives leeway to his creature to decide some of the things (whether moral or immoral, foolish or wise) they want to do.

I am not saying that the world must be either entirely deterministic or entirely indeterministic (although I believe the former is closer to the truth). I am saying that for either system of causality, freedom cannot exist.

3- the first sentence is classic Thomist notion. Other like Duns Scotus, Peter Auriol, William of ockham among others will say that we will the good of something while minimizing out attention to other aspects: I see a Twinkies. I see its appetizing flavor which is a good, but I also see that i need to uphold my diet which is another good. In the end I concentrate my will on its flavor and my hunger and ignore breaking my diet.

A thing viewed under one good trumps another good by action of the will.

This would mean that evil results because someone didn’t look at their options correctly. But we can’t really choose how to look at our options initally, they present themselves to us.

 

[John_Martin]

Again, a free choice does not exist if it results from whichever choice appears best. Then all evil is the result of an imperfect awareness of goodness.

Not really - along with the awareness or lack thereof is a word of a superior (familial, societal, or divine) saying, “Thou shalt / thou shalt not”.

Someone else knows the evil and the refusal to serve is the first sin of the angels, where with Adam and Eve it was putting the command on a back burner of the mind while entertaining notions of truth and good and will (“So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.” The object was apprehended, identified, reasoned as to goodness of the object, reasoned as to goodness of the union with the fruit, actualization of the will to union, and in true mob spirit to justify the actualization, bringing another into the same reasoning and willing. You know what is expected of you, and you know what you are doing.)

 

[Bahman]

In a sense, only one motive is real, since it is that motive which leads to an action. We consider other motives in our mind in any instance, but reject all but one of them when we act.

How you could reject a motive? That is a chain of causality hence they are all real. Which kind of power allows you to cut a chain of causality?

 

[blase6]

Not really - along with the awareness or lack thereof is a word of a superior (familial, societal, or divine) saying, “Thou shalt / thou shalt not”.

The “word of a superior” only contributes to the morality of an action if the receiver is really sure that that superior is looking out for the receiver’s best interests. But that can never be certain. What is more certain is that the forbidden object appears good, so it becomes a stronger motive.

Someone else knows the evil and the refusal to serve is the first sin of the angels, where with Adam and Eve it was putting the command on a back burner of the mind while entertaining notions of truth and good and will (“So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.” The object was apprehended, identified, reasoned as to goodness of the object, reasoned as to goodness of the union with the fruit, actualization of the will to union, and in true mob spirit to justify the actualization, bringing another into the same reasoning and willing. You know what is expected of you, and you know what you are doing.)

 

[blase6]

How you could reject a motive? That is a chain of causality hence they are all real. Which kind of power allows you to cut a chain of causality?

For any real event there is one real immediate motive. All other motives perceived consciously do not exist if they are not realized.

 

[Bahman]

For any real event there is one real immediate motive. All other motives perceived consciously do not exist if they are not realized.

I think you are seriously trapped but you don’t want to accept the fact.

How do you realize that causality rule? Through consciousness yet consciousness sometimes lies! How you could be sure about anything?

 

[NeuralMonk]

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 have been interesting arguments, but I don’t believe any lead to a resolution considering your position.

You represent the dilemma of determinism well. I mean that to your credit. I would challenge you to read some libertarian views on the topic. Your views are very classical.

Bahman is approaching this from an eastern metaphysics perspective which requires a faith and belief in the spiritual nature but I see you rejecting that because of your western mindset.

The others are variations on a theme here with DanAl having an interesting take.

You list your religion as Roman Catholic, but you are denying the tenants thereof, because if determinism is true (as you keep arguing) then it is really the Creator’s fault for all evil. You either believe this against your Church, or you are struggling with it in your faith walk because, QED God is evil versus God is good as the Church teaches.

Your argument above, that the chain of events occurs has a fallacy in logic though, as most determinists do.

You assume that because the outcome occurred, there was no other choice. You have no evidence this is the case. You assume that because you don’t see the other outcomes, they never really existed as possibilities. You don’t see my son picking at his pizza, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. You don’t know it, you have to take that on belief he exists.

Just because you cannot see something, does not mean it doesn’t exist. To make that assumption, you would have to have knowledge of the event beyond your abilities. That is fallacious and your logic does not hold.

Simply because you see the object does not mean there is no substance or other objects behind the object. From your walk in time, this is linear. You cannot assume that because time is linear, that eternity is linear.

If you are Roman Catholic, God does command us to choose. If the choice had no matter, then God is a liar. Just because God is one, yet we see three persons in this oneness does not mean one is wrong and the other is right. They are a both/and as is most of faith.

I hate to go down this path because you may be struggling in your faith, or this might cause a faith crisis. If that is the case, do pray about the matter, I will be praying for you.

 

[blase6]

I think you are seriously trapped but you don’t want to accept the fact.

How do you realize that causality rule? Through consciousness yet consciousness sometimes lies! How you could be sure about anything?

Well, yes, you can’t really be 100% certain about anything, but that is another topic entirely. For now, most people can get by assuming what appears most rational is true. What appears most rational to me is contradictory to the idea of freedom.

 

[blase6]

There have been interesting arguments, but I don’t believe any lead to a resolution considering your position.

You represent the dilemma of determinism well. I mean that to your credit. I would challenge you to read some libertarian views on the topic. Your views are very classical.

Bahman is approaching this from an eastern metaphysics perspective which requires a faith and belief in the spiritual nature but I see you rejecting that because of your western mindset.

The others are variations on a theme here with DanAl having an interesting take.

You list your religion as Roman Catholic, but you are denying the tenants thereof, because if determinism is true (as you keep arguing) then it is really the Creator’s fault for all evil. You either believe this against your Church, or you are struggling with it in your faith walk because, QED God is evil versus God is good as the Church teaches.

I am not trying to deny the teaching of the Church. I am trying to reconcile my perception of reality with what the Church teaches, because up to now the Church at least had a more reasonable explanation about reality than anyone else.

Your argument above, that the chain of events occurs has a fallacy in logic though, as most determinists do.

You assume that because the outcome occurred, there was no other choice. You have no evidence this is the case. You assume that because you don’t see the other outcomes, they never really existed as possibilities. You don’t see my son picking at his pizza, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. You don’t know it, you have to take that on belief he exists.

If my choices follow a deterministic pattern, as I perceive it, then the other choices do not exist. They are illusions.

Just because you cannot see something, does not mean it doesn’t exist. To make that assumption, you would have to have knowledge of the event beyond your abilities. That is fallacious and your logic does not hold.

Simply because you see the object does not mean there is no substance or other objects behind the object. From your walk in time, this is linear. You cannot assume that because time is linear, that eternity is linear.

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

If you are Roman Catholic, God does command us to choose. If the choice had no matter, then God is a liar. Just because God is one, yet we see three persons in this oneness does not mean one is wrong and the other is right. They are a both/and as is most of faith.

I hate to go down this path because you may be struggling in your faith, or this might cause a faith crisis. If that is the case, do pray about the matter, I will be praying for you.

By the way, I am curious as to why your religion is listed as “In progress”.

 

[NeuralMonk]

If my choices follow a deterministic pattern, as I perceive it, then the other choices do not exist. They are illusions.

The statement they are illusions is interesting. Illusions are things which are not real. How do you imperially KNOW they are not real? Is it faith that just because you don’t see them, they don’t exist?

Or are you saying that the only reality is perceived reality?

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

The concept of linear is that because events have a pre state, actuality and post state, they fall into a singular continuum of time. Just like time has a yesterday, today, tomorrow, all events have these three states.

Because you are in time, you perceive events in these three conditions. We can slice these as small or large as possible, but these three always occur within time. However because God is not in time (but the author of it), God and eternity do not see these events. My best guess is what I title the eternal now. I get this from God’s name being “I AM.”

By the way, I am curious as to why your religion is listed as “In progress”.

You know, that is a great question. I guess at this current point I could be titled a catechumen of the Roman Catholic church, but to some extent that would be to understate my current beliefs. Catechumen gives the concept of exploring the beliefs.

Six months ago I was what would be considered a heretical protestant, but then I had an epiphany where I realized that if I became Catholic, I would no longer be heretical, because my “heretical” beliefs were actually Catholic dogma.

So I reasoned, my religion was “In process” of correcting itself to a more fuller truth. Easter will be the change of that status

 

[Bahman]

Well, yes, you can’t really be 100% certain about anything, but that is another topic entirely. For now, most people can get by assuming what appears most rational is true. What appears most rational to me is contradictory to the idea of freedom.

So you are very close to accept epiphenomalism, meaning that consciousness is useless since it dosn’t have any functioning.

 

[John_Martin]

Originally Posted by blase6
By the way, I am curious as to why your religion is listed as “In progress”.

Wow,
I found it problematic when I joined the forum, as to what to put in that same field. What you stated is an accurate description for me as well. I would almost think you have the Bishop’s gifts ahead of schedule.

Yet, even now, as a Catholic, I don’t consider it “my religion” as much as a predicate of my being. Being Catholic is “my nationality” if the Kingdom of God is truly a People established by God. But, this is an aside from the topic at hand…