Proof of nonexistence of free will

[glowingembers]

abucs,

if by non-compulsary intention you mean that there is an intention but free will can choose whether to act on the intention, then this choice, if it is intended, should follow from an intention to act (or not to act) on that first intention.

I’ll wait until you elaborate.

 

[abucs]

abucs,

if by non-compulsary intention you mean that there is an intention but free will can choose whether to act on the intention, then this choice, if it is intended, should follow from an intention to act (or not to act) on that first intention.

I’ll wait until you elaborate.

We cannot define intention without choice if we are talking about the possibility of free will.

The problem as i see it, is that you are breaking intention and choice up and saying because one needs the other (or that one follows the other) then this has to be causal in time. I am saying that one can need the other and one follows from the other because they have a symbiotic relationship, i.e. they are two sides of the same coin.

Take the Big Bang.

We can define the Big Bang as an expanding Universe from an initial explosion.
But both the explosion and the resulting expanding Universe are processes and as such can only be possible if Time exists.
But Time exists only because of the initial explosion and the resulting expanding Universe.

If the explosion/expansion is dependent on Time - that is, we need Time for these processes to occur AND
Time is the resultant of the explosion/expansion then using the same logic you have used for free will, then the Big Bang should not be possible.

To say again.

The definition you have used for free will to actually be free will :

Free will is intentional choice.
But before we can have intentional choice we have to have intention.
But to have intention in our definition of free will, we need it to be an intentional choice etc etc.

I see this as the same as the Big Bang dilemma.

The solution for the Big Bang dilemma is to say, yes, Time follows from the explosion/expansion and the explosion/expansion needs Time in order to operate so that they both can exist together, but not in a ‘before’ and ‘after’ relationship but a symbiotic relationship of one causing the other through the essence of them actually being the same thing but viewed from different perspectives.

To understand Cosmology properly, we understand that Time is the expanding Universe and the expanding Universe is Time even though we can talk about them, categorise, measure, experience and view them as distinct.

Likewise intention and choice are two aspects (viewed differently) of the same thing.

In essence, once you have an intention, you have made a choice and once you have made a choice, you have an intention. One needs the other, but not in causal time, but in symbiotic nature.

OK, apologies but i am on the run for the next few days and can only get to the internet very infrequently.

As i said earlier, you make a good logical case and your posts are very thought-provoking and well reasoned. Thankyou. I am playing the part of Devil’s Advocate trying to explain how free will might be possible using logic but i certainly don’t have knowledge on how it all works. Just shooting the breeze on how it might work.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

This is not a proof. Just a possible argument. The original argument is begging the question anyway. You are trying to get to your conclusion. Ambiguous terms are the downfall of the apparently legitimate argument. Desire, intention, choice. We CAN choose things we do not desire and we CAN also desire things we do not choose. Intention CAN be there without either one of those. They can also all conflict; for example, when one sees a heartwarming charity commercial. He/she intends to do it (love), does not desire to (greed), but chooses neither and forgets (careless). Back the argument. If one really did not desire (in your meaning) Y, they would not have done X anyway. Expand on X is “never” free. Seems illogical even from the premises. This is what your argument says:

1. X is the free choice because of its intention Y.
2. Y was not intended (because of the ad infinitum sequence).
3. X is never free.
   Get to your conclusion by the premises, not vice-versa.

Also, ask the martyrs (namely, St. Maximilian Kolbe but any other would do just fine) about free will and choice, intention, desire, love, predilections, proclivities and propensities. Love/grace perfects free will (“grace perfects nature” is a wonderful statement by the way!). It sure is a paradox though, considering predestination and free will. I think it is safe to assume the Incarnation was predestined but still, Joseph (after a little bit of anger and wanting to divorce Mary; Mt 1:18-25, esp. verse 19) and Mary (after some understandable confusion about the logistics; Lk 1:26-38, esp. verse 34) freely consented. Thanks to her “fiat”, the Incarnation happened. I do not desire, nor do I intend, to sin! Unfortunately, my idiot self does. Grace has yet to perfect my nature Anyway, if any of this sounds rude, I am sorry. I do not mean to be. I happen to rarely get to be involved in these friendly (hopefully) discussions. I hope this helps you rectify your argument.

 

[glowingembers]

Likewise intention and choice are two aspects (viewed differently) of the same thing.

In essence, once you have an intention, you have made a choice and once you have made a choice, you have an intention. One needs the other, but not in causal time, but in symbiotic nature.

If you mean to say that intention and choice cause each other then it seems obvious that one cannot precede the other in time, because while an earlier thing can cause a later thing, it is implausible that it can also happen the other way round. But let’s imagine that it is possible for intention and choice to cause each other if they happen simultaneously. Then it seems we get some kind of causal loop where an intention causes a choice and, simultaneously, the choice causes the intention. But what is choice? I still see it as taking an action out of a set of actions. How can I exercise free will in this situation? I seem to be reduced to an observer who observes how an intention and an action cause each other.

As for the beginning of the universe and time, the most fundamental theory about their origin seems to be the one that says they both originated without a cause, that is spontaneously from nothing. So such an event is not caused by an intention; it is uncaused. On the other hand, if you postulate an intentional creator, then the universe and time might be caused by a simultaneous intention of the creator.

 

[glowingembers]

This is not a proof. Just a possible argument. The original argument is begging the question anyway. You are trying to get to your conclusion. Ambiguous terms are the downfall of the apparently legitimate argument. Desire, intention, choice. We CAN choose things we do not desire and we CAN also desire things we do not choose. Intention CAN be there without either one of those. They can also all conflict; for example, when one sees a heartwarming charity commercial. He/she intends to do it (love), does not desire to (greed), but chooses neither and forgets (careless).

If you intend to do something out of love, I think it is the same as when you desire to do it out of love. If you do not desire to do something because of greed, it is the same as not intending to do it because of greed. I don’t think that for the purpose of my argument there is any significant difference between desire and intention. But if you think there is, then just substitute the word “desire” with “intention” in my OP.

This is what your argument says:

1. X is the free choice because of its intention Y.
2. Y was not intended (because of the ad infinitum sequence).
3. X is never free.
   Get to your conclusion by the premises, not vice-versa.

If you attack my first premise, you’re saying that a free choice can be unintentional. Is that what you imagine as free will - doing something unintentionally?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

First of all, understand the objection. There is not much I could say or do until you understand my objection. I am saying that the ambiguous terms are what makes this lengthy syllogism fallacious. For the purpose of your argument, those words ARE significant whether or not you realize it because most of these posts are because of lack of definition of ANY of your terms. If I put my own word, I can also make my own definition, therefore making the premises mean what I think it means instead of what you are trying to posit. I might as well put “purpose”, or “aim” or “objective” because they are similar in meaning as are desire and intention (similar, not exact). If you fail to realize that, we are all just going to keep going around in circles as we already are. I do realize that I used some words that are not clear (the parenthesis part, love, greed, careless… I was close to what I meant though… I meant kindness, greed, no will). Anyway, I did it very early in the morning (very late to me) due to insomnia and I am still kind of groggy. My ambiguity is not as important as yours. The only reason (I can tell) is that these other objectors are objecting is because of your ambiguity of the terms. Hardly seems fair to denote one meaning to multiple terms.

Second, that is not what I am saying. It is clearly stated that I summarize what YOU mean in your original argument. You are reading INTO my arguments instead of reading out of my arguments. Once again, you fail to understand my objection. I was not even attacking your premise. I was summarizing your argument. Read “out of” my objection what I am trying to say, not what you want me to mean or even what you THINK it means. Note that I did use the word “can” and not “must” nor “would” nor “will” and such. I was hoping you would catch on. Check and recheck MY position. I did forget a few words to my lack of sensitivity to typing like “to”, etc…

Third, I have to ask though for understanding on my part. Why are you assuming in the second premise, that Y was unintended (undesired)?

I can tell you want (desire, intend, whatever) it to be true but it is not (unless you find an unrefutable argument). There is a fire of bias of the conclusion and your answers. If you cannot recognize that we do things out of free will every single day, then I am not sure it is even worth positing my own thoughts. We have to understand that there is predestination and FREE will. We cannot understand the “pre-” part in our terms because it is outside our realm of temporality. Consult Thomas Aquinas about your ARGUMENT. Not proof. If it were a proof, no one would argue it.

 

[glowingembers]

First of all, understand the objection. There is not much I could say or do until you understand my objection. I am saying that the ambiguous terms are what makes this lengthy syllogism fallacious. For the purpose of your argument, those words ARE significant whether or not you realize it because most of these posts are because of lack of definition of ANY of your terms. If I put my own word, I can also make my own definition, therefore making the premises mean what I think it means instead of what you are trying to posit. I might as well put “purpose”, or “aim” or “objective” because they are similar in meaning as are desire and intention (similar, not exact). If you fail to realize that, we are all just going to keep going around in circles as we already are. I do realize that I used some words that are not clear (the parenthesis part, love, greed, careless… I was close to what I meant though… I meant kindness, greed, no will). Anyway, I did it very early in the morning (very late to me) due to insomnia and I am still kind of groggy. My ambiguity is not as important as yours. The only reason (I can tell) is that these other objectors are objecting is because of your ambiguity of the terms. Hardly seems fair to denote one meaning to multiple terms.

As I said, substitute “desire” with “intention” and then read the argument. I am aware that some things may be unclear and that’s why I reply to comments. If there are other words you want to clarify please be more specific.

Third, I have to ask though for understanding on my part. Why are you assuming in the second premise, that Y was unintended (undesired)?

My argument in OP deals both with the possibility that Y was unintended (point 2) and the possibility that Y was intended (point 3).

If you cannot recognize that we do things out of free will every single day, then I am not sure it is even worth positing my own thoughts.

Why do you expect me to recognize this? I am arguing for the opposite.

We have to understand that there is predestination and FREE will.

Why should we?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I see ambiguity is not your favorite thing to deal with either. I believe it to be true is what I mean. I purposely did that to put you in that trap. Sorry for putting you in that trap. I stink at withholding temptations. Thanks for not returning the vice.
We are going in circles as I predicted. I will not put intention because intentions can fail and un-intentions can fail also. It is an arbitrary word to use because it is an ends. Not a means. Desire is more like the start (as it follows from these past two statements) but closer to the means (obviously). In any case, desire and intentions do not mean the same thing, not even in this argument. And who cares about desire as far as we are concerned with “will”? It is just a feeling anyway. A parent yells at their kids for playing in the street. They do not desire to do the yelling but they intend (because of a deeper love) and desire to keep their children safe. Nor does the parent intend to hurt the children by yelling (as the case may be to an sensitive littlun). Which of those desires would you take into consideration? Are you talking natural desires (hunger, thirst, sex) or worldly desires (money, power, vanity)?
Thanks for clarifying that it was just a possibility. That only proves that the conclusion only could logically follow as a possibility (note the use of “could”). That still leaves the fact that X is freely chosen from premise one. Elaborate on that.
I realize you are arguing for the opposite. I am trying to help you formulate a better, more logical set of premises. At least you know it is an argument and not a proof. Do you at least see there is some fallacy in the argument? I am serious about consulting the martyrs (namely, St. Maximilian Kolbe) and St. Thomas Aquinas about free will (and predestination). If they are not convincing, I am not sure what is. If your conclusion is true, would that leave room only for predestination?
What is OP, by the way?

 

[abucs]

If you mean to say that intention and choice cause each other then it seems obvious that one cannot precede the other in time, because while an earlier thing can cause a later thing, it is implausible that it can also happen the other way round. But let’s imagine that it is possible for intention and choice to cause each other if they happen simultaneously. Then it seems we get some kind of causal loop where an intention causes a choice and, simultaneously, the choice causes the intention. But what is choice? I still see it as taking an action out of a set of actions. How can I exercise free will in this situation? I seem to be reduced to an observer who observes how an intention and an action cause each other.

As for the beginning of the universe and time, the most fundamental theory about their origin seems to be the one that says they both originated without a cause, that is spontaneously from nothing. So such an event is not caused by an intention; it is uncaused. On the other hand, if you postulate an intentional creator, then the universe and time might be caused by a simultaneous intention of the creator.

Yes but there is a fundamental philosophical viewpoint that has to be accepted for my premise. That is, intention and choice are both the same thing but viewed differently.

My comments about the Big Bang were not to talk about a Creator (that is a different discussion). My point was that the expanding Universe needs Time and Time needs the expanding Universe. What appear to many people to be two obviously different concepts with each needing the other before it can exist, are actually, on closer inspection - the same thing viewed from different intellectual perspectives.

Likewise, my premise is that intention and choice are actually the same thing but you may be viewing them from two different intellectual perspectives. So when we say they need eachother, there is a logical problem before we start if we have viewed them as distinctly different from eachother. Perhaps they are in essence the same thing.

So we are (illogically) reduced (before we start) to talking about such things as, say :
for there to be an apple there has to first be an apple, but for that then there has to first be an apple, but before that there has to first …, etc.

Perhaps the loop comes in because of the incorrect way in which we are breaking up Free Will into choice and intent the same way we used to break up the Big Bang into an explosion and Time. They are both the same thing.

It may be that first we have an awareness of choice;
Next we intend to make a choice (which is itself a choice)
then we choose (with intent).
Lastly we act this out.

For example:

I am aware i could choose an apple from a tree.
I intend to make the choice of taking an apple from a tree. (which is itself a choice)
I choose a particular apple with intent.
Lastly i act out my choice/intent (which has already beed made).

That’s a very simple synopsis of what may be going on. Obviously we can dig deeper down and many choices are being made within any simple choice.

Accepting we have an awareness to make a choice, then the first step after that is using our free will to intend to make a choice. (that is intent and choice flow naturally from free will as they are in essence the same thing).

Can we write sentences for “choose” and “intention” where each of the words cannot be substituted for eachother in some way using grammatical re-arrangement?

OK, same story - have to run.

 

[alitaptap]

@glowingembers - If you don’t like the answers of other people, you have the free will to disagree. They have the free will to say what they think is right too.

 

[glowingembers]

I am serious about consulting the martyrs (namely, St. Maximilian Kolbe) and St. Thomas Aquinas about free will (and predestination). If they are not convincing, I am not sure what is. If your conclusion is true, would that leave room only for predestination?
What is OP, by the way?

OP is opening post, the first post in a thread. Thomas Aquinas was already quoted in this thread, as saying something like man has free will because otherwise he wouldn’t be motivated by threats, advice etc. These influences are associated with his desires, which then motivate him to act in a particular way.

If my conclusion is true, then predestination may or may not be true.

 

[glowingembers]

(that is intent and choice flow naturally from free will as they are in essence the same thing).

I am trying to imagine why I would use my will to create an intent and a choice, or an intent-choice entity. Woudn’t I need an intention, a desire, to create them? Otherwise they seem to come out by themselves, like a sudden burp.

From your example though, it doesn’t seem that the intention-choice entity comes out like a burp, catching me by surprise. It seems to be stimulated by my awareness of the apple tree and a desire for an apple.

 

[abucs]

I am trying to imagine why I would use my will to create an intent and a choice, or an intent-choice entity. Woudn’t I need an intention, a desire, to create them? Otherwise they seem to come out by themselves, like a sudden burp.

From your example though, it doesn’t seem that the intention-choice entity comes out like a burp, catching me by surprise. It seems to be stimulated by my awareness of the apple tree and a desire for an apple.

The nature of free will is to choose (have intent). If we don’t accept the possibility of that at the start then we have disallowed free will before trying to disprove it.

You possibly might think that intent “just burps out” because you have a mechanical physical view of everything that makes us up. But if you do have that view - again you have dissallowed the possibility of free will before we start.

I started off talking about desire and you redefined that to intent (via a motivating force). So i stuck with your definition of intent.

I actually see intent and desire as either separate or possibly half linked. I could say i have a desire to eat an apple but no intention to. I could say i have a desire to visit the moon but no intention to. So i would see desire and intent as separate although i am allowing for the possibility of free will strengthening and reshaping some pre determined basic instincts or creating new desires from pre determined instincts which are written into the physical being of men (when they are babies).

Got to go.

 

[tonyrey]

1. If X is my free choice, it must be determined by my desire (intention) Y.
   NOTE: this is a necessary condition for a free choice, because if my choice is not determined by my desire (intention) then it happens without my desire (intention) and so is unintentional.
2. If I don’t choose my desire Y freely, then my choice X is determined by something I didn’t choose freely and hence X is not my free choice.
3. If I choose my desire Y freely, then it must be determined by my desire Y2 (according to point no. 1).
4. If I don’t choose my desire Y2 freely, then my choice Y and consequently X is determined by something I didn’t choose freely and hence X is not my free choice.
5. If I choose my desire Y2 freely, then it must be determined by my desire Y3 (according to point no. 1). And so on. It’s an infinite regress or there is a first desire that is not determined by another desire and is therefore not freely chosen. Hence, my choice X is never free.

A free choice is not determined by a desire or an intention but by you. Without self-determination there cannot be responsibility. If you are not responsible for your thoughts and cannot choose what to believe all your conclusions are unreliable and suspect… including your assertion “My choice X is never free”. Not only would it not be free but it would not be **your **choice at all but a choice determined by factors beyond your control…

 

[GreggAlvarez]

OP is opening post, the first post in a thread. Thomas Aquinas was already quoted in this thread, as saying something like man has free will because otherwise he wouldn’t be motivated by threats, advice etc. These influences are associated with his desires, which then motivate him to act in a particular way.

If my conclusion is true, then predestination may or may not be true.

(First paragraph) So you agree with there is free will? That “particular way” is free.

(Second paragraph) Essentially what you are saying is if your conclusion is true, predestination may or may not be true. Ok… Here is the catch to what you said though. There is a possibility that there is no predestination or free will. No predestination. No free will.

 

[glowingembers]

The nature of free will is to choose (have intent). If we don’t accept the possibility of that at the start then we have disallowed free will before trying to disprove it.

I described choice as taking an action out of a set of actions and I have no problem with it.

You possibly might think that intent “just burps out” because you have a mechanical physical view of everything that makes us up. But if you do have that view - again you have dissallowed the possibility of free will before we start.

The comparison with a “burp” was just to illustrate an act that was not intended and caught you by surprise. Intention and choice suddenly emerge in your consciousness, without any previous sign (intention).

 

[glowingembers]

A free choice is not determined by a desire or an intention but by you.

An intention motivates me to make an intentional choice, therefore it is a causal factor in my making the choice. If you regard “you” as something that is different from intention then this “you” is unintentional and whatever it determines is unintentional. If you regard intention as a part of “you”, then this part of “you” motivates you to make an intentional choice, while the rest of “you” is unintentional.

If you are not responsible for your thoughts and cannot choose what to believe all your conclusions are unreliable and suspect… including your assertion “My choice X is never free”. Not only would it not be free but it would not be **your **choice at all but a choice determined by factors beyond your control…

Computers can be quite reliable.

 

[glowingembers]

(First paragraph) So you agree with there is free will? That “particular way” is free.

No. Being motivated by desires doesn’t ensure free will, as I show in my argument in OP.

(Second paragraph) Essentially what you are saying is if your conclusion is true, predestination may or may not be true. Ok… Here is the catch to what you said though. There is a possibility that there is no predestination or free will. No predestination. No free will.

That’s right. Personally I suspect there is no predestination (due to quantum indeterminacy).

 

[tonyrey]

A free choice is not determined by a desire or an intention but by you

The intention doesn’t motivate you because you are motivated to have the intention! You may have a reason or an intuition or an emotion. Sometimes it is impossible to know why we are motivated to do something but what we do know is that we are the ones who “make up our mind” when we are behaving rationally. The buck stops with us…

Without self-determination there cannot be responsibility. If you are not responsible for your thoughts and cannot choose what to believe all your conclusions are unreliable and suspect…. including your assertion “My choice X is never free”. Not only would it not be free but it would not be your choice at all but a choice determined by factors beyond your control…

If you regard “you” as something that is different from intention then this “you” is unintentional and whatever it determines is unintentional.

A person is certainly not “intentional” but the one who harbours the intention and put it into action. The intention is in your mind. Where else could it be?

If you regard intention as a part of “you”, then this part of “you” motivates you to make an intentional choice, while the rest of “you” is unintentional.

An intention is not a “part” of you but a plan in your intangible mind. Nothing** compels** you to have an intention. There may be a conflict in your mind: whether to do what is pleasant or what is right. But **you **decide what your intention will be. Otherwise you would not be responsible for your intention or the decision to put it into action.

Computers can be quite reliable.

Computers are far more reliable than persons but they are not responsible for their activity. They lack intentions…