Proof of nonexistence of free will

[MindOverMatter2]

As I said, any process that is logically possible.

What is a logically possible process?

 

[glowingembers]

What is a logically possible process?

One that contains no contradictions.

 

[grannymh]

By “not having ultimate control” I didn’t mean lacking some God-like power but that ultimately your choice is not determined by you at all. So whatever freedom we have, it is not a freedom of choosing our actions, because they are ultimately chosen by something else over which we have no control. That’s the point of my argument.

The point of your argument reminds me of an old thread on every action being determined with no individual freedom. Dang my memory! All I can remember is that I flat out refused to be considered in the same category as a rock in a determined world.

 

[abucs]

Still a very good post glowingembers.

Can desire, as we commonly understand it, exist without free will ?

Or by desire, are we talking about necessary compulsions?

 

[glowingembers]

Still a very good post glowingembers.

Can desire, as we commonly understand it, exist without free will ?

Or by desire, are we talking about necessary compulsions?

Thanks. I just see desire as a motivating force.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks. I just see desire as a motivating force.

.1. If X is my free choice, it must be determined by my desire (intention) Y.

Desire is definitely a motivating force when it comes to decisions based on the survival instinct of animals and humans.

The difference between animals and humans is that animals cannot creatively choose to go against desire for survival of themselves and of their offspring.

A human with the same animal instincts of survival can use the powers of the spiritual intellect to choose actions (against natural desires) which a brute animal cannot choose.

Thus, within the human nature, free choice is not always determined by desire. This invalidates statement 1.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[glowingembers]

The difference between animals and humans is that animals cannot creatively choose to go against desire for survival of themselves and of their offspring.

Then human decision to go against his survival follows from his desire, or intention, to go against his survival.

 

[grannymh]

Then human decision to go against his survival follows from his desire, or intention, to go against his survival.

It sounds as if the human being consists only of his own personal desires and is not capable of considering anything outside his own personal subjective desires which appear to bounce from one thing to another (going from adhering to basic survival instincts to refusing basic survival instincts) yet, desire always remains the only game in town. One possibly could say that about a brute animal but not about a true human being.

Perhaps where we differ is on the point of what constitutes human nature. My position is that the human nature is a profound, unique unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, body and soul.

There are many posters on CAF who either deny the spiritual element of human nature or who fudge on where the spiritual comes from. I do respect their worldviews when I know them–even though I disagree. The next factor is that Catholicism differs from general Christianity in certain areas.

My apology. But since I see your reasoning as applying to brute animals, I am not sure if you are including the non-material, spiritual soul as essential for a complete human nature.

Are you factoring in the non-material, spiritual soul of the human person? If so, in what way?

My reply to your post 87 would be that if a human decides to creatively go against his basic desire for survival, and sees this as a desire to go against his basic instincts – that is an example of the existence of free will.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is distinct from animal life.

 

[abucs]

Thanks. I just see desire as a motivating force.

So when you say we must have desire before we have choice you are in effect saying we must have a motivating force before we have choice?

Is this motivating force a necessary compulsion?

 

[glowingembers]

Are you factoring in the non-material, spiritual soul of the human person? If so, in what way?

I am factoring in anything that is logically possible.

 

[glowingembers]

So when you say we must have desire before we have choice you are in effect saying we must have a motivating force before we have choice?

Is this motivating force a necessary compulsion?

This motivating force is your intention, so it is necessary for an intentional choice. For unintentional choices it is not necessary.

 

[abucs]

This motivating force is your intention, so it is necessary for an intentional choice. For unintentional choices it is not necessary.

So you are saying that a desire is a motivating force which is your intention.

So you are saying then that intention is needed before we make an intentional choice.

Is this intention a necessary compulsion or not?

 

[glowingembers]

So you are saying that a desire is a motivating force which is your intention.

So you are saying then that intention is needed before we make an intentional choice.

Is this intention a necessary compulsion or not?

For an intentional choice, yes.

 

[grannymh]

I am factoring in anything that is logically possible.

In that case, are you factoring in the non-material, spiritual soul of the human person? If so, in what way?

 

[abucs]

For an intentional choice, yes.

So you are saying a necessary compulsion is needed before we can make an intentional choice.

Isn’t this an oxymoron ?

How can there be choice arising from a necessary compulsion ?

 

[glowingembers]

In that case, are you factoring in the non-material, spiritual soul of the human person? If so, in what way?

I’m just saying that one’s free choice should follow from one’s intention. Do you think this doesn’t apply to the soul?

 

[glowingembers]

So you are saying a necessary compulsion is needed before we can make an intentional choice.

Isn’t this an oxymoron ?

How can there be choice arising from a necessary compulsion ?

It is a choice only in the sense that you will take one thing from a set of things.

 

[abucs]

It is a choice only in the sense that you will take one thing from a set of things.

But aren’t we talking about free will here?

And you initially defined free will as an intentional choice. Now you are saying that intentional choice is simply the necessary compulsion of taking one thing from another.

So your logic is that free will is simply the necessary compulsion of taking one thing from another. Isn’t this an oxymoron?

P.S. Wouldn’t one way to prevent this oxymoron be to backtrack and define intention (i.e. desire/motivating force) as not being a necessary compulsion? i.e. non compulsory.
Then free will would be defined as the non compulsory taking of one thing from another. Wouldn’t this make more sense?

 

[glowingembers]

But aren’t we talking about free will here?

And you initially defined free will as an intentional choice. Now you are saying that intentional choice is simply the necessary compulsion of taking one thing from another.

So your logic is that free will is simply the necessary compulsion of taking one thing from another. Isn’t this an oxymoron?

P.S. Wouldn’t one way to prevent this oxymoron be to backtrack and define intention (i.e. desire/motivating force) as not being a necessary compulsion? i.e. non compulsory.
Then free will would be defined as the non compulsory taking of one thing from another. Wouldn’t this make more sense?

It doesn’t seem clear to me how you use the word “necessary”. In order for you to choose something (take a thing from a set of things) you don’t need an intention, but then the choice would be unintentional and that doesn’t seem what we imagine as a free will choice. We imagine a free will choice as an intentional choice, so then it is logically necessary that such a choice must follow from an intention.

 

[abucs]

Hi glowingembers,

I’m using necessary compulsion here as the opposite of choice (free will).
That is, something must necessarily happen (without free will) through inanimate objects following (necessary) laws of nature.

My point being (where i am going with this) is that it seems for your initial definition of free will to be acceptable and true - choice needs intention every bit as intention needs choice.

To say the main part again. If intention is needed before choice (in the definition of free will) then that intention needs to be non compulsory in order for the statement to make sense. But if intention is non compulsory, it needs choice by free will.

So we seem to get into one of those many “chicken and egg” scenarios where logic seems to break down. That could point to there being no such thing as free will (your position) or it could point to one of those many cases where we have to review our logic and look for something outside our simple parameters in order to find a resolution (my position).

For example (not the one i will ultimately use as a comparison) if we look at the chicken and egg scenario: we know there are chickens and we know that in nature, they only come from eggs laid by other chickens. So we know that chickens come from eggs and eggs come from chickens.

Yet those presumptions seem to suggest (by logic) there can be no such things as chickens or eggs as we need to have one before we can have the other. Yet we do have both.

In order to explain this, we would have to amend our very logical (and true) definitions of chickens.

We might hypothesise a duck laying eggs that had genetic mutations which then produced chickens. Or we might hypothesise that chickens used to lay their young live before one mutated chicken started laying eggs. Yet it would seem to be illogical and false to say ducks create chickens or chickens lay their young live. We know that they don’t.

But we also know there are chickens and so we easily understand our defined and very logical (and seemingly true) definitions must be not quite correct in their entirety.

I’m suggesting the same “might be” true of your definition of free will and that our logic needs to be re-examined either to broaden our definitions (as in the chicken and egg problem) or to change our understanding of the parameters (as in the Big Bang problem).

Next post i intend to propose that for free will we might look at the second case - understanding free will in a new light by linking it to the example of the Big Bang and seeing intent and choice as entwined and defined by the other rather than one needing the other before it can exist. Even though we can look at some things as different and distinct and reliant on eachother, with more knowledge, they may in fact be aspects of the same thing.

In this case the two parameters being dependent on eachother would actually be causing eachother not by “following from” (linked by time) but by their “symbiotic nature” (linked by essence).

OK. Got to go now but will read your considered response tomorrow.