What is the point of free will?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pallas_Athene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Free will is a reality…not a point. IMHO, it comes from no god-force, but is the product of our development from initial creation.

John
 
Pallas_Athene said:
John Conway wrote a beautiful computer program, the “Game of Life”, where he showed that very few “rules” can result in extremely complex behavior.
Click to expand...
God gave us two greatest rules, to love God, and to love our neighbours as we love ourselves, all the law of God hangs and depends on these two greatest commandments.

We are free to obey these commandments, or ignore them, and we have the freedom to interpret these commandments in any way we like.

How do John Conway’s computer rules compare with God’s?

Sorry I have not read all through your thread.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
It is not that bad. There is a coherent definition of “libertarian freedom”, that thoughts are the interactions of the neurons of the brain, but “life” is elusive.
Click to expand...
I didn’t understand this part of your answer, Pallas: are you saying that “libertarian freedom” has a coherent definition and besides that, “thoughts” are “the interactions of the neurons of the brain”, or that “libertarian freedom is the interactions of the neurons of the brain”?
 
oldcelt said:
Free will is a reality…not a point. IMHO, it comes from no god-force, but is the product of our development from initial creation.

John
Click to expand...
Can you explain how free will has been produced by physical objects which do not have free will? :confused:
 
JuanFlorencio said:
I didn’t understand this part of your answer, Pallas: are you saying that “libertarian freedom” has a coherent definition and besides that, “thoughts” are “the interactions of the neurons of the brain”, or that “libertarian freedom is the interactions of the neurons of the brain”?
Click to expand...
No, the definition of libertarian freedom rests on three legs.
  1. The decision maker has a certain goal which he wishes to achieve.
  2. There are at least two ways to achieve that goal.
  3. The locus of decision rests with the person.
That is all. It does not say anything about the actual method of how that decision is reached. It only says that person itself makes the decision, and not someone else, who “forces” the decision unto him. In other words, “brainwashing” is excluded. Also using some physical force is absent. And also there is no “blackmail” involved.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
No, the definition of libertarian freedom rests on three legs.
  1. The decision maker has a certain goal which he wishes to achieve.
  2. There are at least two ways to achieve that goal.
  3. The locus of decision rests with the person.
That is all. It does not say anything about the actual method of how that decision is reached. It only says that person itself makes the decision, and not someone else, who “forces” the decision unto him. In other words, “brainwashing” is excluded. Also using some physical force is absent. And also there is no “blackmail” involved.
Click to expand...
I see, Pallas… I think that your three legged definition has some other hidden legs: You are talking about goals, wishes, alternatives, decisions, and persons. It would seem that “knowledge” and “thoughts” are implied as well. Spontaneity, perhaps?..

How do you define “person”, “wish” and “decision”?
 
Pallas_Athene said:
No, the definition of libertarian freedom rests on three legs.
  1. The decision maker has a certain goal which he wishes to achieve.
  2. There are at least two ways to achieve that goal.
  3. The locus of decision rests with the person.
That is all. It does not say anything about the actual method of how that decision is reached. It only says that person itself makes the decision, and not someone else, who “forces” the decision unto him. In other words, “brainwashing” is excluded. Also using some physical force is absent. And also there is no “blackmail” involved.
Click to expand...
Libertarian freedom is not compatible with Catholic dogma of sufficient grace. With libertarian freedom, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, purchased in our redemption, is never sufficient in itself, because the faith is held to be something that arises separately from Christ’s work, and (for libertarian freedom) only when faith is present, is grace considered sufficient…
 
JuanFlorencio said:
I see, Pallas… I think that your three legged definition has some other hidden legs: You are talking about goals, wishes, alternatives, decisions, and persons. It would seem that “knowledge” and “thoughts” are implied as well. Spontaneity, perhaps?..

How do you define “person”, “wish” and “decision”?
Click to expand...
The same way as you do, I guess. There is nothing problematic about these concepts.
Vico said:
Libertarian freedom is not compatible with Catholic dogma of sufficient grace. With libertarian freedom, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, purchased in our redemption, is never sufficient in itself, because the faith is held to be something that arises separately from Christ’s work, and (for libertarian freedom) only when faith is present, is grace considered sufficient…
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but I have no idea what you mean here. If we are not free to make choices, then we are not responsible for those “choices”.

If a gang of terrorists holds your family hostage and demand that you perform some act of terrorism, then you cannot be held responsible because you acted under irresistible duress. If you are literally brainwashed, then you will not be held responsible for your actions.

It is impossible to “prove” that we have “true, libertarian free will”. But it is generally accepted that we do. Our whole judicial system presupposes personal responsibility. The question is not that. The question: is our level of “freedom” something that is “good or desirable”? Should we have the freedom to perform tortures, rapes and murders? Would the world be worse, if these freedoms would be eliminated?

In my opinion, none of these acts have “intrinsic” value. I never met anyone who would say that these actions are “valuable” in and of themselves. Some people say that if you only have the freedom to hug your child or kiss your child… if you are “deprived” of the freedom to hack your child to pieces with a machete, then you have no “true” freedom. Where does this strange concept come from, I have no idea.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
…

I am sorry, but I have no idea what you mean here. If we are not free to make choices, then we are not responsible for those “choices”.

…
Click to expand...
You ask many questions, but this proceeds without first establishing the meaning of libertarian free will. My post was that libertarian free will is incompatible with Catholic dogma.

Libertarian is that when choosing one action over another, a free act is when no causal, antecedent, laws of nature, desires, or other factors are sufficient to incline the will decisively to chose one option or another.

Catholic teaching is that human choices are exercised voluntarily but desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism. The Catholic teaching has the following dogmas regarding free will and grace:
  • There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will.
  • There is a supernatural influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man’s free act of will.
  • The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistable.
  • There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious (gratia vere et mere sufficiens.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
I am sure there is nothing problematic for you about those concepts. Please, be kind and go ahead. How do you define them?
Click to expand...
Which one is problematic for you? Person? For the sake of simplicity it is defined as a human being. Both “wish” and “desire” are self-explanatory.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
Which one is problematic for you? Person? For the sake of simplicity it is defined as a human being. Both “wish” and “desire” are self-explanatory.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Pallas! Let’s then substitute the term “person” for “human being”. We can point our finger towards one of us and say: “that is a human being”. It helps a lot, because we learn how to use the expression. But if we want to do the same with wishes and desires, there is no way! We cannot point our finger towards anything!

On the other hand, how could a word be self-explanatory? If you look for the section of self-explanatory words in your dictionary, you won’t find it. What do you mean when you say that “wish” and “desire” are self-explanatory?

Anyway, let’s assume those words are self-explanatory. “Libertarian freedom”, on the other hand, is not, because you need to define it. So, it would seem that “wish” and “desire” would denote a kind of genus, which have to be further specified in order to get the definition for “libertarian freedom”. Am I correct?

Also, I have this question?: do human beings have “libertarian freedom” only in relation to the options to reach a goal, or also in relation to the goals? Or perhaps there are certain goals that determine us and others that do not?
 
In Catholicism, they need just enough free will to allow them to blame the victims for suffering and undermine God’s responsibility for and complicity in evil, but not enough to contradict God’s omnipotence and omniscience. 😉 This is a logically impossible task, which is why Catholicism’s rendering of “free will” is incoherent.

To be fair, I am unaware of a coherent rendering of “free will.”

Very tricky problem. Personally, I view free will as necessary for the moral universe. Without it, we have no reason to suppose there is such a thing as “right” or “wrong.” We don’t suppose animals have free will, and yet we execute dogs who bite or animals who have ceased to be useful. We don’t suppose dogs incur moral guilt when they bite and harm human beings, and yet we manage them by training them not to bite us and killing or otherwise removing those who do. Is this analogous to our “justice” system? Are we just more complex dogs who are capable of “managing” ourselves? Are our notions of “justice” and “fairness” really just stories we tell ourselves about our use of violence against the “guilty?”

It would seem to me the alternative to free will (however incoherently defined) is total determinism. Punishments and rewards make no sense, we merely need good management. There is no reason to suppose that “morality” is more than a narrative we construct for ourselves to try to make sense of our experiences. We are merely a self-aware part of a totally deterministic universe. Even the concept of “personhood” makes no sense without free will of some kind or other.

However, I fully realize that the argument “But, without (dubious) A we will lose (very useful) B” is poor.

Further, if you decide to reject the notion of free will and instead embrace total determinism, then you will probably still be angry about what you perceive as “evil” (though it should be properly considered something akin to “things I don’t like”) in the universe, except that now you will probably be angry that anything exists and ask the question “what is the point of existence?” It just pushes the problem back a level and makes it less personal. But, if the moral universe is truly merely a fantasy, then why do we get outraged at what we perceive as “evil?” Shouldn’t these intuitions fade as we become more rational or “enlightened?” Don’t some forms of Buddhism teach that? Shouldn’t the most enlightened and rational among us be able to confront the greatest atrocities with indifference?

So, I believe we have an aporia here. Free will is crucial element of so many useful understandings, and yet we can’t prove it is real. Like the axiom of choice, so useful, yet unproven.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Thank you, Pallas! Let’s then substitute the term “person” for “human being”. We can point our finger towards one of us and say: “that is a human being”. It helps a lot, because we learn how to use the expression. But if we want to do the same with wishes and desires, there is no way! We cannot point our finger towards anything!
Click to expand...
We don’t need to, because each and every one of us directly experiences these feelings.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
We don’t need to, because each and every one of us directly experiences these feelings.
Click to expand...
Well, Pallas, you might directly experience your own feelings (I don’t know!), but you don’t experience the feelings of any other human being.

But let’s assume also that you do experience the feelings of other human beings. Do human beings have “libertarian freedom” only in relation to the options to reach a goal, or also in relation to the goals? Or perhaps there are certain goals that determine us and others that do not?
 
PumpkinCookie said:
In Catholicism, they need just enough free will to allow them to blame the victims for suffering and undermine God’s responsibility for and complicity in evil, but not enough to contradict God’s omnipotence and omniscience. 😉 This is a logically impossible task, which is why Catholicism’s rendering of “free will” is incoherent.

To be fair, I am unaware of a coherent rendering of “free will.”

Very tricky problem. Personally, I view free will as necessary for the moral universe. Without it, we have no reason to suppose there is such a thing as “right” or “wrong.” We don’t suppose animals have free will, and yet we execute dogs who bite or animals who have ceased to be useful. We don’t suppose dogs incur moral guilt when they bite and harm human beings, and yet we manage them by training them not to bite us and killing or otherwise removing those who do. Is this analogous to our “justice” system? Are we just more complex dogs who are capable of “managing” ourselves? Are our notions of “justice” and “fairness” really just stories we tell ourselves about our use of violence against the “guilty?”

It would seem to me the alternative to free will (however incoherently defined) is total determinism. Punishments and rewards make no sense, we merely need good management. There is no reason to suppose that “morality” is more than a narrative we construct for ourselves to try to make sense of our experiences. We are merely a self-aware part of a totally deterministic universe. Even the concept of “personhood” makes no sense without free will of some kind or other.

However, I fully realize that the argument “But, without (dubious) A we will lose (very useful) B” is poor.

Further, if you decide to reject the notion of free will and instead embrace total determinism, then you will probably still be angry about what you perceive as “evil” (though it should be properly considered something akin to “things I don’t like”) in the universe, except that now you will probably be angry that anything exists and ask the question “what is the point of existence?” It just pushes the problem back a level and makes it less personal. But, if the moral universe is truly merely a fantasy, then why do we get outraged at what we perceive as “evil?” Shouldn’t these intuitions fade as we become more rational or “enlightened?” Don’t some forms of Buddhism teach that? Shouldn’t the most enlightened and rational among us be able to confront the greatest atrocities with indifference?

So, I believe we have an aporia here. Free will is crucial element of so many useful understandings, and yet we can’t prove it is real. Like the axiom of choice, so useful, yet unproven.
Click to expand...
You know, Pumpkin, I do not find it particularly rational to make fun of us Catholics, because you don’t find our doctrines about freedom coherent, and immediately after that to recognize that you don’t know any coherent rendering of it at all. Had you written your words on stone, it would have been comprehensible if you didn’t erase them, especially if you are lazy: It would have represented too much work. But you used your computer!

It would have made sense if, having a powerful theory, you would have come to refute any other doctrine which do not coincide with yours and put everything in its proper place; but coming with your empty hands, how did you dare to write such “introductory” words?

Anyway, what can be done now?..

Freedom is indeed, as you say, a very tricky problem (in a theoretical sense). Which attitude should we adopt in view of the terrible events that accompany us during our lifetime? The most enlightened and rational among you might confront the greatest atrocities with indifference, as you say. The most enlightened and rational among us confront those same atrocities caring for their neighbors.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
You know, Pumpkin, I do not find it particularly rational to make fun of us Catholics, because you don’t find our doctrines about freedom coherent, and immediately after that to recognize that you don’t know any coherent rendering of it at all. Had you written your words on stone, it would have been comprehensible if you didn’t erase them, especially if you are lazy: It would have represented too much work. But you used your computer!

It would have made sense if, having a powerful theory, you would have come to refute any other doctrine which do not coincide with yours and put everything in its proper place; but coming with your empty hands, how did you dare to write such “introductory” words?

Anyway, what can be done now?..

Freedom is indeed, as you say, a very tricky problem (in a theoretical sense). Which attitude should we adopt in view of the terrible events that accompany us during our lifetime? The most enlightened and rational among you might confront the greatest atrocities with indifference, as you say. The most enlightened and rational among us confront those same atrocities caring for their neighbors.
Click to expand...
Everyone comes at this problem with empty hands my friend. Only some of them also claim to have the “fullness of truth.” Ignorance of the “fullness of truth” does not preclude one from pointing out obvious falsity, self-contradiction, or incoherence.

Total determinism is a possible answer to the OP: free-will is an illusion so of course there appears to be “no point.”

Otherwise, we can say that the “point” of free will is to undergird our notions of moral responsibility. For me, “free will” is axiomatic. I have no understanding of how it works, and I fully admit that it appears to be impossible since it contradicts God’s providence as well as the knowable, regular workings of the universe. This question is unsolvable, we should leave it at that. No amount of sophistry will bridge this gap. Our hands are empty.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Well, Pallas, you might directly experience your own feelings (I don’t know!), but you don’t experience the feelings of any other human being.
Click to expand...
Of course not. But I can extrapolate from my experience. Your question was how to define “wish and desire”. There is no need to define it, because it is obvious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top