What is the point of free will?

[Pallas_Athene]

No, it’s not an error on my part. I’m well aware that the algorithm changes. My point is that it doesn’t matter.

What humans do when they make decisions is actually much more complicated. First off, free will isn’t even totally accessible to consciousness in humans. And if you really wanted to (which I would not do), you could label your robots as having free will too. Still a difference would remain because the robot would have full access to its decision making processes. It would be fully aware of it. Humans, however, are not fully aware of all of their cognitive processes. So the nature of their free wills would be completely different.

Let’s review the definition of the libertarian free will.

1. There is an aim that the agent wishes to achieve.
2. There are at least two ways to achieve that aim.
3. The locus of decision resides within the agent.

That is all. There is not one word about the internal structure of the agent, or the decision making algorithm.

Secondly, we don’t make choices based on statistical analysis and probabilities.

Of course we do. We do it all the time. Though the process might not happen in the conscious part of the brain.

I am about to go and watch Jeopardy. I recall the competition between the two human super-champions and Watson. Watson had its internal algorithm to analyze the problem, and when it decided that the probability of the “answer” is “high enough”, he pressed the button. Watson needed to understand the intentionally misleading problem, separate the “chaff” from the “wheat”, search its huge data bank, and when the answer seemed “good enough”, pressed the button. But it is somewhat misleading to say that Watson was “searching the data back”. The process is much more complicated than a simple “search”.

It seems likely that if Watson had more time, he could have answered all the problems correctly. But he was competing against very fast humans, he “had to” stop the searching process as soon as the answer was “probably” right.

I hope you have seen that awesome game. Watson wiped the floor with the best of the best of humans.

This sets us apart from robots with the set-up that you presented. Whether or not the algorithm changes is immaterial, because the basic means of decision making remains starkly different. One lacks meaning, while the other is much more complex and often has meaning since it is neither random nor determined.

Oh, you touched upon one of my favorite subjects: “the meaning of the word: ‘meaning’…” That would be major fun to explore.

I should qualify one term in my previous statement. In paragraph #2, by awareness, I mean readily accessible. I don’t mean to imply “self-awareness” in the common sense. A robot just carries out the algorithm, whether it alters it or not. Meanwhile, a human being is much more complicated.

This is an open problem.

Some decisions are made before the consciousness is even aware of them. This means that in everyday life, human free will is the result or is part of some sort of interaction between the unconscious and the consciousness.

Definitely!

Still, we have very little idea how this works. Nevertheless, it does imply or suggest some sort of problem known as cognitive closure, which robots simply don’t have because the problem for a robot cannot even begin to be formulated.

It does? I doubt it.

 

[Back2Church]

No, it does not. But let it be your way. If you wish to argue based upon some “soul”, then it is your job to give a clear and concise definition of what this “soul” might be, and how can we ascertain if someone or something “has it, or not”.

If you do not wish to discuss free will in relation to the soul, then you should not have based your question on how free will affects one’s possibilities of getting into heaven.

Original post (yet again, because it seems you keep forgetting how your started this thread) :

After all, no matter how good you might be, you cannot “earn” your way to heaven. Good works, proper decisions, virtuous life are all insufficient. It would be much better to be a “mindless” robot, to be predestined to heaven. To have free will, which allows one to make incorrect decisions is a burden or a curse.

If you wanted to discuss the point of free will from a completely biological, non-religious perspective, then you should have stated that from the beginning.

 

[Bradski]

TIt is likely they murdered all of their own children, so there were no innocents left for God to drown.

In which case God didn’t have to do anything. The human race would have died out within a few years.

But really, Pumpkin. I think you are doing what I said was impossible. Defending the indefensible. Every child was killed as soon as it was born so therefore God didn’t kill any innocent children? I think you’ve stretched credulity well past the breaking point.

And in any case, do you think it’s evil to drown pregnant women?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

In which case God didn’t have to do anything. The human race would have died out within a few years.

But really, Pumpkin. I think you are doing what I said was impossible. Defending the indefensible. Every child was killed as soon as it was born so therefore God didn’t kill any innocent children? I think you’ve stretched credulity well past the breaking point.

And in any case, do you think it’s evil to drown pregnant women?

Maybe they wouldn’t have died fast enough, and the amount of suffering they were causing outweighed the value of their continued existence.

Of course it is evil to murder children and pregnant women and any innocent people! But, even though it may strain credulity, there are at least logically possible explanations for God’s actions in this case.

1. Maybe God can kill anyone for whatever reason with impunity. OR
2. Maybe God had good reasons for drowning everyone and each of them deserved it.
3. Maybe there were no pregnant women because the antediluvian people engaged in non-reproductive sex acts exclusively.
4. The children weren’t necessarily killed upon birth. Maybe the antediluvian people ate them or killed them as convenient or to harm their enemies.

There are some reasons to suppose the antediluvian people were thoroughly evil, murderous, wantonly cruel to animals/nature, and cannibalistic. Chaos and enmity were universal, as well as environmental degradation and abuse.

I’ve thought about this a lot actually and the rabbit hole is deep regarding Jewish commentaries on this subject.

Actually, I’m surprised you aren’t angry that God also killed all the animals who couldn’t possibly have deserved it! There are potential explanations for this as well.

Or, you could just consider it as made-up. That doesn’t have to mean God is made up too necessarily.

 

[Bradski]

Or, you could just consider it as made-up. That doesn’t have to mean God is made up too necessarily.

I think I’ll leave it at that point.

 

[DCNBILL]

You pointed out a minor linguistic discrepancy. We have TWO words: for biologically “bad” (simply “bad”) and one for morally “bad” (which is “evil”). They are not the same. However, there is no distinction between biologically “good” and morally “good” actions. Guess, why? Because if something is biologically “good”, then it is also morally “good”! And if something is not “biologically good” it cannot be “morally good” either.

So a Marine throwing himself on a grenade, (Biologically bad) to save his fellow Marines would not be considered a moral good?

 

[Wyrd]

Hello Pallas Athene, the point is not to reach Pleasure and avoid Pain, but how to be remade to exist as God does regardless of the circumstances one experiences.

“first learn that there is a God, and that His Providence directs the Universe; further,
that to hide from Him not only one’s acts but even one’s thoughts
and intentions is impossible; secondly, what the nature of God is.
Whatever that nature is discovered to be, the man who would please
and obey Him must strive with all his might to be made like unto him.
If the Divine is faithful, he also must be faithful; if free, he also
must be free; if beneficent, he also must be beneficent; if magnanimous,
he also must be magnanimous. Thus as an imitator of God must he follow
Him in every deed and word.”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So a Marine throwing himself on a grenade, (Biologically bad) to save his fellow Marines would not be considered a moral good?

Not unconditionally. But you are on the right track. It would depend on the analysis of the results of that sacrifice. It is not sufficient to look at the short term (immediate) results, but also at the long term repercussions. And not only at the individual affected, but also at the greater ramifications of the act. Please continue your analysis.

 

[tonyrey]

Can you explain how it would be possible to be less free than we are? The only way I can think of seems to be by giving all of us a low IQ. Would you opt for that?

You are assuming people never change in spite of all the facts to the contrary. And even if they never perform such acts it doesn’t follow that they never indulge in immoral fantasies and fail to resist temptation mentally. It is an elementary mistake to judge by appearances.

The number of people who are sociopaths and psychopaths is miniscule. So the simple method is to create only GOOD people, with an internal moral sense who are unwilling to torture or kill or rape others. No need to install external “police force” to stop them. They can have as high IQ as you wish. Actually, the higher, the better.

In that case their free will is curtailed and is not free will in the full sense of the term.

Now if this “omnipotent” God of yours is unwilling or unable to limit the creation to such people, then there is a secondary, albeit inferior solution to the problem. Arrange some external method, which will prevent the sociopaths from carrying out their acts, and leaves them “frustrated”. “Darn, I am unable to rape that purty little girl, too? How unlucky I am that a policeman always comes when I wish to kidnap a kid?” This method would limit the “free will” of the criminals to be put into practice. There are some people, who say that “free will” is a given as long as one is “free” to “will” something, it is not necessary that the “will” can be acted upon.

The suggestion that “a policeman always comes” is absurd unless you believe there is no limit to divine intervention in a world where we are free to choose for ourselves how to behave.

But as I already pointed out, we have sufficient freedom if we are allowed to kiss and hug our kids either once or twice, depending on our mood, if we are free to choose sushi over steak, or a red tie over a blue one… to be “free” it is NOT necessary to have the freedom to hack a kid into mincemeat with a machete. That kind of “freedom” is excessive, it is unnecessary and it is just harmful.

A world composed solely of do-gooders is clearly a fantasy which imposes arbitrary limits on human behaviour to satisfy a preconceived conclusion. It is in the same category as an earthly Utopia…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You are assuming people never change in spite of all the facts to the contrary. And even if they never perform such acts it doesn’t follow that they never indulge in immoral fantasies and fail to resist temptation mentally.

No, I am assuming - with good reason - that SOME people can resist temptation. And of course, this “mental” temptation is just a “thought-crime” from 1984. It is strange that God is assumed to behave like the Big Brother, who punishes “thought crimes”.

It is an elementary mistake to judge by appearances.

Since the only information to us is the “appearance”, there is no other foundation to make judgments.

In that case their free will is curtailed and is not free will in the full sense of the term.

YES, indeed. But our freedom is ALREADY seriously limited. No matter how much one would “will” to hurt others just by “willing” it, it would be futile. Also no matter how much we would love to help others, our ability is limited.

But, if you have this strange concept that “real” freedom must incorporate “evil” actions, here is an excellent solution for you. Instead of giving freedom to hurt other humans… how about granting the freedom to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, or desecrating the the Eucharist, or something equally serious against God, but not against other humans.

What “wonderfully” evil actions, and yet none of them hurt other human beings.

 

[tonyrey]

You are assuming people never change in spite of all the facts to the contrary. And even if they never perform such acts it doesn’t follow that they never indulge in immoral fantasies and fail to resist temptation mentally.

It is well-known fact that crimes are preceded by thoughts and even if they are not implemented people are found guilty of intent to rob, rape, torture or murder a person or persons…

It is an elementary mistake to judge by appearances.

Since the only information to us is the “appearance”, there is no other foundation to make judgments.

Regardless of appearances it is an elementary mistake to believe some people can resist every single temptation.In that case their free will would be curtailed and it is not free will in the full sense of the term.

YES, indeed. But our freedom is ALREADY seriously limited. No matter how much one would “will” to hurt others just by “willing” it, it would be futile. Also no matter how much we would love to help others, our ability is limited.

Our freedom is never limited to such an extent that we are not responsible for our thouughts, actions or decisions - unless we are mentally deficient.

But, if you have this strange concept that “real” freedom must incorporate “evil” actions, here is an excellent solution for you. Instead of giving freedom to hurt other humans… how about granting the freedom to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, or desecrating the the Eucharist, or something equally serious against God, but not against other humans.

You need to explain how being free to exclude human beings from evil thoughts, desires, actions or decisions could be implemented. It seems a gratuitous hypothesis for which there is no evidence whatsoever, i.e. just a fantasy to suit a preconceived conclusion…

What “wonderfully” evil actions, and yet none of them hurt other human beings.

It would be obvious everyone is being protected by a benevolent power. We wouldn’t be free to ignore the reality of divine intervention because universal protection against harm by another person would be scientifically inexplicable.

 

[tonyrey]

The point of free will is that without it we wouldn’t be see the point of free will - or anything else! Rational insight presupposes the power to choose what to think, reach our own conclusions and transcend the limitations of time and space.

 

[tonyrey]

The point of free will is that nothing makes sense without it…

 

[tonyrey]

It is well-known fact that crimes are preceded by thoughts and even if they are not implemented people are found guilty of intent to rob, rape, torture or murder a person or persons…

Regardless of appearances it is an elementary mistake to believe some people can resist every single temptation.In that case their free will would be curtailed and it is not free will in the full sense of the term.
Our freedom is never limited to such an extent that we are not responsible for our thouughts, actions or decisions - unless we are mentally deficient.

You need to explain how being free to exclude human beings from evil thoughts, desires, actions or decisions could be implemented. It seems a gratuitous hypothesis for which there is no evidence whatsoever, i.e. just a fantasy to suit a preconceived conclusion…It would be obvious everyone is being protected by a benevolent power. We wouldn’t be free to ignore the reality of divine intervention because universal protection against harm by another person would be scientifically inexplicable.

No objections!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is well-known fact that crimes are preceded by thoughts and even if they are not implemented people are found guilty of intent to rob, rape, torture or murder a person or persons…

I don’t know where you live, but in my neck of the woods no one can detect the intent unless it is put into action. And no one is punished for their thoughts…

Regardless of appearances it is an elementary mistake to believe some people can resist every single temptation.In that case their free will would be curtailed and it is not free will in the full sense of the term.

Our freedom is always curtailed, whether you realize it or not. Of course we can “WILL” whatever we want, but mere “WILL” irrelevant.

You need to explain how being free to exclude human beings from evil thoughts, desires, actions or decisions could be implemented.

I do not “need” to explain the details. God can do anything and everything, UNLESS it contains a logical contradiction. And to have thoroughly good people (like Gandhi) is logically possible.

But you keep avoiding the problem - as usual!

To be free, it is enough to be able to choose between one good action and another… But if someone insists on being able to choose “evil” actions, then to choose “blaspheming” the Holy Spirit or desecrating the Eucharist is more than sufficient as “evil” actions, and these actions allow people to love their neighbors, or help them in their need.

No objections!

You are soooo impatient. It just might happen that someone takes a break. As I did in the last few days. Learn to be a little patient, buddy.

 

[tonyrey]

It is well-known fact that crimes are preceded by thoughts and even if they are not implemented people are found guilty of intent

Even though we’re not punished we can still be guilty!.

Regardless of appearances it is an elementary mistake to believe some people can resist every single temptation.In that case their free will would be curtailed and it is not free will in the full sense of the term.

Our freedom is always curtailed, whether you realize it or not. Of course we can “WILL” whatever we want, but mere “WILL” irrelevant.

Our freedom is always curtailed but not to such an extent that we never responsible for our thoughts, actions or failure to act when we should.

You need to explain how being free to exclude human beings from evil thoughts, desires, actions or decisions could be implemented.

I do not “need” to explain the details. God can do anything and everything, UNLESS it contains a logical contradiction. And to have thoroughly good people (like Gandhi) is logically possible.

. God can do anything and everything but He is consistent. There’s no point in giving us free will and then preventing us from expressing our deepest desires and ambitions. He doesn’t do things by halves!

Much as I admire Gandhi he wasn’t perfect in every respect nor did he claim to be. He was very saintly but still human.

But you keep avoiding the problem - as usual!

To be free, it is enough to be able to choose between one good action and another… But if someone insists on being able to choose “evil” actions, then to choose “blaspheming” the Holy Spirit or desecrating the Eucharist is more than sufficient as “evil” actions, and these actions allow people to love their neighbors, or help them in their need.

Even so they couldn’t live in harmony with those who reject God and are ungrateful for everything they have been given. It is unreasonable to deny the very possibility that God exists. don’t you think? Although it is understandable if they have suffered a great deal or have witnessed some one else undergoing that experience.

No objections!

You are soooo impatient. It just might happen that someone takes a break. As I did in the last few days. Learn to be a little patient, buddy.

I’m delighted you haven’t abandoned us! It is understandable that most people move on after several weeks and you’ve lasted longer than most…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Even though we’re not punished we can still be guilty!.

Guilty, according to whom? No one knows about your thoughts - until you ACT on them. Thought crime only exists in 1984.

Our freedom is always curtailed but not to such an extent that we never responsible for our thoughts, actions or failure to act when we should.

Responsible for our “thoughts”??? Besides, you are wrong. If a terrorist holds your family hostage, and demands you to kill someone, no just judge or jury will hold you responsible for the act, because you acted under intolerable duress.

God can do anything and everything but He is consistent. There’s no point in giving us free will and then preventing us from expressing our deepest desires and ambitions. He doesn’t do things by halves!

The correct conclusion is that a rational creator only gives freedom, which is consistent with him aim for the creation. To give too much or too little freedom would jeopardize the creation, which is irrational. Now you can draw two conclusions. Either God designed and intended all the misery and mayhem coming from the excessive amount of freedom we have, or he simply does not care.

Much as I admire Gandhi he wasn’t perfect in every respect nor did he claim to be. He was very saintly but still human.

I did not say anything about “perfect”. I only point out that having freedom is not incompatible with being kind and compassionate. There is no need for “saints”, only good humans.

Even so they couldn’t live in harmony with those who reject God and are ungrateful for everything they have been given.

I have no idea what you meant here. The point was that IF someone insists to have freedom to commit “evil” things, then the freedom to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit or desecrating the Eucharist is “evil” enough. There is no need to extend the freedom to also hurt other humans.

 

[tonyrey]

Even though we’re not punished we can still be guilty!.

In that case we’re entitled to indulge to our heart’s content in imagining we are raping or hurting anyone we like…

Our freedom is always curtailed but not to such an extent that we never responsible for our thoughts, actions or failure to act when we should.

Responsible for our “thoughts”??? Besides, you are wrong. If a terrorist holds your family hostage, and demands you to kill someone, no just judge or jury will hold you responsible for the act, because you acted under intolerable duress.

Acting under intolerable duress doesn’t affect your free will in the slightest - only the exercise of your free will. You would not be found guilty for doing so.

God can do anything and everything but He is consistent. There’s no point in giving us free will and then preventing us from expressing our deepest desires and ambitions. He doesn’t do things by halves!

The correct conclusion is that a rational creator only gives freedom, which is consistent with him aim for the creation. To give too much or too little freedom would jeopardize the creation, which is irrational. Now you can draw two conclusions. Either God designed and intended all the misery and mayhem coming from the excessive amount of freedom we have, or he simply does not care.

There is a vast difference between intending and permitting as you would realise if you were a surgeon - or even a parent. Should we force our children to conform to our beliefs and values in every respect?

Much as I admire Gandhi he wasn’t perfect in every respect nor did he claim to be. He was very saintly but still human.

I did not say anything about “perfect”. I only point out that having freedom is not incompatible with being kind and compassionate. There is no need for “saints”, only good humans.

If people **never **harm others and are **always **kind and compassionate they are saints…

Even so they couldn’t live in harmony with those who reject God and are ungrateful for everything they have been given.

I have no idea what you meant here. The point was that IF someone insists to have freedom to commit “evil” things, then the freedom to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit or desecrating the Eucharist is “evil” enough. There is no need to extend the freedom to also hurt other humans.

You hurt those who love Jesus if you deliberately blaspheme against the Holy Spirit or desecrate the Eucharist…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

In that case we’re entitled to indulge to our heart’s content in imagining we are raping or hurting anyone we like…

Of course we are entitled. It is called fantasizing. If the fantasy is not transferred into reality, there is nothing wrong with it… and that is the fundamental point. All the great pieces of literature come from the fantasy of the author. Sometimes the stories are downright horrible (like 1984), but just imagining them (without even attempting to put them into practice) is not blameworthy. One can alleviate stress harmlessly by fantasizing about a solution.

Acting under intolerable duress doesn’t affect your free will in the slightest - only the exercise of your free will. You would not be found guilty for doing so.

If you are forced to act against your “will” then your “free will” is pointless… and that is what the thread is all about. The libertarian concept of free will has three parts:

1. You (the agent) have an aim in mind, which you wish to achieve or actualize.
2. There are at least two ways to reach that aim.
3. The locus of decision rests with the agent.

In the example I gave, the agent’s will is not to kill those people he is commanded to kill. There is no way to reach that goal, due to the blackmail. Therefore he cannot act “freely”, because the second requirement is not met.

There is a vast difference between intending and permitting as you would realise if you were a surgeon - or even a parent.

If you are aware of something which is about to happen, and have the power/ability to prevent it, and do not prevent it, then you are just as guilty as the perpetrator. Remember the Oklahoma city bombing, where Timothy McVeigh was the actual terrorist and Terry Nichols was “just” an accomplice. His crime was that he knew about the impending act, could have notified the authorities, and failed to do so.

Should we force our children to conform to our beliefs and values in every respect?

Please, who talks about interfering in EVERY instance? Not I. Only in those instances when the child is about to commit something that is harmful to others (or himself). You would not let your child to play with a loaded gun in the name of “free will”. And besides you argued that disallowing to act on a “will” does not infringe on the “freedom” of the will. Can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

If people **never **harm others and are **always **kind and compassionate they are saints…

No, a “saint” must worship God. Mere good actions count for nothing, if they are not motivated by the love of God… according the catechism. Gandhi was never beatified as far as I know.

You hurt those who love Jesus if you deliberately blaspheme against the Holy Spirit or desecrate the Eucharist…

Yes, you may call it “hurt”. But I only talk about physical harm. To prevent physical harm would make this existence “immensely” better. Moreover, one can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit “inside” (yet another thought-crime?) and that would not scandalize the believers.

Again, the point is that one can have free will and act on it, if his options are LIMITED to choose between one good, benevolent, beneficial act and another. There is no reason to allow malevolent, hurtful acts to have free will.

 

[Robert_Sock]

We are free to choose in certain situations in which God tests us, but other than that, our free will is limited, such as when we act out of habit, impulse or reflex. Beware of inner voices that tell us what we want and how to act!