A
antunesaa
Guest
I got curious. Could you share with us what those experiences were?
- Status
A
Andy_III
Guest
Hmm, I think there may be a difference. Let’s address your two examples: If we gave the robot free will, the robot could just as easily choose to do one of the 1000 behaviors simply because it knew that the programmer preferred to see them performed. If we have a similar robot without free will, it could still perform an action not within those 1000 behaviors (such as crashing, physically or figuratively) due to some error or miscalculation. Also, If my wife could predict with 100% accuracy what flavor of ice cream I’d pick, that doesn’t mean that the stranger behind me could. My wife could do it because she knows me, not because I don’t have free will.
This shows cases of free will where (1) the same action occurs as in a non-free will case, (2) a non-free will case where a non-preprescribed action occurs, and (3) a case of predicable behavior that still involves free will.
These cases do not appear to line up with your definition of free will. I define free will as the ability to choose to do what you really want to do. (I’m not talking about “wanting” so much ice cream it makes you sick, I’m talking about what you would want if you could see your entire life before you and make all choices with perfect knowledge)
A
Andy_III
Guest
Yes, reading it again helped. Thank you for your patience.
G
greylorn
Guest
We may be sneaking up on a measure of understanding. Consider the preface to your statement, “*If we gave the robot free will,… *” This is really an hypothesis, and is a huge hypothesis. Your entire following argument depends upon it.
Regrettably, your hypothesis is not a valid starting point for further discussion because no one knows how to give a robot free will. Trust me on this. I spent 20 years programming robot telescopes and their better-than-human eyes. Now admittedly we did not want these telescopes to have a mind of their own. Should an instrument choose to perform a little dance in deep space orbit instead of pointing at stars, it would not be of much value.
Nonetheless, one can get a pretty good sense of what we *cannot * do with a robot by programming it to do the things we want it to do, which is difficult enough. And we cannot give a robot free will.
Any created device or entity is essentially a machine. It need not have gears, bells or whistles— your computer is a machine, as is your brain, and your dog’s or cat’s or hamster’s brain. Machines do not have free will. AI (artificial intelligence) people would love to figure out a way to give a machine free will, despite the many Science Fiction writers who’ve developed that possibility to its inevitable conclusion— the takeover of the human race by the robots.
So, unless you come up with a way to create free will in a machine, there seems no point in either of us addressing the consequences.
And so I repeat myself, but this time with reason. If we cannot create a machine or entity with free will, it follows that any entity which actually possesses free will cannot have been created.
Since the human brain is clearly a created machine, however flexible its behavior may be, it cannot have free will. The soul does, but only if it is not created, and if it has more control over the brain than the brain has over it.
Individuals who have been de-souled do not exhibit the kind of human behavior we associate with humans, and are typically institutionalized.
Once again, you are entirely missing the point. My question about choice had nothing to do with the wife in front of you or the stranger behind— it was addressed to you. If you, (and let’s reiterate that for clarity, since your reading skills could use a hone)— if YOU have a reason for choosing chocolate vs. vanilla, then your choice was not a function of free will.
Nothing to do with wives or strangers.
You are not the only person to have plenty of trouble with the issue of free will. You are not going to find the answers in any forms of conventional thinking either, so your obvious options are to let it go, work with me, or believe some stuff that does not correlate with the real world. Or, even better, invent entirely new ideas of your own.
WIVES…
I had some wives, being a normal and horny male. During the periods of my marriages, I never had free will. I wondered about that, so spent some time querying various married guys. None of them have free well. The wisest and most intelligent of them, a Buddhist neighbor, was the only one to acknowledge that he does not have free will. .
He then pointed out that every day he wakes up to a delicious breakfast which his wife cooks. Later he enjoys lunch and dinner, which she cooks. Now and then he does something which she insists upon, or carefully explains why this would not be something for him to do at this time. In between eating good food and doing helpful things for his wife, who also runs their business, he is forced to write books, teach Buddhism, interact with a variety of people on the internet, read, etc, When he had more free will, he used to go out in the woods and poach some firewood for the winter, but that was before he became ill, so now, he calls someone to cut, buck, and stack his firewood, which his wife will load into the firebox come wintertime for him to light.
No free will. Poor man. To make it worse, at the end of each day he must share a bed with his beautiful wife who no doubt uses that time to give him his schedule for the next day.
He asked me then, “By the way, how’s your life going?” I live a quarter mile downroad, cook my own food, cut and buck my own wood, and sleep with my mattress. I poured him another round of fine port wine, which I’d brought to his delightful hot tub.
(There are a few lines in betwixt thou might read, or not.)
Most of our “wants” are programmed into our brain, and come from the brain. In turn, these wants derive from the “needs” of the brain/body system, which likes food, shelter, pleasure, amusement, sexual gratification, survival, and above all, the agreement of others that whatever we say and do is right.
Again, you want to argue from an hypothesis which cannot be realized. I’m not interested. But if I was, I’d point out that the scenario you propose is one in which the future determines one’s choices— which means that they are determined, and not choices at all.
A
avflf
Guest
The robot analogy does make sense and Andy III should have no problem accepting it seeing the Bible itself touches on the subject of “free will”, a phrase that does not appear anywhere in Holy writ, by the very words of the Christ when he says that all he did or said it was not of him but of the Father.
Also, the statement in Paul’s letter to the Romans, that Pharaoh was raised by God for a specific purpose “that my name might be declared throughout all the earth”. That explains why God had Hardened Pharaoh’s heart during the plagues’ episode.
Judas, too, was earmarked for betraying Jesus so that God’s salvation plan be fulfilled.
There is also the “love the one and hate the other” of Jacob and Esau and culminating in the total human subjugation to the Will of God in Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Also, the statement in Paul’s letter to the Romans, that Pharaoh was raised by God for a specific purpose “that my name might be declared throughout all the earth”. That explains why God had Hardened Pharaoh’s heart during the plagues’ episode.
Judas, too, was earmarked for betraying Jesus so that God’s salvation plan be fulfilled.
There is also the “love the one and hate the other” of Jacob and Esau and culminating in the total human subjugation to the Will of God in Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
D
donsnow
Guest
Hmmm.
It seems, then, that the best way to enter the Kingdom of God is to submit our free choice to His approval.
It seems, then, that the best way to enter the Kingdom of God is to submit our free choice to His approval.
M
ManOnFire
Guest
I feel that the crux of society’s problems stem from the challenge of distinguishing the Truth for each individual’s interpretation of Wants versus Needs. Without living one’s life via the Church’s Covenant for behavior, all the new independent individualists are free to create their own values for their life’s direction. Our brains “want” to be pleasured. When Faith is not present in a person, they are more likely to allow their life’s direction to be guided by their basic instincts to pleasure the brain, or, what feels good. That’s why so many are being treated for various addictions. People whose Free Will is 51% stronger than their desire for brain pleasure are strong enough to avoid these addictions. Otherwise, anyone with a middle income could afford to be addicted to sex, porn, drugs, food, gambling, etc. and need treatment for it. The 7 deadly sins would be preventative, but for those who have placed self at the center of their individual universe instead of God, the self only Knows and seeks brain pleasure for Self, like a child. Of course, anyone who grew up in a loving home REMEMBERS what it was like to have mom and dad Love them, pay for everything, take responsibility for their general welfare, etc. SO it’s only natural for us, as adults, to want to go back to that place again, and REMAIN there. Herein lies one of the central paradoxes of modern society: the easier and more fun a child has while growing up, the less likely they will want to part with these brain pleasures to sacrifice for the next generation. This is why marriage and birthrates are declining throughout Europe and the U.S. Marriage, commitment to others, raising kids, etc. is too much of a Sacrifice for those whose desire for brain pleasure guides 51% of the direction of their lives while Free Will is a minor 49% (like a child). In my opinion, denying that Free Will exists is a natural excuse to allow the brain to have more pleasure, like childhood all over again. It sheds the mature adult responsibility to sacrifice for others.
The degree of freedom to pleasure one’s brain, I feel, is one of the central distinctions between liberal and conservative viewpoints. Lower moral standards allow more brain pleasure via the Vices, but this takes us farther away from True Love and the Church. As standards of adult behavior are lowered, so is the responsibility level. The man who desires more brain pleasure for himself will run from the responsibility of raising kids, thereby turning the woman into a sex-and-run victim. Modern society’s answer to this is abortion and raising taxes. Raising taxes is necessary to create a nanny-state to take care of it’s fatherless citizens, since an increasing number of citizens are not interested in taking responsibility for themselves (like a child). Liberal adults, who dream of an impossible child-like existence for all of us, receive more brain pleasure by proposing more welfare for able-bodied individuals who have free willingly chosen to pleasure their brains above taking responsibility for actions. The dream is benevolent and feels good, but it permits lower standards to continue, taxes the responsible, and indebts the nation.The cycle can only escalate since the standards for adult behavior keep getting lower and lower, as we become childlike in our desires to please Self. Meanwhile, the only true answer is to raise individual standards at a time when individuals are choosing to lower them. The bickering will only escalate as individuals free willingly choose to have different values. Look at all the friction between liberals and conservatives within our own Church. Conservatives who want to avoid a bigger nanny state with lower standards are painted as meanies by those who believe it’s possible for society to live a childlike level of responsibility. That’s where the Church has had it solved for 2000 years. But don’t expect mainstream media or politicians to promote it since they don’t “get it.”
A
avflf
Guest
I think it doesn’t matter as it appears that it is up to God who he will allow or discard depending solely on his reasoning or, as Romans puts it “predestined”
(Rom 8:29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
(v.30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
And if he made you one way there’s no hope in hell you’re gonna change and it’s not up to you to question his decisions. As they say in competitions " the judges verdict is final and no discussion will be entertained".
(Rom 9:19) *Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? *(v. 20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (v.21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Just wait for the final lottery in the sky. Don’t worry, be happy. Que sera sera …
A
Andy_III
Guest
No, it does not follow, unless you assume that humans (of today) are the most potent force possible. Even the godless need only wait until tommorrow to find out they have a new, more potent force (the humans of tomorrow). Therefore it does not follow that any entity with free will is not created.
I’m realizing that this is a more debated area than I thought. Even the definition of the term “free will” is up for grabs. How can we as a people communicate if words have different definitions! (Like “is” or “social justice”)
Also, wikipedia talks about free will in terms of a decision tree rather than a definition. It asks:
- Is there determinism? (Y/N)
- Is there free will? (Y/N)
Are you trying to state that some humans have free will and some don’t? Maybe what you are describing is the feeling that one has free will, which is not the same as having free will? Could that help the discussion if we separate these two ideas?
Mainly, I was trying to see what properties an entity which had free will would look/act like to an outside observer. If we don’t know that, then we can at best be talking about oneself. I’m looking for a self-consistent definition of free will to start from. Yours did not seem to be consistent (because of the cases I pointed out) in terms of observability. Does that make sense or did I completely miss something?
A
Andy_III
Guest
No, I don’t think so. That kind of thinking leads to death. If I thought like that, I could just sit back and wait for other people to feed me.
I
Isaiah_41
Guest
The warmth and peace of adoration. The peace in your soul that only God can give. A hug from one of your kids.
A
avflf
Guest
Unfortunately it does not revolve around what you or I think, but on what is written
V
vjtorley
Guest
Greylorn:
I’ve been following your recent comments on free will.
(1) You wrote that “the soul might have free will; the brain cannot.”
First, as Mortimer Adler once remarked, we can’t think without our brains, but we don’t think with them. That’s a category mistake. Freedom is a property of persons, not brains.
Second, it’s simply not true to assume that the brain’s behavior is predictable, or that free will would entail a violation of the law of conservation of energy (a common canard). To see why, have a look at this site:
angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve2.html#soul-answers
(lots of thought-provoking articles) and scroll down to the heading, “Physicists’ arguments against the possibility of free will.” There you can read my online essay on libertarian freedom and how it works at the neural level. In a nutshell: downward causation.
(2) I quite agree with you that if our actions could be predicted by scientists, they would not be free.
(3) I disagree with your assumption that reasons are causes. Let’s say I’m at a fork in a road. On the left is a sign that beckons me toward a big city with lots of bright lights, entertainment and fun. On the right is a sign that beckons me toward a wildlife reserve where I can commune with nature. I have to make a choice. Both choices sound attractive to me. They’re incommensurable. I cannot say which I like better - they’re both highly desirable. In the end, I choose the wildlife reserve. Does that mean I wanted it more? No. It just means I wanted to make a decision, fast - the alternative being to stand at the fork until I perished from exposure to the elements.
But how did I choose to go right and not left, you might ask? I don’t know. Does this peculiar question have to have an answer? Perhaps I just chose a reason - the first one that came into my head, e.g. “You’ve never been to a wildlife reserve before. Why not give it a try?” - and then I said, “OK, I’ll do that then.” Or perhaps my brain came up with a random string of “left-rights” echoing in my head, and at some point I jumped in and said “NOW!”, just as my brain said “right.” If that’s what happened, then I see no reason to say that it determined my choice.
I’ve been following your recent comments on free will.
(1) You wrote that “the soul might have free will; the brain cannot.”
First, as Mortimer Adler once remarked, we can’t think without our brains, but we don’t think with them. That’s a category mistake. Freedom is a property of persons, not brains.
Second, it’s simply not true to assume that the brain’s behavior is predictable, or that free will would entail a violation of the law of conservation of energy (a common canard). To see why, have a look at this site:
angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve2.html#soul-answers
(lots of thought-provoking articles) and scroll down to the heading, “Physicists’ arguments against the possibility of free will.” There you can read my online essay on libertarian freedom and how it works at the neural level. In a nutshell: downward causation.
(2) I quite agree with you that if our actions could be predicted by scientists, they would not be free.
(3) I disagree with your assumption that reasons are causes. Let’s say I’m at a fork in a road. On the left is a sign that beckons me toward a big city with lots of bright lights, entertainment and fun. On the right is a sign that beckons me toward a wildlife reserve where I can commune with nature. I have to make a choice. Both choices sound attractive to me. They’re incommensurable. I cannot say which I like better - they’re both highly desirable. In the end, I choose the wildlife reserve. Does that mean I wanted it more? No. It just means I wanted to make a decision, fast - the alternative being to stand at the fork until I perished from exposure to the elements.
But how did I choose to go right and not left, you might ask? I don’t know. Does this peculiar question have to have an answer? Perhaps I just chose a reason - the first one that came into my head, e.g. “You’ve never been to a wildlife reserve before. Why not give it a try?” - and then I said, “OK, I’ll do that then.” Or perhaps my brain came up with a random string of “left-rights” echoing in my head, and at some point I jumped in and said “NOW!”, just as my brain said “right.” If that’s what happened, then I see no reason to say that it determined my choice.
A
Andy_III
Guest
Very true, we must always be subject to absolute truth, whether written, spoken, or observed.Unfortunately it does not revolve around what you or I think, but on what is written
D
donsnow
Guest
Excellent post, sir. Thanks for sharing.
D
donsnow
Guest
But, when a sinner pleads sincerely again and again, “Let me repent”
would not He who made all souls have mercy? And let that sinner repent?
G
greylorn
Guest
Andy,
I’m not ready to declare either of us as having made sense on this difficult topic, but I know that I’m trying to and I trust that you are doing the same. If we cannot make sense of this, then it seems to follow that one or the other of us has missed something, and I’d sure rather it be you than me.
However, the greater likelihood is that both of us have missed something, either at the conceptual level, or at the level of expression. I’m willing to work this subject with you. Let’s figure it out.
We’ll need some ground rules. Wiki is a great source for raw data and the last place I’d look for conceptual understanding. That is true of any encyclopedia. Philosophers are mostly a bunch of overeducated and unimaginative perfessers who use arcane terminology to conceal the fact that they don’t know squat, so, although you’ve not brought up any such references, let’s not ask them for insights unless you happen to know of a clear-thinking philosopher.
Here are more thoughts. You said, “I was trying to see what properties an entity which had free will would look/act like to an outside observer.” Give that up unless you can define “outside observer.” Such comments are a pretense at scientific objectivism, which is something science has yet to figure out. Let’s just work on a mutually agreeable understanding, a practical understanding— something that we can actually use in our lives.
Re: your question, “Are you trying to state that some humans have free will and some don’t?” my answer is an unequivocal yes. I don’t typically discuss “feelings” in a philosophical context, unless the topic is human emotions.
To engage in a practical discussion of human nature in any form or style, you must give up all preconceptions. Atheists don’t believe that a soul exists, and Christians believe that a human zygote is assigned one automatically. Neither belief system has taken much trouble to define the “soul.” Have you? And have you considered the range of alternatives in between these beliefs?
You will also need to appreciate that human language is always used and must be interpreted in the context of a given conversation. Yes, there are many meanings for “is,” and I’ll bet that you can distinguish one from another just as well as I. There is only one meaning for “social justice.” No doubt Karl Marx is twitching in his grave for not having thought of it, for it is much more difficult to interpret correctly than his jargon term, communism.
So, let’s get down to answerable questions, individual threads in the fabric of belief. We can keep this conversation simple and on its point by doing Q & A, one pair at a time.
Do you believe that animals have free will? This is an upfront yes/no question.
A
Andy_III
Guest
I think all humans have free will. But without a working definition of free will, both statements are meaningless. So, let’s proceed!
Actually, I have thought about this some. This may not be a definition, but it might help. There is a one to one correspondence of “soul” to living things. Therefore, the moment something is alive, we can say it has a soul. This correspondence creates a range of possible definitions for soul, with the lower bound being “the property of being alive”.
Many meanings of “is”, but none of them means “is not”. That was the particular redefinition I had in mind.
Since we are starting without a definition of free will, it sounds like we are using these questions to define the term. Have I got that right?
In that case, it doesn’t matter too much which answers I choose, since we are simply exploring a decision tree. I’ll try this one, since I think it is interesting…
(1) No, animals do not have free will. (Let’s number the questions and answers for reference)
A
avflf
Guest
I would hope so.
Take, for example, the following :.
(Jas 5:15) “And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him”.
But does such a “he/him” have to belong to the category of the “vessels unto honour” of Rom 9:21 before such prayer is acted upon?
Or Rom 8:28 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose”
Do you note the proviso of being “called according to His purpose” qualifying the previous statement of “… all things work together for good to them that love God”?
Jesus himself qualified who was to accept his teachings and who was not:
(Mar 4:11) “And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables”:
Repeated in Mat.13:11.
What do you make of it?
D
donsnow
Guest
Well, I think it all boils down to believing that we have a good hope in a merciful God, and to repent and live the walk and leave it up to God. And, if we love God in response to His love, that ought to do it.
- Status