Philosophy discussion

Ricardo,
Scientists have proven that we act before we are aware of acting. We are like machines. I also make the same mistakes. On top of that, I found that, if given the same environment and circumstances, I always seemingly choose to do the same thing, even if I felt myself deeply regret the identical actions previously. I mourn some of my so-called "decisions"--the worst "mistakes" are things I feel I did not do intentionally at all. Or I see the pattern leading to it and it makes no sense. No. You are not able to change the course of events. I think of the lie of the resume: we are taught to only write of our "accomplishments"--all else, we say, was a "mistake"

Bobbi wrote: "Jimmy,

No."

i disagree


Man was predestined to have free will.

~Hal Lee Luyah

Cute, but I think that it's more true to say that most people have chosen lives that are pre-determined.

Yes--we are saying the same thing...

An interesting article on the topic:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/...

Thank you for the article. It’s very interesting.

For me, though, the main question about free will has to do with the insubstantiality of the “I” who is arguing for or against it.

You die if you worry, you die if you don't.

This is from a religious perspective (Islamic perspective in particular):

“However human beings might act, their fate in eternity lies entirely in their own hands and their acts are their own creations. God only creates in human the power or ability to act, not the acts themselves. Thus, God’s empowerment proceeds the acts rather than operating concurrently with them. Being thus empowered to act, humans do so at a later moment of their own volition. However, there are secondary consequences that arise from one’s own actions and one is responsible for these consequences also as suggested by the Quran (16:25). It should also be noted that potentially deterministic verses suggests that God guides whom He will to the right or the wrong which can be explained as actions God takes after the human concerned has already acted. Thus, they are more like rewards and punishments. [Though it may seem that there exist a certain duality in God's nature to be both wrathful and merciful, the general view in Islam is that God is just and is wrathful only toward evildoers. According to a sacred saying of the Prophet of Islam, it is written on the Devine Throne that: 'verily My (God) mercy precedeth My wrath.'] God’s grace, in this view, consists in His blessings, including His revelations, which may help to guide people if they choose to heed them. A related idea is that such guidance is available to all in equal measure, so that each soul will have an equal chance to achieve paradise and will have only himself to blame for failing to heed the signs.” – The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology

I think the perspective of any particular religion goes beyond philosophy and moves into the area of faith, something I think it is unwise to argue with since faith is faith and goes beyond discusssion. I would never challenge anyone's faith or beliefs.

I do not have the knowledge or right to disagree with anything anyone of faith says about their religion.

However, in looking up "Islam and free will" I found that many people disagree with your conclusion:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Free_Will_a...

Perhaps you are right in that we should leave religion out of the discussion. I only brought it up due the fact that this topic if often discussed in the context of religion.

As for the link, while I do agree with the premises, I disagree with the conclusions. While God can control all things, it doesn't mean He has to do it all the time. He could just as easily set up laws to govern nature and intervene when necessary. Secondly, if God is perceived as Good and if He decided all our actions, then there wouldn't be any evil in the world. Consequently, I believe there is free will for us to make our own choices and are held responsible for the resulting consequences. Then again, this is just one viewpoint and I'm sure other may disagree. So, I'll drop this topic all together.

Hadi, in your post #183, you quoted from a book that "God is just and is wrathful only toward evildoers." But doesn't that mean that only evildoers are punished on earth? Isn't it quite obvious that is not happening? And can't someone be an atheist like myself and still be a good man?

Hadi, I wish you would stay in the discussion.

I am sorry if I offended you in any way.

The question of good and evil is different from the question of free will. I have no idea why these two arguments seem to be joined most of the time. It is really much bigger than that. And, if you believe in God, and if God is everything and everywhere; if he is omniscient and omnipresent, then why would he take a break? He doesn't take a break and decide to let a man breathe on his own for a man can't breathe on his own anymore than he can think on his own. What gap is there between allowing a man to breathe and move and digest his food and live and think and act? Man is not free to breathe as an independent object and neither is he free to think as one because he is not an object. He is a constantly changing unknowable mystery of we do not yet know what he is.

I must agree with Jimmy and disagree with you, Hadi re: good being rewarded and evil punished. I’ve seen mostly the opposite happen.

I think we humans over-estimate ourselves. For how many years in our lives are we even conscious enough to make a decision? Why not put this question to a baby or to a senile old man? How would they answer? Could they answer? Only people capable of forming complex conceptualizations can even approach this question.

It is strange at funerals, when someone has died after being senile for 20 years, the eulogies are mostly about the person when they were around 40 years old, at their peak of so-called “decision-making.” It is as if their years of senility made them non-existent. But they weren’t. They existed as certainly as the baby exists.

Bobbi, I'm not offended ... I wanted to discontinue the religious viewpoints in light of your suggestion precisely because the direction this discussion is taking (we are left to define a lot of terms and first principles which is beyond the scope of our topic here).

To be clear about my post, the things within the brackets are my own thoughts. So to clarify what I mean, consider the words of Charles Babbage (credited with invention of the difference machine or calculator). While demonstrating his calculator to an audience he says: "As you saw, I, the inventor of the machine, did not have to intervene in its working to bring about this change in the calculating function. Rather, with my foresight, I impressed upon the machine a rule that caused it, when the result reached 100, to change the law upon which it calculated [after reaching 100 the rule changed to count by 2 instead of 1]. In like manner does God [divine programmer] impress His creation with laws, laws that have built into them future alterations in their patterns? God’s omnipotence entails that He can foretell what causes will be needed to bring about the effects He desires; God does not need to intervene each and every time some new cause is required. To think this is to burden God with our own intercession of God outside the normal laws governing the physical world."

Jimmy, I did not specify that evil doers were punished on Earth. I will not be pedantic enough to claim to know that answer either. Nor did I say atheist are evil doers. Without getting into details, I was merely pointing out that the fact there is evil (which I define as the absence of good) in the world means that we have free will to choose to do what is right and wrong (although God having foreknowledge of that person’s choices but does not choose for you; He only gives power or ability to act, not the acts themselves). All and all, in my book, if you do good, irrespective of your belief, there is no way God, if you choose to believe in one, will punish you for it.

Regards,
Hadi

-------------------------------------------------
“Let no man ... think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s work; divinity or philosophy; but rather let man endeavor an endless progression or proficiency in both.” -- Bacon: Advancement of Learning

Hadi,

Re: Bacon: Advancement of Learning: What about the people incapable of study?

I do not understand what you mean about Charles Babbage.

Could you clarify?

thank you,

bobbi

The Babbage quote is to illustrate my point that God doesn't have to control every aspect of nature all the time but can set laws and alter them as He sees fit (not to say that God is not omnipotent but that He applies the appropriate alteration to bring out the effect He desires).

... the other quote is from "The Advancement of Learning" is a book written by Francis Bacon.

what you are saying is we have no free will

ok, now we are going in circles. I think I'll retire here and give someone else a chance to enlighten us with a fresh perspective.

Dear Hadi,
Yes. I think it is too hard to discuss this sort of subject on the internet. But I thank you for writing about "going in circles." You are very right and it's caused me to question whether or not "free will" is the correct question (for me) at all--I thank you for the discussion. This thread hasn't been alive for months and I'm sure it will die again.
I send my best wishes to you,
Bobbi

If there was a field of animals, lets say, sheep. The sheep would live their harmoniously, grazing the pastures, producing offspring and aimlessly wandering. I imagine that if in ten thousand years time you visit the same field, the sheep would remain doing much the same thing.

However I do not think that the same principle applies to human beings.

The animals seem to obey some law or perhaps they strive for nothing but to merely exist as they have before. If they do not encounter anything unusual they will remain much the same. Like a planet that orbits the sun; it would take something catastrophic to throw it off course. Whereas the human situation seems to be quite different. I really like Satres idea that we are condemned to be free, a denial of free will seems to be just a denial of responsibility for ones actions. Our environments no doubt have a large bearing upon our decisions, as do people we associate with but ultimately it is up to us

I found an article a while back on a site called Psychology Today. This article addressed this topic and stated arguments why free will is an illusion. I would give the article but at the time I am unable to locate it so I will try to summarize it as best as possible.

To understand the summery of the article people must be familiarized with one of psychology's oldest arguments, nature vs. nurture. Nature vs. nurture is the argument on why we act, respond and think the way we do. Nature’s side is we act the way our ancestors acted and that it was all passed through our ancestor’s genes. Nurture’s side is we act the way we do because of where and how we were raised. Now though most, if not all psychologist agree it is a combination of two.

Now that you understand the nature vs. nurture argument, if you did not before, we can go back to the original debate, is free will an illusion? This article stated that free will is an illusion not because of a higher divine power or pre-made plan, but because of how we are born and raised, not nature vs. nurture, but nature and nurture.
Take for an example Andrea Yates, the mother of five who believed she was saving her children’s innocence by drowning them before they were exposed to “evil.” Now the question becomes would you do the same if you were in her shoes, would you crack, break and become insane causing the death of your five children. The obvious answer for most people are “no way I would do that” or something along those lines. The facts are you would, I’m asking if you were Yates, you would have faced the same stimuli both external and internal, been motivated by the same ideas, raised in the same way. All the factors and dozens more go into determining how you will react to a certain situation, causing you to act and do exactly what Yates has done.

I know I did not explain it the best above but let me improve in this paragraph. The idea is that you are influenced by your surroundings and ideas and any actual decision you decide to make is made because of how your surroundings or biology influenced who you are. The idea is you make your decisions based on nature and nurture, regardless of what you decide or what you debate, your subconscious mind has already decide what you are going to do.

I did my best on explaining it, while not the best it is what I could remember off the top of my head and I believe it holds a valid point. If I find the article again I will post it. If you have any questions, as I know my summery is not the clear, ask and I will try and clear up what I am talking about.

Garret,
Yes. You are right. Science proves we act before we are aware of acting.
This is not a continuous thought but also: I guarantee you, whatever you regret, if placed in exactly the same circumstances, with same stimuli, and inner monologue, you would act exactly the same. This should bring relief to people but the "ego" needs to feel it is real and therefore "believes" in free will.
Nothing is more exhausting to me than hearing rants about "The Law of Attraction."

Well Bobbi & Garret, you would think that; given your particular genetic makeup and the nurturing you got. :-)

I'm going to exercise my free will and maintain my agnosticism on the question of free will. :-)

And no, the fact that a portion of the brain lights up before the nerve ganglia receives an impulse to act is absolutely NOT scientific proof of free will or determinism.

Tyler wrote: "Hi Chris --

This is an interesting question. Right now I'm reading a book (The Book of Disquiet) whose author writes from a deterministic point of view. So we see in it how life is experienced b..."

We certainly have freedom of thought but in these days we are more constrained than ever in the industrial complex whereas in the medieval days there were jobs for everyone and no money worries, creditors, and unwieldy top-heavy gov'ts telling you how to live.

People talk about the freedom of a bird, but a bird has to always be aware of predators, unless you are lucky enough to be a bird of prey. You have to always be on the lookout for food, find a mate, sing territorial songs, and then fly thousands of miles in migration. A few birds such as rooks have time to enjoy flying for sheer fun.

Freedom for all, with no consequences, would be anarchy
and then you cannot be really free unless you are in the middle of nowhere (not to worry about who will steal your food or kill you if they get angry at you for the least thing).

Keely wrote: "We seem to be approaching a fundamental impasse, which is nice, in that it marks a point of understanding, if only an understanding of insurmountable differences.

Tyler wrote: "Even if science w..."

Philosophy means love of knowledge. Science means knowing. You cannot really talk philosophy in an abstract way, Well, you can but it's just an intellectual exercise that benefits no-one.

The bird is instinctually aware of predators and when the bird dies, the bird dies.
We have no freedom of thought. We don't decide what we think.
It has nothing to do with the political atmosphere.
The bird's life is determined. You can look up how long each species lives.

I am not talking philosophy. Not one bit. This is not an intellectual exercise for me. Nor an argument.
I just wanted to hear how or if anyone experienced things as I have, through no choice of my own.
But I give up. I'm tired of this argument.

"We certainly have freedom of thought but in these days we are more constrained than ever in the industrial complex whereas in the medieval days there were jobs for everyone and no money worries, creditors, and unwieldy top-heavy gov'ts telling you how to live."

What!? Feudalism never happened. Serfs lived an idyllic life of Riley, and there were no Feudal Lords taxing them to the point of starvation? What planet is it you are reporting on, @Henry? Certainly not Earth.

Hi James --

And no, the fact that a portion of the brain lights up before the nerve ganglia receives an impulse to act is absolutely NOT scientific proof of free will or determinism.

I'm glad you pointed this out. There is a tendency to confuse science and philosophy on this point, and there's also an equivocation at work between "the brain" and "consciousness."

Hi Henry --

Philosophy refers to wisdom more so than knowledge. Science and philosophy are involved in different pursuits, with some overlap.

I agree that free will, if it exists, is under constraints, and that we in modern life may be less free in certain respects than our ancestors.

People tend to look at these external constraints and conclude that people don't have any free will whatever. I don't think that conclusion is justified. Even if people are capable of very little by way of free will, that's not the same as saying they have no free will at all.

It's odd that whoever points to the example of ants and bees as ideals for human society to adopt, had better think again. They are efficient societies
(as well as better city designers) but it would be
like being in an army, doing only what you are told to do and never questioning anything. We have choices but a lot of people would rather let someone else make them (e.g. material goods by fashion or popularity, not necessity; voting for a party that has been a tradition for you and you want to be loyal; or joining
something you don't even like because your wife or husband belongs to it).

We like to pride ourselves on our wisdom but overall
our society has deteriorated in judgement. Easy to see where we are headed soon, when there will be wars over
water privileges, oil resources, and food. We are depleting the stuff which took millions of years to produce, in a couple of centuries. This is called progress.

James wrote: ""We certainly have freedom of thought but in these days we are more constrained than ever in the industrial complex whereas in the medieval days there were jobs for everyone and no money worries, c..."

I never said peasants had it easy, just that their way of life had less stress. No one had to keep up with the Joneses.

James wrote: ""We certainly have freedom of thought but in these days we are more constrained than ever in the industrial complex whereas in the medieval days there were jobs for everyone and no money worries, c..."

What are multinationals but giant feudal systems? We work to make profits for investors.

@Henry, I feel your pain. There are definitely pressures on us and multinational corporations aren't all that different from feudal lords. But I own my own business and march to my own drum beat. And we can still go out into the wilderness are live off the land. We aren't owned by the corporatocracy like the serfs were owned by their feudal lord.

Lol James,

You may have a business but half your tine is likley spent in keeping records for taxes, learning the new regulations the government has passed re your kind of business. We can go off into the wilderness, sure, but
most of that is owned by private agribiz or oil barons, or by the state. How many people would survive two weeks in the wilderness?

We have to toe the line when we work for these corporations who know that we need the few shekels we earn (or even a lot of moolah) to afford living a modest life, even without owning a house or a late model car. Come on, be a realist.

@Henry, All this is drifting off the topic. We're talking about the pressures of modern life that tend to order our decisions. The question of free will existence gets to the heart of how consciousness emerges from the human brain. The real question here is whether our behavior is partially or entirely under our volitional control, or whether it is entirely deterministic. And where the external pressures that tend to shape our behavior come for has nothing to do with that fundamental issue about how sentience arises.

To me, we live free in our minds, whether we are imprisoned by circumstances. Look at Soltztenitshyn or however you spell his name.

Ha! Spelin know beeing meye strong suit, I don't spel his name. :-)

What is interesting to me is the consequence, or supposed consequence, of believing one or the other position. I read this entire thread, mostly, but have not done other reading on the subject. I did watch Sam Harris’ talk entitled Free Will, where he argues there is no such thing as free will. However, he says there are definite positive outcomes if society were to adopt this view, such as increased compassion, near elimination of hatred, and a more just justice system.

I think we can safely say that most people throughout time, including present day, have believed in free will. So, if we continue to believe that, all other things remaining the same, there is no further different consequences in society. However, if individuals change their belief to the impossibility of having will that is completely free, meaning even our choices are not free, that they are a matter of billiard balls coming to a temporary rest as the choice is finally made, then what are the consequences, or perceived consequences, of believing that? Harris states emphatically that choices are still very important, even though we only have the illusion that they were made freely.

What he’s suggesting is that he was compelled to put his video on line, and the future is forever changed because of it. Or not changed. It remains to be seen. (But, that’s no different than what anyone would argue - some people are influenced, others are not, with any given stimulus or idea.) I suppose it has altered my experience, because it led me to this thread, or at least led me back to the thread. But, any societal change would require people being influenced by his assertions, or by the general belief in the lack of fee will, with the “new” idea getting to them some how. So, it seems that he does believe in predestination, although of course it’s unpredictable. He’s calling for a refocusing of attention on the subject, but at the same time he’s saying it’s in no one’s control and no one can freely choose which to believe.

So, it all seems like a mind game, but an interesting one. I guess that’s an obvious statement, at least with the state of the science and philosophy currently. One of my thoughts is of the idea that too many choices is overwhelming, and perhaps believing in the lack of free will might have us start thinking of the importance of actually choosing the best choices, or thinking and believing that we’re influencing ourselves. Acknowledging our constraints might improve our choices, focus our attention better, have us focus on how to best influence ourselves and others. Obviously people have tried to influence others in major ways throughout history, but at least individually, might it be motivating to stress the importance of best-influencing of self? However, other individuals must already feel that they have been “best-influencing” themselves through free will. So, it appears that the discussion is an interesting mind game and may appear to any individual that there are different consequences for either belief, but in fact, that may be just further “rationalization” after the fact. Some may believe themselves to be motivated by one belief, while others may believe themselves to be motivated by the other belief.

Wiki says so far there seems to be negative personal consequences in not believing in free will. Do readers believe that Harris’ stated benefits are likely with widespread adoption of the lack of free will? If they are likely, perhaps we should adopt the idea, for the betterment of humanity. Of course, many would argue just the idea of no free will is dehumanizing. Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter, it’s interesting to think about and play with the idea. Thanks for the thread contributions and the group itself.

It seems to me that believing that there is no free will would lead to a world where there is no concept of individual responsibility -- a world where we are all seen as wind-up machines acting out some program we aren't aware of or able to influence. I can't conceive how this would make for a better world.

Hi James. In my humble opinion, the free will hypothesis destructs responsability and morale far more than the opposite. If there is is no rationnal explanation possible for our acts, if they are spontaneous, we will not be able to chain causes and consequences, which is the essence of responsability. The feeling of free will results of the incapacity of ourselves to "see" how we think when we think. This incapacity is a necessity, because we have to take a decision, and not stay stuck like the Buridan's donkey. The consequence is that we can't decide beetween existence or non existence of free will, since we have no way to prove it : it stays a metaphysical question. But it's quite clear for me that deciding for free will leads to morale and responsibility destruction : how can i be responsible if something like "free will" disturbs the logic of my mind ?
I would like to understand more the opposite opinion, because it is very hard for me to understand how free will could make us responsible.

Guys,

Perhaps I may add my take on this, which I believe is similar to Nathan's. I want to propose a thought experiment and it will involve a time machine. Here it is:

1/ I get up in the morning and eventually arrive in the living room. My wife has kindly prepared coffee and tea. There are two cups on the table. I choose the cup of coffee.

2/ Now we operate the time machine and rewind reality to a point in time 10 minutes ago. Nothing has changed, the universe is exactly the same as at the start of event 1/ described above. By "exactly the same" I mean that every elementary particle is in the same place as it was before, moves with the same speed, etc. Now let us see what will happen as we go through this again.

3/ I get up in the morning ... There are two cups on the table. I choose the cup of coffee.

In event 3/, I am as free to prefer tea over coffee as in event 1/. But I don't. Why? Because I like coffee, and because the universe is exactly the same. I can choose tea, but I do not want to choose tea. I believe that was Nathan's point, also.

And what would happen if we went back to a point 20 minutes ago, and re-ran events one million times? Would we get 1 million different realities, or 1 million identical ones?

This is where it gets inteesting. Random fluctuations in quantum states will mean that in the "reality" of my time experiement, the universes will NOT be exactly the same as they run up to the point at which I need to make my tea/coffee choice. Different realities will influence the choices I am ultimately making.

I am entirely free to make my choice, but I will only ever make ONE natural choice. If faced with the same (as in my time experiement) situation twice, I will always make the same choice.

Mark wrote: "Guys,

Perhaps I may add my take on this, which I believe is similar to Nathan's. I want to propose a thought experiment and it will involve a time machine. Here it is:

1/ I get up in the morning..."

This thought experiment does not guarantee free will. Even if the past world remains entirely unchanged, you are not. Therefore your new decision is based on a different physcal state than your old decision.

Also, while quantum uncertainty can upset the predictability of nomological determinism. It does not grant free will, because there is no choice in random events.

J,

I failed to make myself clear - apologies for leading you astray. Here is a different version of the same idea.

Say I could go back in time and freeze a historical moment, then run a number of simulations of the future from that moment onwards. I run 10,000 simulations. Would I get 10,000 different realities or would I get 10,000 times the same reality?

For the purpose of the experiment, I assume that free will exists. Then, the answer to my question would depend on two drivers, random particle fluctuations and (so proposed) free will. The former would clearly mean that we get 10,000 slightly different realities. The differences would be only slight, but they would be there.

Now let us say that we could disallow random fluctuations in our experiment. Again we go back in time, and this time round we set our reality simulator to keep the quality of elementary particles (location, speed, spin etc) constant. In the second simulation we would therefore isolate only one acting principle, that of free will (if it existed).

What would we find now? We would get 10,000 identical realities. Why? Because in all instances, the universe would be exactly the same, and therefore we would make identical decisions in every one of them. To be clear on this, it may be helpful to elaborate on the components of this statement.

• “The universe would be exactly the same”. This means “exactly” in a fundamental sense. Each elementary particle would be in the same position, travel with the same speed on the same trajectory, have the same spin and be identical in all other qualities across all simulations.
• Human beings (self-aware, sentient lifeforms) would be exactly the same, in the definition given in the bullet point above. Specifically, the tools humans use to evaluate the exterior world (brain, chemical make-up and therefore emotions etc) would be exactly the same
• “We would make identical decisions”. Since everything is exactly identical, it is inconceivable that we would make different decisions. A decision is a response to external stimuli. There is one and only one “natural” decision I would make in a given set of circumstances. If I feel the urge to drink a cup of coffee, I will get a coffee. I will not get tea, just because I am theoretically able to do so. If the universe is identical to the last quantum state in simulation two, and the perfectly identical "I" would therefore face the same exactly identical situation twice, I will get the identical brand of coffee, at exactly the same time, in exactly the same way. I still theoretically could choose to get tea, but I would not.

And that, basically, leads me to a suggestion. I propose that “free will” does exist, but its nature is perhaps a little less fundamental than we would like to believe as sentient beings. Free will is not “free” if the adjective is interpreted to mean “not bound by the rules of the universe”. It is only free if the adjective means “not externally forced”.

Mark,

This variation does not prove free will, either.

1.) It is possible that your trip through history was already a part of the timeline. In which case, you change nothing because you can only do what you have already done.
2.) If you do create an infinite number of alternate universes, every alteration you made was precipitated by a different physical state than the previous alteration.

I think you are taking my thought experiment too literally, J... :-)
Kindest,
Mark

Mark,

All your thought experiment does is assert that given a certain defined set of conditions a person will always choose exactly the same way. Suppose I say that the decision that I'm making in the thought experiment is so trivial that sometimes I will decide one way, and sometimes the other, and that it really doesn't matter which way to me. I've now asserted the opposite of your assertion. I can't prove my point. You can't prove yours. And the thought experiment adds nothing to the analysis.

Ok let's scrap the thought experiment. I am indeed asserting that free will is less "free" than we would like to believe.

External stimuli will "urge" me to make one decision, and that will always be the same decision in a given set of circumstances (it is irrelevant whether this decision seems momentous or trivial - for the purpose of probing the quality of "free will", there is no difference between choosing tea for breakfast or choosing whom to marry).

My contention is that, in identical circumstances, we will not sometimes decide one way, and sometimes another way, because we would not "want" to, although we theoretically could. But remember from my previous contributions that I am extremely restrictive in my definition of "identical circumstances". This does not mean I get up in the morning on two consecutive days at the same time and find that the sun is shining on both days and I am similarly tired. For example. If on one day there is a little spider on the wall and on the other day there is not, that slight difference is already sufficient to mean that circumstances are NOT identical (even if I am not aware of the spider), and then I may indeed choose tea, and not coffee. But not because I exert my free will. But simply because different circumstances urge me to make a different "natural" choice.

Sadly, I must agree that I cannot "prove" any of this.

What is your take on "free will", Duffy? Apologies if you have contributed before - if you have, just point this out and I shall have a look.