Free Will

[analog57]

An interesting proof of free will:

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/fwill.htm

[David Quinn]

Sorry, it's just another piece of convoluted, cowardly nonsense in which the academic tries desperately not to have any contact with reality. This fellow's essay is superficial to the extreme. He doesn't seem to have any grasp of what's actually involved.

The fact that the author "feels" that he has free will and that he "can" make decisions in his life (which is his essential argument) has no relevence to the issue. It does not negate the reality of determinism, nor does it disprove the illusory nature of free-will.

Surely, this is obvious. Why does the author feel a need to rehash these stale arguments that have nothing do with anything? He is like a simpleton who points to the sun moving across the sky in an attempt to refute the scientific truth that it is an illusion created by the turning earth. Unfortunately, such idiocy is everywhere in academic circles.

-

[Kevin Solway]

He seems to be arguing that if we accept that determinism is true, then we are choosing to accept the truth, and are thus exercising free will.

This stems from his first premise, "We should refrain from believing falsehoods", which he has rightly pinned as being controversial.

This is because "should" doesn't come into it, since we will believe falsehoods if we are caused to, and we won't accept falsehoods if we are caused to.

So the mistake is with the first premise.

It is in fact begging the question, as he guessed, since the word "should" implies that there is a choice. In other words, his first premise is essentially, "We should exercise our free will to reject falsehoods". So he is assuming the conclusion in the premise.

This meets with his first definition of "begging the question", namely "An argument begs the question iff the premises contain the conclusion."

He says that determinists reject his first premise only because it refutes determinism. But in fact, determinists reject it because it is obviously false, and not because it refutes determinism.

[David Quinn]

Yes, the entire essay boils down to just one thought: "I want to believe in free-will".

I believe it's called The Argument from Wishful Thinking.

-

[analog57]

Yes, the entire essay boils down to just one thought: "I want to believe in free-will".

I believe it's called The Argument from Wishful Thinking.

-

Are wishes caused? How? Are they caused by the mind of the individual or caused by something outside the mind? Do you have a proof? Self causation is basically "free will".

If the mind is self aware and self referential then it causes its own thoughts. It appears to be a coherent unity, not just the sum of its deterministic parts.

[N0X23]

Yes, the entire essay boils down to just one thought: "I want to believe in free-will".

I believe it's called The Argument from Wishful Thinking.

-

Are wishes caused? How? Are they caused by the mind of the individual or caused by something outside the mind? Do you have a proof? Self causation is basically "free will".

If the mind is self aware and self referential then it causes its own thoughts. It appears to be a coherent unity, not just the sum of its deterministic parts.

The Mind is thought.
So the Mind would have to think itself into existence before it could think about the thought of being aware of the thought of its self.
That’s a tricky proposition, this Philosophy stuff is hard.

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

Are wishes caused? How? Are they caused by the mind of the individual or caused by something outside the mind? Do you have a proof? Self causation is basically "free will".

Is a forest fire caused by the wood which is being consumed or is it caused by something else?

If the mind is self aware and self referential then it causes its own thoughts. It appears to be a coherent unity, not just the sum of its deterministic parts.

It still needs reasons to make the "choices" that it does and these reasons ultimately come from its genetics, upbringing, life experiences, teachers, mentors, moods, desires, etc. There is no such thing as a mind living in a vacuum.

If you look into yourself honestly and examine why you make the choices that you do, you will invariably see your own past experiences, influences and causes.

-

[Kevin Solway]

Are wishes caused? How?

In the same way that all other things are caused.

Any particular thing is caused by that which is not itself.

Are they caused by the mind of the individual or caused by something outside the mind?

If the mind is one of the causes, then we have to ask what are the causes of the mind.

Self causation is basically "free will".

Surely whatever causes the "self" in question is one of the causes of the will of that self, since if the self wasn't caused to exist, its will wouldn't exist either.

It's impossible to isolate a small group of causes from the rest of the universe which gave it birth, and which nourishes it.

If the mind is self aware and self referential then it causes its own thoughts. It appears to be a coherent unity, not just the sum of its deterministic parts.

It appears to have its own thoughts, but all these are in fact fed to it by Nature.

[Kevin Solway]

I believe it's called The Argument from Wishful Thinking.

I notice that the essay appears to have been written by a teacher for his students. It is quite possible that he was using it only as an example of horribly fallacious reasoning. It seems to have been written in a way that teaches people about the fault of "begging the question".

I hope. :-)

[analog57]

Is a forest fire caused by the wood which is being consumed or is it caused by something else?

A forest fire is an event, or more correctly, a sequence OF events. When one event intersects with another, for example, a rock falls and sparks are generated, it forms a sequence with other past[and future] events which is very much like a branching fractal. Now, if you say that it[the infinite totality] is "turtles all the way down" you are implying periodicity which is just another form of circularity, which is the result of self reference. Thus the fractal[totality] may appear to have many interesting and different properties but it is self similar "all the way down".

So the more things change, the more they stay the same. Ergo, all moments of time are in immediate contact with all other moments. This means again, that the totality is invariant under its own manifold changes. Essentially there is a certain variation allowed[THINK FREE WILL] FOR the fractal, yet it is guided and parameterized by certain causal factors[attractors] inherent and intrinsic TO itself.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Essentially there is a certain variation allowed[THINK FREE WILL] FOR the fractal, yet it is guided and parameterized by certain causal factors[attractors] inherent and intrinsic TO itself.

In simpler words: you're saying there's a degree of pure randomness in everything that happens.

But randomness only means we are not capable of exactly predicting it since the factors involved are too complex or beyond our measurements to take into calculation.

Of course determinism doesn't mean that 'everything is predictable'. How could one calculate infinite variables? Real life calculations always approximate answers, models them for this reason, since even randomness obeys some invariable laws.

[David Quinn]

That's right. A "random phenomenon" is simply a causal process that we cannot, due to ignorance on our part, adequately predict or map. It isn't a property that exists in the fabric of the Universe itself.

-

Analog wrote:

DQ: Is a forest fire caused by the wood which is being consumed or is it caused by something else?

A: A forest fire is an event, or more correctly, a sequence OF events.

As is the decision-making process.

When one event intersects with another, for example, a rock falls and sparks are generated, it forms a sequence with other past[and future] events which is very much like a branching fractal. Now, if you say that it[the infinite totality] is "turtles all the way down" you are implying periodicity which is just another form of circularity, which is the result of self reference.

What is periodicity and circularity? Why do these things have to exit in a causal universe? Why are they even important?

So the more things change, the more they stay the same. Ergo, all moments of time are in immediate contact with all other moments. This means again, that the totality is invariant under its own manifold changes. Essentially there is a certain variation allowed[THINK FREE WILL] FOR the fractal, yet it is guided and parameterized by certain causal factors[attractors] inherent and intrinsic TO itself.

Again, this is just an article of faith on your part. There is no evidence, nor can there ever be any evidence, for "variation" that happens in a non-causal manner.

You're still engaging in theology, not philosophy.

-

[analog57]

Of course determinism doesn't mean that 'everything is predictable'. How could one calculate infinite variables? Real life calculations always approximate answers, models them for this reason, since even randomness obeys some invariable laws.

[Infinite variables] = [free will]

[analog57]

There is no evidence, nor can there ever be any evidence, for "variation" that happens in a non-causal manner.

Self determination is a form of self reference. There exists degrees of freedom, allowing for intentionality and purpose, guided by higher order teleological parameters[higher order intentionality and purpose]. Self determination[for the human individual] is bound within higher order laws of causality. We therefore possess a limited autonomy, and [free choice = free will], which is the variation. The variation does not occur in a non-causal manner.

[David Quinn]

Then there is no issue between us. Fundamentally, everything is determined by causality - even the little eddies we call "mind".

And should any "teleological imperative" arise anywhere in the world, that too is ultimately composed of blind, aimless cause and effect.

Things like "intelligence, "mind", "intention", and "purpose" can never constitute part of the final truth. This is because they do not really explain anything on a fundamental level. They are like a God-of-the-Gaps solution, in which the concept of God (or intelligence, mind, intention, purpose, etc) is utilized to fill in the gaps in a person's understanding. They are a kind of pseudo-explanation which can surely only satisfy the religious types.

It's important for the philosophic thinker to go deeper than this and pull apart these things so as to reveal their underlying causal nature. For causality is all there is, at bottom. That is the final truth. All this other talk about sentience and teleology is just a distraction.

-

[analog57]

And should any "teleological imperative" arise anywhere in the world, that too is ultimately composed of blind, aimless cause and effect.

Your statement appears to be a contradiction.

An interesting perspective on "free will":

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/fre ... htm#threat

6.8 Physical Determinism is No Threat to Free Will

Many persons (again, recall Darrow) who have argued that physical determinism poses a threat to the existence of free will are, I believe, still operating with the remnants of the theory that laws of nature are akin to inviolable prescriptions. They have dropped the Prescriber (i.e. God) out of their view of natural laws, but they still persevere with the view that laws of nature 'act like' prescriptions.

If, however, one adopts a thoroughgoing descriptive view of natural laws, the problem of free will does not even arise. On the view I am proposing, there simply is no problem of free will. We make choices – some trivial, such as to buy a newspaper; others, rather more consequential, such as to buy a home, or to get married, or to go to university, etc. – but these choices are not forced upon us by the laws of nature. Indeed, it is the other way round. Laws of nature are (a subclass of the) true descriptions of the world. Whatever happens in the world, there are true descriptions of those events. It's true that you cannot 'violate' a law of nature, but that's not because the laws of nature 'force' you to behave in some certain way. It is rather that whatever you do, there is a true description of what you have done. You certainly don't get to choose the laws that describe the charge on an electron or the properties of hydrogen and oxygen that explain their combining to form water. But you do get to choose a great many other laws. How do you do that? Simply by doing whatever you do in fact do.

For example, if you were to choose(!) to raise your arm, then there would be a timelessly true universal description (let's call it "D4729") of what you have done. If, however, you were to choose not to raise your arm, then there would be a (different) timelessly true universal description (we can call it "D5322") of what you did (and D4729 would be timelessly false).

Contrary to the earlier claim – that the laws of nature are not of our choosing – I am here suggesting that a very great many laws of nature are of our choosing. But it's not that we reflect on choosing the laws. I don't wake up in the morning and ask myself "Which laws of nature will I create today?" No, it's rather that I ask myself, "What will I do today?", and in choosing to do some things rather than others, my actions – i.e. my choices – make certain propositions (including some universal statements containing no proper names) true and other propositions false.

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

DQ: And should any "teleological imperative" arise anywhere in the world, that too is ultimately composed of blind, aimless cause and effect.

A: Your statement appears to be a contradiction.

There's no contradiction when these things are properly understood. You're just not going deep enough.

-

[analog57]

Analog wrote:

DQ: And should any "teleological imperative" arise anywhere in the world, that too is ultimately composed of blind, aimless cause and effect.

A: Your statement appears to be a contradiction.

There's no contradiction when these things are properly understood. You're just not going deep enough.

-

To say that causality is blind and aimless is to say that it is indeterminate and "acausal", thus the contradiction above.

You recognize the law of identity as being inviolate and absolute, it is both physical and abstract. It is both descriptive and concrete. ...OK.

[1.] So we see that an exhaustive[100% complete] description of a thing is equivalent to the thing itself.

[2.] From [1.] the description of a thing contains the thing as the thing contains its own description.

[3.] By making a free will choice we are creating/adding new descriptions[axioms] to the system/totality, which are guided by the previously generated axioms of reality/totality.

Free will is a more logical explanation than your absurd - blind - acausal/causality.

[David Quinn]

There's not much point discussing it any further. You obviously have a large mental block about this issue.

-

[analog57]

There's not much point discussing it any further. You obviously have a large mental block about this issue.

-

I certainly would like to see a debate between you and someone more qualified than I, on the topic of free will.

[Kevin Solway]

We make choices – some trivial, such as to buy a newspaper; others, rather more consequential, such as to buy a home, or to get married, or to go to university, etc. – but these choices are not forced upon us by the laws of nature.

It is a law of nature that the past determines the present. Therefore all choices are forced upon us in this way.

[LooF]

Quinn, what do you define "free will" as?

We make choices – some trivial, such as to buy a newspaper; others, rather more consequential, such as to buy a home, or to get married, or to go to university, etc. – but these choices are not forced upon us by the laws of nature.

It is a law of nature that the past determines the present. Therefore all choices are forced upon us in this way.

future also determines the present and the past. isnt that interesting !

[analog57]

We make choices – some trivial, such as to buy a newspaper; others, rather more consequential, such as to buy a home, or to get married, or to go to university, etc. – but these choices are not forced upon us by the laws of nature.

It is a law of nature that the past determines the present. Therefore all choices are forced upon us in this way.

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/fre ... htm#threat

Laws of nature are (a subclass of the) true descriptions of the world. Whatever happens in the world, there are true descriptions of those events. It's true that you cannot 'violate' a law of nature, but that's not because the laws of nature 'force' you to behave in some certain way. It is rather that whatever you do, there is a true description of what you have done.

[David Quinn]

Loof wrote:

Quinn, what do you define "free will" as?

We only have "free will" in the sense that we are capable of making choices and initiating courses of action. In other words, we are not mindless puppets whose every thought and action is generated directly from an external agent. The conscious mind is a reality; it can reflect, ruminate, cogitate, and come up with considered decisions through its own inner workings. We are considerably different from, say, cars and rocks in that we aren't simply passive objects buffeted about by circumstances.

And yet, at the same time, everything that we do is causally determined by Nature. Our ruminating and decision-making is all part of the great causal flow. Each inner working of the mind is the result of countless causes which stretch back endlessly into the past. These causes include the formation of the mind, its past experiences, its teachers, its genetic make-up, the society it lives in, the history of the human race, the evolution of life on earth, the formation of the galaxies, the explosion of the Big Bang, and so on. All of these things play a role in the thoughts and decisions that we make now in every passing moment. The whole history of the Universe is there in everything that we do.

We don't have free will in the sense that Analog means. Decisions and thoughts aren't created spontaneously by the mind, out of thin air. They aren't the result of the mind engaging with itself in a self-referential loop, independent of everything else. That's a fantasy.

-

[Sapius]

David,

We only have "free will" in the sense that we are capable of making choices and initiating courses of action. In other words, we are not mindless puppets whose every thought and action is generated directly from an external agent. The conscious mind is a reality; it can reflect, ruminate, cogitate, and come up with considered decisions through its own inner workings...........And yet, at the same time, everything that we do is causally determined by Nature.

So, there is "free-will", but not in the absolute sense. Nice to know that. I guess enlightenment is an on going realization.