Free Will Mix

[MindAndPhilosophy]

Notvacka, I believe that these questions are somehow related to determinism. If we suppouse that there was the cause number one in in the very beginning of the world history it means that the first cause wasn't caused by some previous causes and thus had to be the outcome of someone's free will, right? And when it comes to definition I meant A. Schopenhauer's definition of free will:

Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants

Yesterday I took a closer look to this definition and my impression is that this statement might be self contradictory - here's the article (Defining free will – Schopenhauer and compatibilism). Do you think it's possible to define free will? What definition is the best one? I'm still thinking about the subject and I'm curious of others' opinions

_______________
http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com
http://www.facebook.com/MindAndPhilosophy

[chaz wyman]

Notvacka, I believe that these questions are somehow related to determinism. If we suppouse that there was the cause number one in in the very beginning of the world history it means that the first cause wasn't caused by some previous causes and thus had to be the outcome of someone's free will, right? And when it comes to definition I meant A. Schopenhauer's definition of free will:

Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants

Yesterday I took a closer look to this definition and my impression is that this statement might be self contradictory - here's the article (Defining free will – Schopenhauer and compatibilism). Do you think it's possible to define free will? What definition is the best one? I'm still thinking about the subject and I'm curious of others' opinions

_______________
http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com
http://www.facebook.com/MindAndPhilosophy

Schopenhauer is dead right. IT can be translated ; man can do as he wills but he cannot will as he wills.
At some point the assertion of free-will involves and uncaused cause. Without an account for that it has to flounder.

It seems best to look at the idea of the will in terms of internal and external causes.

The idea of the will is compatible with determinism in that it is a recognition that the human is an agent of change and that those inward causal factors are what determines the act of will. To suggest that the act of will is "free" is problematic.

Clearly as a free agent we are able to act on our own will, free of immediate outside determining factors - though this can be limited by chains, and restrictions of the environment. But as the outward determining factors comply with the necessity of cause and effect so too do our actions have to comply with the inward determining factors.

To suggest we are free of outward factors is one thing: to suggest that we are free of our inwards factors is another. This would mean that we are free of ourselves, able to step out of causal necessity of our own motivation, learning, volition, experience, genetics etc.. Such a state would not be desirable, let alone possible. When I make a decision or a judgement it is thankfully the result of a lifetime's experience and learning, made of necessity and determined by who and what I am.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I disagree. Much of these words I see as the unacknowledged/unaddressed binding of instantaneousness, such that it's true that any possible object of will, as being capable of being expressed, in any particular moment, is bound by time and time alone, which is not to say that the expression of will is negated, it's just sometimes slow, depending on how deeply, any particular instance of possible will, is entrenched in the current human construct. The solution to address this time limitation to varying degrees, is self analysis, first with respect to studies of man, such as psychology, physiology, biology, anthropology, philosophy, etc, then followed by all the other disciplines of study mankind has acknowledged. But it's extremely important to study both, from the inside out, and from the outside in, so as all the constituents are aligned in their proper place, in other words self has to be temporarily subdued in order to understand where the self is standing, so as to place it on neutral ground, the only perspective of true vision.

[apaosha]

Since my reply was not approved until 2 days after I posted, I'm going to quote myself:

Seems like people enjoy dismissing any influence the past might have on us.

Consciousness is the effect of the brain organ. When this organ is damaged the mind is damaged. It follows that the condition of the mind is determined by the condition of the organ. The two are in fact indistinguishable - without a brain you have no mind. You guys should be familiar with the concept.

Every distinct event that occurs is the product of an infinite regress of previous events which brought it about. The present is the continuing manifestation of such an ongoing process.

So, to say that the mind is not influenced by determinism... that the mind is not in fact an expression of determinism through a causative process.... is to suppose that the mind is yet again something from nothing. A causa sui or ex nihilo event that suddenly intrudes upon the causative process making it's impression felt. A very supernatural supposition, I would say.

The mind is the ongoing manifestation of processes within the brain. That is all. As these processes are subject to deterministic factors, such as the condition of the organ, the mind too is subject to deterministic factors - it is itself the expression of them.

There is no Free Will in the absolute sense. The concept of freedom requires a qualifier. Free "from" something, free "for" something. It is thus relative. But the mind is not free from it's past; it cannot exist and at the same time be free from the cause of its existence.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Since my reply was not approved until 2 days after I posted, I'm going to quote myself:

Seems like people enjoy dismissing any influence the past might have on us.

Consciousness is the effect of the brain organ. When this organ is damaged the mind is damaged. It follows that the condition of the mind is determined by the condition of the organ. The two are in fact indistinguishable - without a brain you have no mind. You guys should be familiar with the concept.

Every distinct event that occurs is the product of an infinite regress of previous events which brought it about. The present is the continuing manifestation of such an ongoing process.

So, to say that the mind is not influenced by determinism... that the mind is not in fact an expression of determinism through a causative process.... is to suppose that the mind is yet again something from nothing. A causa sui or ex nihilo event that suddenly intrudes upon the causative process making it's impression felt. A very supernatural supposition, I would say.

The mind is the ongoing manifestation of processes within the brain. That is all. As these processes are subject to deterministic factors, such as the condition of the organ, the mind too is subject to deterministic factors - it is itself the expression of them.

There is no Free Will in the absolute sense. The concept of freedom requires a qualifier. Free "from" something, free "for" something. It is thus relative. But the mind is not free from it's past; it cannot exist and at the same time be free from the cause of its existence.

Yours are exactly the concerns I've addressed, such that I agree that this is the main consideration as to the efficacy of 'free' will. But I see that in fact it is not insurmountable. Much work and time is required, yes, but the possibility has not been necessarily negated. Especially as seen through the eyes of multitudes of future generations. Merely working the problem, even in it's earliest stages, shall free up the will of the individual by some percentage points. I've been working on it for some time now, for myself, as do many others. Of course a total and accurate account of history would speed up the process, if today's super computers could be fed the data and put to work on solving the problem of deconstructing the current human construct, finding and removing all the subtleties that subdue 'free' will, then creating a model of a human construct, of which, once mimicked, would yield 'freedom' of will that served all the human entities in it's possible entirety. Once the original neutral algorithm was complete, one could tailor it to suit specific needs. Ultimately I see the potential of it changing the species such that 'true' 'freedom' of will could possibly be realized, with the future evolution of the human brain, taking over what man made computers once solved.

[chaz wyman]

Since my reply was not approved until 2 days after I posted, I'm going to quote myself:

Seems like people enjoy dismissing any influence the past might have on us.

Consciousness is the effect of the brain organ. When this organ is damaged the mind is damaged. It follows that the condition of the mind is determined by the condition of the organ. The two are in fact indistinguishable - without a brain you have no mind. You guys should be familiar with the concept.

Every distinct event that occurs is the product of an infinite regress of previous events which brought it about. The present is the continuing manifestation of such an ongoing process.

So, to say that the mind is not influenced by determinism... that the mind is not in fact an expression of determinism through a causative process.... is to suppose that the mind is yet again something from nothing. A causa sui or ex nihilo event that suddenly intrudes upon the causative process making it's impression felt. A very supernatural supposition, I would say.

The mind is the ongoing manifestation of processes within the brain. That is all. As these processes are subject to deterministic factors, such as the condition of the organ, the mind too is subject to deterministic factors - it is itself the expression of them.

There is no Free Will in the absolute sense. The concept of freedom requires a qualifier. Free "from" something, free "for" something. It is thus relative. But the mind is not free from it's past; it cannot exist and at the same time be free from the cause of its existence.

When I read this I thought you were quoting me.
SoB has nothing to say against this, except his usual waffle

[SpheresOfBalance]

Since my reply was not approved until 2 days after I posted, I'm going to quote myself:

Seems like people enjoy dismissing any influence the past might have on us.

Consciousness is the effect of the brain organ. When this organ is damaged the mind is damaged. It follows that the condition of the mind is determined by the condition of the organ. The two are in fact indistinguishable - without a brain you have no mind. You guys should be familiar with the concept.

Every distinct event that occurs is the product of an infinite regress of previous events which brought it about. The present is the continuing manifestation of such an ongoing process.

So, to say that the mind is not influenced by determinism... that the mind is not in fact an expression of determinism through a causative process.... is to suppose that the mind is yet again something from nothing. A causa sui or ex nihilo event that suddenly intrudes upon the causative process making it's impression felt. A very supernatural supposition, I would say.

The mind is the ongoing manifestation of processes within the brain. That is all. As these processes are subject to deterministic factors, such as the condition of the organ, the mind too is subject to deterministic factors - it is itself the expression of them.

There is no Free Will in the absolute sense. The concept of freedom requires a qualifier. Free "from" something, free "for" something. It is thus relative. But the mind is not free from it's past; it cannot exist and at the same time be free from the cause of its existence.

When I read this I thought you were quoting me.
SoB has nothing to say against this, except his usual waffle

In this particular case, "waffle" equates to "your minds denseness."

[apaosha]

Yours are exactly the concerns I've addressed, such that I agree that this is the main consideration as to the efficacy of 'free' will. But I see that in fact it is not insurmountable. Much work and time is required, yes, but the possibility has not been necessarily negated. Especially as seen through the eyes of multitudes of future generations. Merely working the problem, even in it's earliest stages, shall free up the will of the individual by some percentage points. I've been working on it for some time now, for myself, as do many others. Of course a total and accurate account of history would speed up the process, if today's super computers could be fed the data and put to work on solving the problem of deconstructing the current human construct, finding and removing all the subtleties that subdue 'free' will, then creating a model of a human construct, of which, once mimicked, would yield 'freedom' of will that served all the human entities in it's possible entirety. Once the original neutral algorithm was complete, one could tailor it to suit specific needs. Ultimately I see the potential of it changing the species such that 'true' 'freedom' of will could possibly be realized, with the future evolution of the human brain, taking over what man made computers once solved.

If you remove all causative influences upon the Will, you remove the Will itself. The Will is an expression of determinism. No actor-act dichotomy. The Will is not affected by determinism in that it is a subject which is whipped along towards certain choices by a causality that is other to it; it is in fact an expression of deterninism in that the act and the actor are not distinct.
The actor is the act and in the same way the Will is an expression of determinism in that it is the present and ongoing manifestation of past interaction.

When I read this I thought you were quoting me.

I put it better.

SoB has nothing to say against this, except his usual waffle

I know.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yours are exactly the concerns I've addressed, such that I agree that this is the main consideration as to the efficacy of 'free' will. But I see that in fact it is not insurmountable. Much work and time is required, yes, but the possibility has not been necessarily negated. Especially as seen through the eyes of multitudes of future generations. Merely working the problem, even in it's earliest stages, shall free up the will of the individual by some percentage points. I've been working on it for some time now, for myself, as do many others. Of course a total and accurate account of history would speed up the process, if today's super computers could be fed the data and put to work on solving the problem of deconstructing the current human construct, finding and removing all the subtleties that subdue 'free' will, then creating a model of a human construct, of which, once mimicked, would yield 'freedom' of will that served all the human entities in it's possible entirety. Once the original neutral algorithm was complete, one could tailor it to suit specific needs. Ultimately I see the potential of it changing the species such that 'true' 'freedom' of will could possibly be realized, with the future evolution of the human brain, taking over what man made computers once solved.

If you remove all causative influences upon the Will, you remove the Will itself. The Will is an expression of determinism. No actor-act dichotomy. The Will is not affected by determinism in that it is a subject which is whipped along towards certain choices by a causality that is other to it; it is in fact an expression of deterninism in that the act and the actor are not distinct.
The actor is the act and in the same way the Will is an expression of determinism in that it is the present and ongoing manifestation of past interaction.

When I read this I thought you were quoting me.

I put it better.

SoB has nothing to say against this, except his usual waffle

I know.

You believe!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yours are exactly the concerns I've addressed, such that I agree that this is the main consideration as to the efficacy of 'free' will. But I see that in fact it is not insurmountable. Much work and time is required, yes, but the possibility has not been necessarily negated. Especially as seen through the eyes of multitudes of future generations. Merely working the problem, even in it's earliest stages, shall free up the will of the individual by some percentage points. I've been working on it for some time now, for myself, as do many others. Of course a total and accurate account of history would speed up the process, if today's super computers could be fed the data and put to work on solving the problem of deconstructing the current human construct, finding and removing all the subtleties that subdue 'free' will, then creating a model of a human construct, of which, once mimicked, would yield 'freedom' of will that served all the human entities in it's possible entirety. Once the original neutral algorithm was complete, one could tailor it to suit specific needs. Ultimately I see the potential of it changing the species such that 'true' 'freedom' of will could possibly be realized, with the future evolution of the human brain, taking over what man made computers once solved.

If you remove all causative influences upon the Will, you remove the Will itself. The Will is an expression of determinism. No actor-act dichotomy. The Will is not affected by determinism in that it is a subject which is whipped along towards certain choices by a causality that is other to it; it is in fact an expression of deterninism in that the act and the actor are not distinct.
The actor is the act and in the same way the Will is an expression of determinism in that it is the present and ongoing manifestation of past interaction.
You've gone too far, you've over thought the problem and got lost in the complexity, losing sight of the goal, you try and remove what it is in being human so as to be human, of course that's impossible. Freedom is not about 'removing' causative influences, it's about 'changing' them, this then, is what it actually is, to have free will. To not be bound by those causal's that limit you needlessly. Some of these are almost obvious to everyone, but their are subtleties that often go unnoticed. I speak of the freedom found in the changing, such that you can negate any particular deterministic property.

When I read this I thought you were quoting me.

I put it better.

SoB has nothing to say against this, except his usual waffle

I know.

[chaz wyman]

When I read this I thought you were quoting me.

I put it better.

I thought your delivery was rather clumsy with redundancies but I was too nice to point it out.

[ughaibu]

I've been thinking about the free will problem for some time and I'd want to ask you something: do you think it is possible to prove that determinism is false?

Sure:
1) at time zero I am undecided about which of two options to enact at time three
2) if determinism is true, then at time zero there is a fact about which option I will enact at time three
3) at time one I state that I will enact option A only if a certain as yet unknown condition obtains at time two, and option B if that condition doesn't obtain
4) for the unknown condition, I can choose something causally isolated, for example an astronomical observation, and such that the probability of it matching my choice is one half
5) at time two I make the observation and at time three I enact the stated option according to whether or not the condition is met
6) if I can enact the stated option, then the probability of determinism being the case is one half. If I can behave like this consistently for an arbitrarily long series of consecutive tests, then the probability of determinism being true is vanishingly small
7) but if I can't behave like this, as making the selection is equivalent to making an observation, the probability of my observations matching an external world becomes vanishingly small
8) if the probability of my observations matching an external world is vanishingly small, then, in a correspondence sense, the probability of any argument for determinism having true premises is vanishingly small
9) so, in either case one cannot rationally accept the truth of determinism
10) therefore, the only rational stance is that determinism must be held to be false.

[chaz wyman]

I've been thinking about the free will problem for some time and I'd want to ask you something: do you think it is possible to prove that determinism is false?

Sure:
1) at time zero I am undecided about which of two options to enact at time three
2) if determinism is true, then at time zero there is a fact about which option I will enact at time three
Not unless all the causative factors are know.
3) at time one I state that I will enact option A only if a certain as yet unknown condition obtains at time two, and option B if that condition doesn't obtain
4) for the unknown condition, I can choose something causally isolated, for example an astronomical observation, and such that the probability of it matching my choice is one half
How can you tell is there is a causally isolated thing? The observation of such a thing will change the status of brain cells and can effect the outcome of your choice.
5) at time two I make the observation and at time three I enact the stated option according to whether or not the condition is met
6) if I can enact the stated option, then the probability of determinism being the case is one half. If I can behave like this consistently for an arbitrarily long series of consecutive tests, then the probability of determinism being true is vanishingly small
Wrong. You are not even aware of all causal factors as your awareness only includes a small part of your brain.
7) but if I can't behave like this, as making the selection is equivalent to making an observation, the probability of my observations matching an external world becomes vanishingly small
This is not a sequitur either
if the probability of my observations matching an external world is vanishingly small, then, in a correspondence sense, the probability of any argument for determinism having true premises is vanishingly small
No
9) so, in either case one cannot rationally accept the truth of determinism
10) therefore, the only rational stance is that determinism must be held to be false.

Nope

[ughaibu]

2) if determinism is true, then at time zero there is a fact about which option I will enact at time three

Not unless all the causative factors are know.

Determinism is a metaphysical thesis, so, facts about the future exist, in a determined world, whether they are known or not.
I'm not going to address the rest of your post as it's quite clear from your first remark that you still have no idea of what determinism consists. If you hope to have your claims about determinism taken seriously, you need to demonstrate that you understand what you're talking about.

[chaz wyman]

2) if determinism is true, then at time zero there is a fact about which option I will enact at time three

Not unless all the causative factors are know.

Determinism is a metaphysical thesis, so, facts about the future exist, in a determined world, whether they are known or not.

Non Sequitur of the week.

I'm not going to address the rest of your post as it's quite clear from your first remark that you still have no idea of what determinism consists.

Running away from the truth.

If you hope to have your claims about determinism taken seriously, you need to demonstrate that you understand what you're talking about.