An Argument About Free Will

[lancek4]

Without this capacity to choose to act, we return to the position of passive observers, even of our own words and actions. I greatly dislike this position, but I'm not sure how to get out of it. Normally, I manage by forgetting about it, and proceeding as though I had a power of choosing

.
Thundril, Notvaka I agree with your descrptions of the situation; couldnt have said it better.
And, though it seems that you proably have come upon it, in that we cannot 'know' what this reality we come upon is, it must be a discusive problem. Not so much a 'reality' problem.
Discourse reduces itself to paradox and contradiction. I may say I forget about the argument when I am actually going about my life, by I do not. 'Forget' is just a manner of speaking about what goes on for me. Just like 'Choice'. Anything I say reduces upon other definitions that are supposed to gain for us some answer of 'knowing' (that is 'truth'), but never quite does.
For myself (the subject) I have some center of truth from which I am speaking to you, but it is not dependant upon what is said, what is said is dependant upon lanaguage's ability to express what I intuituvely 'know' as true. It is amorphis, but it is there. it is only a matter of 'how to say it' so that others may understand what "I" mean in my truth, such that others may also express thier truth, so "we" might come to some 'truth' of 'our' universe of reality and truth. even if I conceed that discourse does establish me, this too is a manner of speaking.

Sadly, I fear that We (humanity) will ever come to some 'grand, awakening' truth as a whole; I do not think this can ever occur, since, such a 'comeing upon' has to do with how we speak, and mosty people do not engage with such introspection or analysis of reality. It has to do then with one's innate orientation upon reality, an orientation that always reduces the spoken meaning to itself, while withholding itself in its own expression.

I can say that I am free, but such freedom is an expression of boundary. Whether or not I conclude myself with freedom or with boundary can constitue a choice, but there is not 'real' choice, I merely know and act as I do. These terms are merely part of discourse. If I say: "But I am really free..." I am entering myself into a conditional reality of discourse, reckoned by what terms may be posed with it -- even though I may 'know' that I am free, as soon as I say it, I am bound. And even as i say this, a most probable remark wound be; "well then you are not really free because your freedom is bound by discourse" or eventually, "if there is no discourse then you would not exist as a human".
Thus, it seems to me, what we might be talking about is more how I justify this boundary ?.? and what does this say of reality?

And how does this relate to ethics and morality?

[lancek4]

I suppose the "free I" might agree with your above "soul". But then we come back to what I said: how is my situating my 'soul' in discourse as a "soul" functioning in reality?

If I say that I have genes, what is that doing for what we might know as reality? Are there really genes? Like actual things that behave in reality to constitue us within certain physical constraints? If this is so, then I would argue that we have choice, and to think that we might not is non sequiter with genes, in that I am speaking about both.

If I equate my 'knowledge' of a subjective "I=soul" that is beyond what I may say about it, then this is equvellent to saying that there are "genes=true". Thus, if we can withhold a "truth" of reality back from discussion about that 'truth-ness', then there must be an essential, qualitative, choice.

then, Another question may then be: am I justified in withholding an essential truth from what may be reality between us?

[Thundril]

And how does this relate to ethics and morality?

If all events are arrayed in a space-time continuum, and our 'experience' of sequential time is only the result of some 'ghost' lacking the ability to grasp 4-space, and therefore having to step through our individual 'time-like' dimension sequentially, then our mental distinctions between past/present/future are working constructions for the convenience of this 'ghost'. Which would imply that our 'decisions' are reflections of events that have been registered most recently, (as our consciousness counts time) but which would be, in the broader picture of space-time, events that have already occurred, as indeed everything in our 'future' is also fixed, everywhere except in our consciousness. .
In this view, concepts like morality, or indeed any other concepts based on an assumed power to choose, are illusions.
This I do not like, and will not accept, but can't yet figure a way round!

[blackbox]

This I do not like, and will not accept, but can't yet figure a way round!

But why do you assume that reality must be such that we will like it? Fair enough to say you don't like something, but deciding that you will not accept it (presumably as being true) seems strange. I don't like asteroids destroying planets when they smack into them, but I accept this occurs, and may even occur to us, even though I don't like it. What we want the world to be like and how the world really is are two different things.

[Thundril]

This I do not like, and will not accept, but can't yet figure a way round!

But why do you assume that reality must be such that we will like it?

I make no such assumption. I would like to think that there is purpose to our actions; that I might make some difference by suggesting to someone some new thought; But I recognise that this might not be how it really is , and faut de mieux, I have to live with that recognition.
OTOH, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, as they say, and I have been wrong about things in the past. (This is the only thing about which I can be 100% certain!)
So it is possible that some other picture of Time will swim into my ken, which leaves open the possibility of purpose, ie a malleable future. This I would like.

[Notvacka]

And how does this relate to ethics and morality?

Ethics and morality are important things that exist in a meaningful way in our imagination. The fact that they, like free will, don't correspond to anything in physical reality doesn't matter. Because, again (I'm a stubborn bastard, aint I?) we do't live in "reality", but in a commonly constructed, shared "illusion".

[MGL]

And how does this relate to ethics and morality?

Ethics and morality are important things that exist in a meaningful way in our imagination. The fact that they, like free will, don't correspond to anything in physical reality doesn't matter. Because, again (I'm a stubborn bastard, aint I?) we do't live in "reality", but in a commonly constructed, shared "illusion".

Hi Notvacka,

Can you explain how free will, ethics and morality exist in a meaningful way in our imagination, but do not exist in reality? Do you mean these are concepts that are constructed from sub-concepts of things that do exist in reality - like a unicorn is constructed from the concept of a horse and a horned animal. If so, what are the ultimate sub concepts they derive from? If not, how are these concepts formed by us? Or are you suggesting that everything we think of as real is an illusion? If that is the case, I get the impression you still might believe that the four fundamental forces of physics is more reliable than a belief in free will or ethics. But then what is it that would convince you of this if we just live in a commonly constructed, shared illusion?

Apologies if the multiple alternative questions have an interrogative tone.

[Notvacka]

Hi Notvacka,

Can you explain how free will, ethics and morality exist in a meaningful way in our imagination, but do not exist in reality? Do you mean these are concepts that are constructed from sub-concepts of things that do exist in reality - like a unicorn is constructed from the concept of a horse and a horned animal. If so, what are the ultimate sub concepts they derive from? If not, how are these concepts formed by us? Or are you suggesting that everything we think of as real is an illusion? If that is the case, I get the impression you still might believe that the four fundamental forces of physics is more reliable than a belief in free will or ethics. But then what is it that would convince you of this if we just live in a commonly constructed, shared illusion?

Apologies if the multiple alternative questions have an interrogative tone.

I don't mind the tone. But there are so many questions in there (and most of them seem based upon differences regarding the definition and understanding of words and basic concepts) that I really don't know where to begin. I'll give it a shot, though.

Can you explain how free will, ethics and morality exist in a meaningful way in our imagination, but do not exist in reality?

Reality is meaningless in itself. Meaning exists in our imagination. Reality is of no significance to us unless it affects our conscious imagination. We all live first and foremost in our own conscious imagination, which to some extent is part of a commonly shared illusion and somehow connected to physical reality. What we experience is what matters, whether it corresponds to something in physical reality or not. We all make choices as if they mattered. And they do matter. The fact that we could not have chosen differently makes no difference to us, since it doesn't affect the experience.

For free will to exist in reality, alternatives must exist in reality, but they don't. However, they do exist in our imagination. Here is an example of how it works:

Imagine that you are going on a journey and have the choice of going by car or by train. There could be other options, but for the sake of simplicity, let's only consider these two distinct choices.

The alternatives are:

1. You go by car.

2. You go by train.

The alternatives are not the car and the train, which both exist in physical reality. The alternatives are you going by car or you going by train. Please note the difference.

You can imagine yourself going by car and you can imagine yourself going by train. That is how you experience the alternatives of free will. Both alternatives exist in your imagination.

Then you make your mind up. Let's say that you settle for the train. That is how you experience the decision of free will. The decision exists in your imagination.

Then you actually take the train. That is how you experience the action of free will. The action exists in physical reality.

Note that only one of the percieved alternatives can exist in physical reality. If you go by train in reality, then you can't simultaneously go by car.

Once you're on the train, there is no way for you to know if you actually could have gone by car instead. That alternative only ever existed in your imagination.

What you experienced as free will could possibly have been predetermination (as suggested by the theory of relativity) or random chance (as suggested by quantum physics). Since you can't go back in time and choose differently, there is no way to know. And it doesn't matter. Free will exists in our imagination (which is important to us) but not in physical reality (which is less important).

Now, alternatives might exist physically, but not in our reality. (The many worlds interpretation of quantum physics at least suggests as much.) But I can't think of any way to verify that proposition, so it can't possibly make any difference.

On the train, you experience having made the morally superior choice, since trains impact the environment less than cars. This is true even if the alternative never existed in reality.

Do you mean these are concepts that are constructed from sub-concepts of things that do exist in reality - like a unicorn is constructed from the concept of a horse and a horned animal?

No. I mean that nothing but undefined "stuff" exists by itself in reality. Concepts exist in our conscious imagination, which is the kind of existence that matters to us.

Or are you suggesting that everything we think of as real is an illusion?

No. If I see a horse with my own eyes, there is something in reality that corresponds to the image of a horse and the concept of a horse that exist in my conscious imagination. (Unless I'm hallucinating, of course.)

I get the impression you still might believe that the four fundamental forces of physics is more reliable than a belief in free will or ethics. But then what is it that would convince you of this if we just live in a commonly constructed, shared illusion?

The fact that it's an "illusion" does not mean that it's not true to some extent. Once people lived in a world where the sun rotated arount the earth, which it seemed to do. That was the commonly shared image (illusion) of reality. Later, people learned that the earth actually rotates around the sun, and now, that's our commonly shared image (illusion) of reality. Both images were informed by perceptions of physical reality. What I mean is, that we live in the world as we perceive it, whether that perception is correct or not.

[MGL]

Notvacka wrote: What you experienced as free will could possibly have been predetermination (as suggested by the theory of relativity) or random chance (as suggested by quantum physics).

Why is not random chance the same as free will? The only time I consider myself as having a free will are those times when I make an arbitrary decision, whether it be guessing, gambling or imagining creatively. Of course if we separate our being from the physical random processes, then we might feel that it is not us that is acting with a free will, but if we identify ourselves with those processes then I am not sure I see a problem.

[chaz wyman]

Notvacka wrote: What you experienced as free will could possibly have been predetermination (as suggested by the theory of relativity) or random chance (as suggested by quantum physics).

Why is not random chance the same as free will? The only time I consider myself as having a free will are those times when I make an arbitrary decision, whether it be guessing, gambling or imagining creatively. Of course if we separate our being from the physical random processes, then we might feel that it is not us that is acting with a free will, but if we identify ourselves with those processes then I am not sure I see a problem.

What you describe is an abnegation of your will. If any act is truly random - which I doubt - then in what way are you expressing your will on the matter at hand? Free and will are contradictions.
It is not possible to have any kind of a will unless it is enacted upon in the spirit and the letter of determination. It is the very essence of your motivation which is determined.
Your will is your sense of determination - literally.

[MGL]

What you describe is an abnegation of your will. If any act is truly random - which I doubt - then in what way are you expressing your will on the matter at hand? Free and will are contradictions.
It is not possible to have any kind of a will unless it is enacted upon in the spirit and the letter of determination. It is the very essence of your motivation which is determined.
Your will is your sense of determination - literally.

I do agree that recognizing we are obliged to make arbitrary decisions does tend to diminish the image of ourselves as being in full control. We have free will, but cannot spend it in a way we can justify.

But what I understand by my “will” is simply my intention. If I sneeze, it was not my intention to do so. It was not an act of will. I had no intention of sneezing. If however, I want to greet somebody, I may consider two alternatives – “good day” or “hello” and then arbitrarily decide on “hello”. To make this decision arbitrarily is not an abnegation of my will, because I choose – “hello” to satisfy my intention – or determination - to greet someone. It was not a purely spontaneous action, because it was done in the context of a motive. Of course, we may not be free to choose our ultimate motives or intentions as we are constrained by the requirement to survive, but there seems to me plenty of room for choosing our means of satisfying those goals.

[MGL]

Once you're on the train, there is no way for you to know if you actually could have gone by car instead. That alternative only ever existed in your imagination.

I like your explanation of why we believe in free will, although I am not convinced.

I agree that imagining two or more alternative actions is certainly a precondition for our believing we have free will. I would also agree that if only one of these actions was actually physically possible then our sense of free will would be an illusion. But to conjure up the concept of free will we also need the belief that physical alternatives are possible. This belief, I understand you as saying, comes from confusing our ability to imagine two alternative actions and their consequences as possibilities for physical reality itself.

However, it seems that things should be the other way round. Surely an ability to imagine alternative actions presupposes a belief in real physical alternatives? I can’t really comprehend how imagining alternative actions could be done without such a belief. Perhaps, it could be done with just the concept of physical alternatives, but then how could we be motivated to consider alternative actions if we did not presuppose their real possibility? The belief in real physical possibilities - or at least a belief in their possibility- must come first. But if reality is not like that, where does this belief come from? Is seems like such a basic concept - like time and space - without which it would be impossible to think at all.

[chaz wyman]

What you describe is an abnegation of your will. If any act is truly random - which I doubt - then in what way are you expressing your will on the matter at hand? Free and will are contradictions.
It is not possible to have any kind of a will unless it is enacted upon in the spirit and the letter of determination. It is the very essence of your motivation which is determined.
Your will is your sense of determination - literally.

I do agree that recognizing we are obliged to make arbitrary decisions does tend to diminish the image of ourselves as being in full control. We have free will, but cannot spend it in a way we can justify.

But what I understand by my “will” is simply my intention.

Determined by your experience.

If I sneeze, it was not my intention to do so.

This is determined by cause and effect also.

It was not an act of will. I had no intention of sneezing. If however, I want to greet somebody, I may consider two alternatives – “good day” or “hello” and then arbitrarily decide on “hello”.

This will be determined by your previous experience with that person. It is never arbitary.

To make this decision arbitrarily is not an abnegation of my will, because I choose – “hello” to satisfy my intention – or determination - to greet someone.

But this is no arbitrary in any sense. If the exact same conditions were in existence then you would be determined to take the same action.

It was not a purely spontaneous action, because it was done in the context of a motive.

Yes, a motive determined by a long list of casual conditions in a chain of necessity that goes back to before you were born. This is what it is to be an agent with a will. You cannot act in spite of this chain of causality.


Of course, we may not be free to choose our ultimate motives or intentions as we are constrained by the requirement to survive, but there seems to me plenty of room for choosing our means of satisfying those goals.

Choice is determined by who and what you are.

[Notvacka]

Why is not random chance the same as free will?

If your supposedly free will is determined by forces beyond your control, then how can it actually be free will? Random chance is as much beyond your control as predestination.

[Notvacka]

Surely an ability to imagine alternative actions presupposes a belief in real physical alternatives? I can’t really comprehend how imagining alternative actions could be done without such a belief.

Of course there is belief. But belief exists in the realm of imagination, just like the notion of free will, not in physical reality.

The belief in real physical possibilities - or at least a belief in their possibility- must come first. But if reality is not like that, where does this belief come from? Is seems like such a basic concept - like time and space - without which it would be impossible to think at all.

It is a basic concept, and it is created by our conscious imagination as an interpretation of our experiences. Our experiences do not necessarily correspond directly to anything in physical reality.