Philosophy Now Forum

First thing first, free will by definition is the ability to unbiasedly choose between at least two options.

There are four scenarios when it comes to a decision in a situation, the situation is defined by at least two options, let's call them A and B. Here are four scenarios:

1) We may like A more than B and choose A. This is a non-free decision that we call it conditional decision.
2) We may like A and B equally and choose one of them. It is clear that we cannot be biased by one of the options so our decision is free in such a situation.
3) There are situations that which the future outcome of A or B is not known. Again we cannot be biased by one of the options yet we can decide so such a decision is free too.
4) We may like A more than B but we have the power to choose B for no specific reason. This is again a free decision since we were biased by A but we were able to choose B.

Morality, however, is not about liking or disliking but about what is right or wrong. It is our thoughts that are guiding us about the correctness of a decision. We are however biased by our thoughts when we follow our thoughts in a situation. Therefore, there is no relation between free will and morality.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:43 pm First thing first, free will by definition is the ability to unbiasedly choose between at least two options.

There are four scenarios when it comes to a decision in a situation, the situation is defined by at least two options, let's call them A and B. Here are four scenarios:

1) We may like A more than B and choose A. This is a non-free decision that we call it conditional decision.

That doesn't look right. Such a decision seems perfectly harmonious with the statement, "I made a free choice." What one is "free" to do

2) We may like A and B equally and choose one of them. It is clear that we cannot be biased by one of the options so our decision is free in such a situation.

What is the word "biased" trying to convey? Is it your assumption that you having any particular preference for or attraction to one option over the other makes it "biased" and "unfree"? I wouldn't think that's obviously true at all.

3) There are situations that which the future outcome of A or B is not known. Again we cannot be biased by one of the options yet we can decide so such a decision is free too.

This also doesn't seem right. If we don't have some idea, at least a probable idea, of the outcome of our choices, how can we choose at all? Something is certainly missing from such a claim.

4) We may like A more than B but we have the power to choose B for no specific reason. This is again a free decision since we were biased by A but we were able to choose B.

"No specific reason"? Do you mean there was a "non-specific" reason, like a vague feeling, perhaps? I don't see why a vague feeling would be any different from a "liking" or a "preference" of another kind. So this would seem to conflict with your #1 and #2. Did you not insist that having any reason at all for choosing would entail "bias," and wouldn't be a "free choice"?

Morality, however, is not about liking or disliking but about what is right or wrong.

That much is right, obviously.

It is our thoughts that are guiding us about the correctness of a decision.

That seems a rather vapid statement. What else but our "thoughts" would be "guiding" us to do anything?

We are however biased by our thoughts when we follow our thoughts in a situation.

That seems obviously confused. That's got to be wrong.

How can "we," who are the agent of the choice, be "biasing" ourselves? Every single choice we ever make involves some thought at some level, and we "follow" those as we see fit. There's no other sense in which we can use the word "choice" at all.

I think this confusion is really revealed in this conclusion:

Therefore, there is no relation between free will and morality.

The opposite has to be true. If people do not have "will," and "choice," they cannot be "moral." All they would be, is predetermined and fated.

I think you're probably confused over the word "free." You're thinking it has to mean something so extreme as "utterly without cause or influence," which is not what it means in the context of "free will." All the "free" in "free will" means is that the will is able to choose between alternatives, guided by whatever reasons, inclinations, motives, purposes and judgments the will itself decides to take as most relevant. That's not "free" in the sense you seem to imagine it needs to be; but it's certainly "free" in the sense required for "free will."

I would think you might want to go back and decide what you mean by "bias." You seem to think something bad, immoral or strictly causal is implied by a person having any reasons at all for choosing one thing or another, and frankly, I don't see, and I don't think many people will see, why you think that's true.

How is a moral choice necessarily any different to another kind of choice as far as free will is concerned?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:43 pm First thing first, free will by definition is the ability to unbiasedly choose between at least two options.

There are four scenarios when it comes to a decision in a situation, the situation is defined by at least two options, let's call them A and B. Here are four scenarios:

1) We may like A more than B and choose A. This is a non-free decision that we call it conditional decision.

That doesn't look right. Such a decision seems perfectly harmonious with the statement, "I made a free choice." What one is "free" to do

Well, you are clearly biased by A since you like it and that is why you chose A. This decision is therefore biased so it is not free.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

2) We may like A and B equally and choose one of them. It is clear that we cannot be biased by one of the options so our decision is free in such a situation.

What is the word "biased" trying to convey? Is it your assumption that you having any particular preference for or attraction to one option over the other makes it "biased" and "unfree"? I wouldn't think that's obviously true at all.

By biased I mean that you have a specific desire or preference for an option.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

3) There are situations that which the future outcome of A or B is not known. Again we cannot be biased by one of the options yet we can decide so such a decision is free too.

This also doesn't seem right. If we don't have some idea, at least a probable idea, of the outcome of our choices, how can we choose at all? Something is certainly missing from such a claim.

Have you ever gambled? The outcome of gambling is not clear yet your free and can choose to play or not to play.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

4) We may like A more than B but we have the power to choose B for no specific reason. This is again a free decision since we were biased by A but we were able to choose B.

"No specific reason"? Do you mean there was a "non-specific" reason, like a vague feeling, perhaps? I don't see why a vague feeling would be any different from a "liking" or a "preference" of another kind. So this would seem to conflict with your #1 and #2. Did you not insist that having any reason at all for choosing would entail "bias," and wouldn't be a "free choice"?

This is just different from 1 and 2. You are free in the last three scenarios. Well, in regard to the last scenario, if there was a reason for your decision then you are biased by the reason therefore your decision is not free.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

Morality, however, is not about liking or disliking but about what is right or wrong.

That much is right, obviously.

Cool. So you agree with one statement.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

It is our thoughts that are guiding us about the correctness of a decision.

That seems a rather vapid statement. What else but our "thoughts" would be "guiding" us to do anything?

Nothing but thought. We have feelings and thoughts. The feeling is like a force that has the capacity to move us on. The thought is guiding us in a situation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

We are however biased by our thoughts when we follow our thoughts in a situation.

That seems obviously confused. That's got to be wrong.

No, it is right.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm How can "we," who are the agent of the choice, be "biasing" ourselves? Every single choice we ever make involves some thought at some level, and we "follow" those as we see fit. There's no other sense in which we can use the word "choice" at all.

I think this confusion is really revealed in this conclusion:

We have the ability to resist a thought or not. In the first case, we are not biased by thoughts and in the second case, we are biased.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

Therefore, there is no relation between free will and morality.

The opposite has to be true. If people do not have "will," and "choice," they cannot be "moral."

I didn't say that people do not have the will. I said that people have free will.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm All they would be, is predetermined and fated.

Well, everything is predetermined if we either follow our feelings or thoughts. I think it is obvious.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm I think you're probably confused over the word "free." You're thinking it has to mean something so extreme as "utterly without cause or influence," which is not what it means in the context of "free will."

How a decision could be free if it has a cause?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm All the "free" in "free will" means is that the will is able to choose between alternatives, guided by whatever reasons, inclinations, motives, purposes and judgments the will itself decides to take as most relevant.

How could you be free when you are following reason, inclination, motive, purpose, and judgment?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm That's not "free" in the sense you seem to imagine it needs to be; but it's certainly "free" in the sense required for "free will."

What do you mean?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm I would think you might want to go back and decide what you mean by "bias." You seem to think something bad, immoral or strictly causal is implied by a person having any reasons at all for choosing one thing or another, and frankly, I don't see, and I don't think many people will see, why you think that's true.

I already defined bias.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:19 pm How is a moral choice necessarily any different to another kind of choice as far as free will is concerned?

A moral choice is different from another form of choice since the rightness or wrongness of a decision matters in a situation whereas, in other types of choices, there is no rightness or wrongness. Let's assume that killing is wrong. This means that a situation when killing is involved is moral. Having a meal or drinking water could be not either right or wrong so they are not moral.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:15 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:19 pm How is a moral choice necessarily any different to another kind of choice as far as free will is concerned?

A moral choice is different from another form of choice since the rightness or wrongness of a decision matters in a situation whereas, in other types of choices, there is no rightness or wrongness.

Most choices involve right or wrong in some respect. Why is choosing between a moral right or wrong different in principle to choosing between a practical right or wrong?

Let's assume that killing is wrong. This means that a situation when killing is involved is moral. Having a meal or drinking water is not either right or wrong so they are not moral.

I can go along with killing being a moral issue, and I agree that drinking a glass of water isn't usually a moral issue, but you make no mention of choices regarding either, so what are you trying to illustrate here?


Let me give you two scenarios:

A: I am buying a car, and I have a choice of either red or blue, but I like both colours equally.

B: I am in a situation where telling the truth will get me into trouble, but telling a lie will keep me out of it. I don't want to lie, because I think it is morally wrong, but I don't want to get into trouble, either. I find that my aversion to telling a lie is equal in strength to my desire to stay out of trouble.

A is not a moral choice, and B is a moral choice, what difference, regarding free will, is there in the process of arriving at a decision in both scenarios?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:54 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:15 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:19 pm How is a moral choice necessarily any different to another kind of choice as far as free will is concerned?

A moral choice is different from another form of choice since the rightness or wrongness of a decision matters in a situation whereas, in other types of choices, there is no rightness or wrongness.

Most choices involve right or wrong in some respect. Why is choosing between a moral right or wrong different in principle to choosing between a practical right or wrong?

What do you mean by practical right or wrong?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:54 pm

Let's assume that killing is wrong. This means that a situation when killing is involved is moral. Having a meal or drinking water is not either right or wrong so they are not moral.

I can go along with killing being a moral issue, and I agree that drinking a glass of water isn't usually a moral issue, but you make no mention of choices regarding either, so what are you trying to illustrate here?

I am trying to illustrate different situations rather than the decisions involved in each.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:54 pm Let me give you two scenarios:

A: I am buying a car, and I have a choice of either red or blue, but I like both colours equally.

B: I am in a situation where telling the truth will get me into trouble, but telling a lie will keep me out of it. I don't want to lie, because I think it is morally wrong, but I don't want to get into trouble, either. I find that my aversion to telling a lie is equal in strength to my desire to stay out of trouble.

A is not a moral choice, and B is a moral choice, what difference, regarding free will, is there in the process of arriving at a decision in both scenarios?

Yes, A is not moral whereas B is moral. What does the difference free will make? You can choose in both scenarios.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:43 pm First thing first, free will by definition is the ability to unbiasedly choose between at least two options.

There are four scenarios when it comes to a decision in a situation, the situation is defined by at least two options, let's call them A and B. Here are four scenarios:

1) We may like A more than B and choose A. This is a non-free decision that we call it conditional decision.

That doesn't look right. Such a decision seems perfectly harmonious with the statement, "I made a free choice." What one is "free" to do

Well, you are clearly biased by A since you like it and that is why you chose A. This decision is therefore biased so it is not free.

"Biased"? That's the word I need defined. You seem to be employing it in quite an irregular way.

People don't ordinarily equate "having a reason for" with "bias." For example, if a referee in a football game blows the whistle and delivers a verdict, he has reasons for doing so. But he's only "biased" if he calls fouls on one team, and refuses to call exactly the same foul on the other team. Otherwise, he's being perfectly equitable, even though he always has to have reasons why he blows the whistle.

A ref who blows the whistle with no reasons at all is just a bad ref.

By biased I mean that you have a specific desire or preference for an option.

Ah, there it is. That's the definition I was looking for.

But no, I don't think that's right. Like the referee, a decision can certainly be driven by a particular desire (such as to keep the players from fighting) or express a preference for an option (like that neither side should have an unfair advantage), and be totally "unbiased."

"Bias" means a prejudicial judgment, not just a judgment. And all judgments are based on some kind of evidence, motive or warrant.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

3) There are situations that which the future outcome of A or B is not known. Again we cannot be biased by one of the options yet we can decide so such a decision is free too.

This also doesn't seem right. If we don't have some idea, at least a probable idea, of the outcome of our choices, how can we choose at all? Something is certainly missing from such a claim.

Have you ever gambled? The outcome of gambling is not clear yet your free and can choose to play or not to play.

Oh, I disagree about that. The goal the gambler has in mind is very, very clear: to win. He may be wrong about that, but that doesn't mean he is devoid of the belief that there is a probable outcome to his choices. Quite the contrary: if he doesn't think he'll ever get the outcome he's aiming at, he'll never gamble at all.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

Morality, however, is not about liking or disliking but about what is right or wrong.

That much is right, obviously.

Cool. So you agree with one statement.

Yep. I'm not trying to disagree. I'm trying to get clear on whether or not I have reason to believe your theory.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

We are however biased by our thoughts when we follow our thoughts in a situation.

That seems obviously confused. That's got to be wrong.

No, it is right.

I don't think it is. I'm convinced of the opposite. I'm convinced that "bias" rightly only refers to prejudicial judgments, not to good ones, and not to the presence of reasons for judging.

I don't think that to make a choice by way of one's own inclinations, tastes, judgment, reasoning or even preferences is in any way automatically "biased." It's just an ordinary "choice."

It's not even possible to make a choice at all without referring to some of these things...and some are quite legitimate. There's nothing automatically "unfree" about selecting what one prefers to select, for whatever reasons one deems relevant.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm How can "we," who are the agent of the choice, be "biasing" ourselves? Every single choice we ever make involves some thought at some level, and we "follow" those as we see fit. There's no other sense in which we can use the word "choice" at all.

I think this confusion is really revealed in this conclusion:

We have the ability to resist a thought or not. In the first case, we are not biased by thoughts and in the second case, we are biased.

That won't work, as an explanation.

On what basis does one "resist"? Does one "resist" without reference to one's sense of equity, or justice, or fairness, or reasonableness? Does one have no motives or reasons at all for "resisting"? Why would we ever "resist" for no other reason but to "resist"?

Well, everything is predetermined if we either follow our feelings or thoughts. I think it is obvious.

Then there would be no such thing at all as "morality." There would only be what was determined to be. And there would be no "choice" either, since, by definition, one cannot have a "choice" of the only road there is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm I think you're probably confused over the word "free." You're thinking it has to mean something so extreme as "utterly without cause or influence," which is not what it means in the context of "free will."

How a decision could be free if it has a cause?

Because "free" only means "volitionally free" not "devoid of reasons."

Let's take a simple example. You and I are playing chess, let's say. It's your move.

Now, do you have "free choice" of what you do? Yes: the whole board is available to you. You can move the pawn first, the knight maybe, then the rook, and slide the queen over...you have many, many choices, and I am not restricting you. The board is new.

But does that mean you will not engage reason, in order to make your free move? Will you not give any consideration to what you would prefer to do, or what new strategy you would find interesting to try, or to what I may do in response to your move?

But if you consider one of these things, are you thereby "biased"?

Of course not. You're free. And you have every legitimate right to refer to your own preferences, creativity, strategy, intentions, predictions, and so forth, all together or separately, or in any combination -- all within the rules of the game, of course. You have complete freedom of choice, and nothing makes you refer to one impulse or another...move creatively, if you wish, move strategically, if you prefer, move habitually, if it seems safe to you, move wisely, if you think you know what that would be in the given case. None of that is bias. It's just fair, free play.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm All the "free" in "free will" means is that the will is able to choose between alternatives, guided by whatever reasons, inclinations, motives, purposes and judgments the will itself decides to take as most relevant.

How could you be free when you are following reason, inclination, motive, purpose, and judgment?

Because they are YOURS.

You get the choice of what you respond to. You're not an automaton. You have options. Just pick one, as seems right by your lights, and you're free.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 7:12 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:54 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:15 pm
A moral choice is different from another form of choice since the rightness or wrongness of a decision matters in a situation whereas, in other types of choices, there is no rightness or wrongness.

Most choices involve right or wrong in some respect. Why is choosing between a moral right or wrong different in principle to choosing between a practical right or wrong?

What do you mean by practical right or wrong?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:54 pm

Let's assume that killing is wrong. This means that a situation when killing is involved is moral. Having a meal or drinking water is not either right or wrong so they are not moral.

I can go along with killing being a moral issue, and I agree that drinking a glass of water isn't usually a moral issue, but you make no mention of choices regarding either, so what are you trying to illustrate here?

I am trying to illustrate different situations rather than the decisions involved in each.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:54 pm Let me give you two scenarios:

A: I am buying a car, and I have a choice of either red or blue, but I like both colours equally.

B: I am in a situation where telling the truth will get me into trouble, but telling a lie will keep me out of it. I don't want to lie, because I think it is morally wrong, but I don't want to get into trouble, either. I find that my aversion to telling a lie is equal in strength to my desire to stay out of trouble.

A is not a moral choice, and B is a moral choice, what difference, regarding free will, is there in the process of arriving at a decision in both scenarios?

Yes, A is not moral whereas B is moral. What does the difference free will make? You can choose in both scenarios.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 7:32 pm ...

A ref who blows the whistle with no reasons at all is just a bad ref.

or has a song in his heart that just has to escape...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 7:32 pm ...

A ref who blows the whistle with no reasons at all is just a bad ref.

or has a song in his heart that just has to escape...

-Imp

Or he's having a coughing fit with the whistle in his mouth.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 7:32 pm ...

A ref who blows the whistle with no reasons at all is just a bad ref.

or has a song in his heart that just has to escape...

-Imp

Yes, quite possibly so. He's as cheery as a little robin.

A bit confusing for the players, though.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:43 pm First thing first, free will by definition is the ability to unbiasedly choose between at least two options.
..........
Morality, however, is not about liking or disliking but about what is right or wrong. It is our thoughts that are guiding us about the correctness of a decision. We are however biased by our thoughts when we follow our thoughts in a situation. Therefore, there is no relation between free will and morality.

The moment one is caught to make a decision on what is supposedly a "moral" issue, that is not morality-proper but rather a pseudo-morality or applied ethics.
Regardless of what decision is made and acted upon in such a judgment, there is no 'free-will' but rather one is conditioned by various constraints.

Morality cover an extensive field with reference to avoiding evil naturally to promote good.

That you are not thinking of killing any human at present [presumably you really are] indicate you have a certain degree of moral competence which is within a certain state of free-will.

But say, suddenly you feel like raping a female at present and you go about seeking that opportunity, then your will is conditioned by this sexual impulse but fortunately you pause to decide whether to rape or not weighing the consequences of being caught.
That you are deliberating whether to rape someone or not, indicate the degree of moral competence in you is not totally damaged but merely weaker than the average standard, but in this case your will is conditioned thus not totally free.

But say, suddenly you feel like raping a female at present and you go about seeking that opportunity and go ahead to rape a female without any regard to the consequences, in that case your moral competence is significantly damaged in that respect and your will is not free but totally dominated by the primal inherent sexual impulse.

Free will and morality in its ideal state is when a moral agent is in a state of absolute indifference to have thoughts of evil acts, thus will never commit any evil acts. The inherent unavoidable sexual impulse is always there, but it is well suppressed and modulated.

Since the majority of humans are not in [very far from] this ideal state of morality , it is imperative that all humans initiate self-development and incrementally progress and improve towards the ideal [albeit impossible to attain].

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:43 pm First thing first, free will by definition is the ability to unbiasedly choose between at least two options.

This isn't the first time you've said this, and not the first time a thread of people have all said "wait what? That's not how it's defined."

You can't start your argument with a premise like this in a tone that it's just a commonly accepted fact. You might accept this definition but clearly nobody else does. You have a lot of work to do

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 7:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm
That doesn't look right. Such a decision seems perfectly harmonious with the statement, "I made a free choice." What one is "free" to do

Well, you are clearly biased by A since you like it and that is why you chose A. This decision is therefore biased so it is not free.

"Biased"? That's the word I need defined. You seem to be employing it in quite an irregular way.

People don't ordinarily equate "having a reason for" with "bias." For example, if a referee in a football game blows the whistle and delivers a verdict, he has reasons for doing so. But he's only "biased" if he calls fouls on one team, and refuses to call exactly the same foul on the other team. Otherwise, he's being perfectly equitable, even though he always has to have reasons why he blows the whistle.

A ref who blows the whistle with no reasons at all is just a bad ref.

By biased I mean that you have a specific desire or preference for an option.

Ah, there it is. That's the definition I was looking for.

But no, I don't think that's right. Like the referee, a decision can certainly be driven by a particular desire (such as to keep the players from fighting) or express a preference for an option (like that neither side should have an unfair advantage), and be totally "unbiased."

"Bias" means a prejudicial judgment, not just a judgment. And all judgments are based on some kind of evidence, motive or warrant.

Well, then we have to agree on a word that shows desire, preference, or inclination toward something. Do you have something in mind? Biased seems that does not work.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 7:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm This also doesn't seem right. If we don't have some idea, at least a probable idea, of the outcome of our choices, how can we choose at all? Something is certainly missing from such a claim.

Have you ever gambled? The outcome of gambling is not clear yet your free and can choose to play or not to play.

Oh, I disagree about that. The goal the gambler has in mind is very, very clear: to win. He may be wrong about that, but that doesn't mean he is devoid of the belief that there is a probable outcome to his choices. Quite the contrary: if he doesn't think he'll ever get the outcome he's aiming at, he'll never gamble at all.

The outcome of gambling is different from your desire to win.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 7:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm That much is right, obviously.

Cool. So you agree with one statement.

Yep. I'm not trying to disagree. I'm trying to get clear on whether or not I have reason to believe your theory.

Cool.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm How can "we," who are the agent of the choice, be "biasing" ourselves? Every single choice we ever make involves some thought at some level, and we "follow" those as we see fit. There's no other sense in which we can use the word "choice" at all.

I think this confusion is really revealed in this conclusion:

We have the ability to resist a thought or not. In the first case, we are not biased by thoughts and in the second case, we are biased.

That won't work, as an explanation.

On what basis does one "resist"? Does one "resist" without reference to one's sense of equity, or justice, or fairness, or reasonableness? Does one have no motives or reasons at all for "resisting"? Why would we ever "resist" for no other reason but to "resist"?

I don't want that we fall into a chain of reasoning when it comes to a decision. If you have a reason to resist then you decide according to that reason. But you have the ability to resist the former reason too. Etc. In the end, you have the ability to resist the final reason for no reason otherwise you are following a reason and you are not free.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

Well, everything is predetermined if we either follow our feelings or thoughts. I think it is obvious.

Then there would be no such thing at all as "morality." There would only be what was determined to be. And there would be no "choice" either, since, by definition, one cannot have a "choice" of the only road there is.

Determinism has nothing against morality. Morality is a set of codes that tell you what action is right and what action is wrong. If a person follows this code then he is behaving deterministically.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm I think you're probably confused over the word "free." You're thinking it has to mean something so extreme as "utterly without cause or influence," which is not what it means in the context of "free will."

How a decision could be free if it has a cause?

Because "free" only means "volitionally free" not "devoid of reasons."

Let's take a simple example. You and I are playing chess, let's say. It's your move.

Now, do you have "free choice" of what you do? Yes: the whole board is available to you. You can move the pawn first, the knight maybe, then the rook, and slide the queen over...you have many, many choices, and I am not restricting you. The board is new.

But does that mean you will not engage reason, in order to make your free move? Will you not give any consideration to what you would prefer to do, or what new strategy you would find interesting to try, or to what I may do in response to your move?

But if you consider one of these things, are you thereby "biased"?

Of course not. You're free. And you have every legitimate right to refer to your own preferences, creativity, strategy, intentions, predictions, and so forth, all together or separately, or in any combination -- all within the rules of the game, of course. You have complete freedom of choice, and nothing makes you refer to one impulse or another...move creatively, if you wish, move strategically, if you prefer, move habitually, if it seems safe to you, move wisely, if you think you know what that would be in the given case. None of that is bias. It's just fair, free play.

You are mixing the existence of options with free will. Of course, options must be available otherwise no one can make a decision.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm All the "free" in "free will" means is that the will is able to choose between alternatives, guided by whatever reasons, inclinations, motives, purposes and judgments the will itself decides to take as most relevant.

How could you be free when you are following reason, inclination, motive, purpose, and judgment?

Because they are YOURS.

You get the choice of what you respond to. You're not an automaton. You have options. Just pick one, as seems right by your lights, and you're free.

It seems to me that you didn't get the issue that I was pointing to. A machine can work based on reason, purpose, and judgment. Yet, it is not free.