Free Will And Free Choice

[fromderinside]

Fail!!! Show me in my post where magic is involved, not the magic you imagine. You need to demonstrate what I post is magic. That is you need to falsify the hypotheses i presented. You also need to explain why you are missing two regions of sensitivity in your graphs which need mind to interpret.

Declarations won't work.

 

[untermensche]

For the brain to know it is supposed to make the experience of orange because light stimulated a lot of molecules is magic. A miracle. Can't happen.

For a brain to create the experience of orange as a randomly evolved contingency when cells are stimulated in a specific array is science.

 

[fromderinside]

Two untrue declarations do not an argument make. your declaration is untrue. I know this because not only did a lot of molecules send signals into the brain which includes comparators, parsers, and other forms of neural analyzers suited to processing color, linkage, and orientation. That information is found in the articles I walked you through. I know you didn't read because your declarations were absent any such discussion.

Declarations concluded from declarations add nothing to the emptiness they follow.

I'll consider your answers when you connect them to what I've presented to you as evidence.

 

[DBT]

You simply can't get past the bad idea that what humans have learned about the energy is the same things the cells know about it.

The cells know NOTHING about the energy. Absolutely nothing. The energy transforms a molecule and is gone. The cell has no way to understand why the molecule shifted. I have a mechanism.

Your position is a miracle.

Color cannot possibly be a feature of energy or of objects in the world. That is impossible.

You still haven't explained your autonomy of mind idea. You have made the claim, but so far failed to justify it with an explanation, argument or evidence. What you feel is true doesn't mean that it is in fact true.

Please explain autonomy of mind.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The idea that free will and determinism are contradictory to each other is a religious idea. If you claim that free will is illusory or unreal, because everything is predetermined = cause-and-effect, you are submitting to a religious dogma. It is religious ideology or philosophizing which has imposed this contradiction of free will and determinism. Nothing in reasoning or science requires this contradiction of free will and determinism.


The Illusion that Free Will conflicts with Determinism

excerpt from a lecture by Jodi Magness Jesus and his Jewish Influences

. . . We learn about this 40-year-long war from The War Scroll, which describes what's going to happen during this 40-year-long war, in great detail.

One of the peculiarities of this sect is that they believed in predeterminism. Everything is pre-ordained by God. And so this 40-year-long war, and what's going to happen during it, are pre-ordained by God and described in the War Scroll. But not only all future events were pre-ordained by God, but in fact everything was pre-ordained by God, meaning that this sect believed that there is no human free will at all. You've no freedom to choose what you do and what you do not do. Your own personal makeup, how many parts of you are good, how many parts of you are evil -- all of this is pre-ordained by God before you're even born.

One way to refute this explanation of "Free Will" vs. "Determinism" is this simple 2-step critique:

1. This explanation of "Free Will" and "Determinism" is totally arbitrary, not required by definition or logic, i.e., you're just arbitrarily choosing to make them contradictory because you want to, with no rule requiring you to make them contradictory; and

2. This explanation, if accepted, contradicts all of science and everyday practice, such as in law and in responsibility and accountability and decision-making, which all assume free choices.

You're unnecessarily making 2 choices here, for no reason: 1) you're accepting the above definition of "free will" and "determinism" in order to claim they contradict each other, and yet there is no need to submit to this definition; and 2) you have to reject all decision-making and accountability and legal responsibility as being meaningless. To make free will and determinism logically contradictory, you must make these two choices, both unnecessary, and one which abolishes all knowledge and science and decision-making and negates any judging people's behavior or choices or decisions.

There is no reason to choose either of the above, and nothing is accomplished by choosing them. Why should we reject all decision-making and all judgments of accountability, and why should we reject all legal decisions and responsibility for behavior, just because someone has this definition of "free will" and "determinism" to foist upon us? We are not required to submit to this definition of "free will" and "determinism." We can easily accommodate both "free will" and "determinism" without forcing them to contradict each other.

Instead of the above, "Determinism" can be fully explained as follows:

It is possible (theoretically) to predict everything in advance, if one has "infinite" knowledge, or simply knowledge of everything that will happen, e.g., in human history or in earth history, etc. Hypothetically a "god" or "God" could have all this pre-knowledge of what will happen, down to the most minute detail.

But this doesn't negate the "free will" which also happens. It's totally arbitrary to say this pre-knowledge cancels out the free will, which itself is just part of the events happening. The free will, the choosing -- it's all just part of the total events happening along with everything else. So God (or anyone with enough pre-knowledge) knows the free will ahead of time, and can predict what the free choices will be. All those choices are still free, if there is no coercion. Just because someone can see it coming in advance does not make it an unfree choice.

One could predict slavery or other unfree acts taking place. But other acts are free acts, which are also predicted. Just the predicting it doesn't change it from being free into something not free. The predictor can also predict the coercion taking place, when the slave trafficker or slave owner imposes "choices" onto the slave which are not free choices.

So here are two different explanations of "free will" and "determinism" --- and of these 2, one is compatible with our common sense decision-making and behavior every day, when we live our lives and make mostly free choices. By this understanding, there is both free choice and UNfree choice, both coercion at times and free choice at other times. And we hold each other accountable for our free choices, but not for our unfree choices when we were forced against our will. And in some cases there is ambiguity whether we acted freely or were coerced into doing something. So we might be "blamed" in part for what happened, but not totally. That fits our normal everyday experience, and so allows our decision-making and our scientific research and seeking answers and trying to make the world better.

Whereas the explanation making "free will" contradictory to "determinism" rules out scientific research and truth-seeking and trying to improve the world and planning and hoping for better outcomes.

The correct explanation has to be the one which best fits our normal experience and allows that we can learn and make the world better, rather than the explanation which rules out all science and improving and decision-making and judging some results as better than others.

That we can predict events in advance, or even God predicting EVERYthing in advance (if ALL truth can be known somehow) is totally compatible with the possibility that free will makes the choices even though those free choices are known in advance, from pre-knowledge of the events. So that there's no contradiction between the pre-knowledge/predeterminism and the free will. Rather, that free will is just one more phenomenon recognized in advance as one of the causes, as any or all the causes are predetermined and possibly knowable. It's all predetermined and so could be known ahead of time, if one has enough information. So it's both predetermined AND free at the same time -- no contradiction.

You could argue that the definition is whatever we want, and if we want to we can define "free will" and "determinism" as contradictory. And maybe we can define anything anyway we wish. But why should we choose to make these contradictory for no reason, and thus destroy all science and reasoning and decision-making? What is gained by making these two incompatible? There's nothing intrinsic to "free will" and "determinism" which forces them to contradict each other.

Rather, all we have to do is define "free will" as whatever drives us to our decisions or free choices, and "coercion" as whatever suppresses our free choices by threatening to deny us what we want, and "determinism" as whatever caused these, including the free choices we're driven to make and which might be known in advance in some cases. Those choices are still free, despite being predictable and even knowable in advance. Or, the ones coerced can be known in advance as something not free. The coercion is also knowable and predictable in advance, and this predictable coercion then makes the act unfree rather than free. It's not the predictability, but the coercion which made the act unfree, and when we could see that there'd be no coercion, then we'd also see that the act taken is a free choice, being non-coerced.

Predetermined and predictable, but free nonetheless, because not coerced.

 

[fromderinside]

Determination, this then that is required precludes choice. You can't go to the middle of a process and point to something as referent to justify what is not possible. There is no possibility of coercion in what is determined. Are you sure you don't know that cause and effect are not operative in what is determined. Prior subsequent, sure, but what is prior isn't a cause it is merely proximally previous.

 

[DBT]

The idea that free will and determinism are contradictory to each other is a religious idea.

The idea that alternative actions are possible by the subjects of a determined system is absurd. Within a determined system, choice is an illusion formed by the inability of the subject to perceive all of the elements that brought him to his current condition or the 'choice' he is about to make.



Cold comfort in Compatibalism;
''How is this supposed to work? First, we have to accept the view that prior events have caused the person’s current desire to do X. Wanting to do X is fully determined by these prior causes (and perhaps a dash of true chance). Now that the desire to do X is being felt, there are no other constraints that keep the person from doing what he wants, namely X. At this point, we should ascribe free will to all animals capable of experiencing desires (e.g., to eat, sleep, or mate). Yet, we don’t; and we tend not to judge non-human animals in moral terms. Exceptions occur, but are swiftly dismissed as errors of anthropomorphism.''

Given that we have to accept the view that prior events have caused the person’s current desire to do X.....How is it supposed to work?

1- If determinism allows multiple options to be realized by an agent, as a matter of choice, why call it determinism?

2- If freedom does not require the possibility of realizable options, that the world procedes along a determined, singular, course of events, why call it freedom?

3- If 'freedom' does not require a means for the selection an option from set of realizable alternatves, what is freedom?

 

[The AntiChris]

2- If freedom does not require the possibility of realizable options, that the world procedes along a determined, singular, course of events, why call it freedom?

Why not? Words are tools. Words don't have fixed intrinsic meanings.

Here's something posted on The Electric Agora which explains why it's unreasonable to insist that freedom can only mean freedom from causal necessity :

Let’s presume a perfect determinism, where cause and effect are perfectly reliable, such that “freedom from causal necessity (inevitability)” does not exist. In this context, what is the meaning of “freedom”?

a) When we set a bird free (from its cage) do we expect it to be free of causal necessity?
b) When we set the slave free (from his master) do we expect the slave to be free of causal necessity?
c) When the bank offers you a free toaster (free of charge) to open an account, is this event free of causal necessity?
d) When you decide for yourself what you will do (free of coercion or other undue influence), do we expect you to be free of causal necessity?

In a perfectly deterministic universe, everything that happens is always causally inevitable. This is equally true for each of these examples. And yet the word “free” makes a meaningful distinction in each case.

 

[DBT]

It's not just a matter of words or semantics. It's a matter of words as symbols that represent, physical principles, objects and events.

Determinism, by definition, does not allow alternative decisions or actions.

So, if under the sway of determinism, without the possibility of deciding and acting contrary to a determined course of events....where is your freedom to choose otherwise?

 

[untermensche]

You simply can't get past the bad idea that what humans have learned about the energy is the same things the cells know about it.

The cells know NOTHING about the energy. Absolutely nothing. The energy transforms a molecule and is gone. The cell has no way to understand why the molecule shifted. I have a mechanism.

Your position is a miracle.

Color cannot possibly be a feature of energy or of objects in the world. That is impossible.

You still haven't explained your autonomy of mind idea. You have made the claim, but so far failed to justify it with an explanation, argument or evidence. What you feel is true doesn't mean that it is in fact true.

Please explain autonomy of mind.

You won't address a point I make.

Do you freely choose the ideas you believe or have they been forced upon you somehow?

If they are just something you are forced to believe what is their value?

I suspect you will not address any of this.

It is beyond you.

You are nothing but a silly fan of things you don't understand without any ability to form a rational argument.

 

[The AntiChris]

So, if under the sway of determinism, without the possibility of deciding and acting contrary to a determined course of events....where is your freedom to choose otherwise?

This isn't the question I was answering. You asked:

2- If freedom does not require the possibility of realizable options, that the world procedes along a determined, singular, course of events, why call it freedom?

I explained why causal necessity (strict determinism - no possibility of realizable options) is not, and has never been, a reason not to use the word freedom.

 

[fromderinside]

OK. If that's what you want use words properly to express your use of 'freedom' like preceding it with, say, 'relative'.

 

[DBT]

So, if under the sway of determinism, without the possibility of deciding and acting contrary to a determined course of events....where is your freedom to choose otherwise?

This isn't the question I was answering. You asked:

2- If freedom does not require the possibility of realizable options, that the world procedes along a determined, singular, course of events, why call it freedom?

I explained why causal necessity (strict determinism - no possibility of realizable options) is not, and has never been, a reason not to use the word freedom.

The use of words, freedom in this instance, is relative. Considering the subject matter, the use of the word freedom is related to the idea of free will: freedom of will.

So what is free will? What is will free to do? Why apply the word freedom to will?

 

[The AntiChris]

Why apply the word freedom to will?

This was answered in my very first response to you.

It's for you to explain why you believe will cannot (must not?) be described as free in any circumstance.

 

[fromderinside]

If things are determined thereafter from time t=0 how does relative from the inside, my specialty, have any meaning? It doesn't. It's just a dodge for those who know that they aren't actually agents except on a between two or more limited beings transactional plane. As soon as statistics are introduced your argument is outta here. Now you are talking the world of gnurs which is entirely an inside job.

 

[DBT]

Why apply the word freedom to will?

This was answered in my very first response to you.

It's for you to explain why you believe will cannot (must not?) be described as free in any circumstance.

The argument from semantics is shallow and flawed. To say 'set a bird free' describes relative conditions, superficial appearance, the prior state of the birds confinement compared to being set free from its cage.

The bird itself had no choice in its confinement in the first instance, nor subsequently being released into the wild. Whatever happened to the bird was determined by its environment, its captors and the world at large. The bird had no choice in what happened to it.

It was not a matter of decision making in terms of free will.

When the term free will is used in common language, the underlying states and conditions, environment,state of the mind/brain, etc, that put someone into a givven situation, are not generally considered, making it a mere figure of speech.

The nature of the decision making process is not being considered.

 

[The AntiChris]

Why apply the word freedom to will?

This was answered in my very first response to you.

It's for you to explain why you believe will cannot (must not?) be described as free in any circumstance.

The argument from semantics is shallow and flawed. To say 'set a bird free' describes relative conditions, superficial appearance, the prior state of the birds confinement compared to being set free from its cage.

The bird itself had no choice in its confinement in the first instance, nor subsequently being released into the wild. Whatever happened to the bird was determined by its environment, its captors and the world at large. The bird had no choice in what happened to it.

It was not a matter of decision making in terms of free will.

When the term free will is used in common language, the underlying states and conditions, environment,state of the mind/brain, etc, that put someone into a givven situation, are not generally considered, making it a mere figure of speech.

The nature of the decision making process is not being considered.

I'm afraid I'm struggling to discern a coherent (clear and unambiguous) explanation here. Rather than guess at what you mean I'll leave it. Thanks for trying.

 

[DBT]

The argument from semantics is shallow and flawed. To say 'set a bird free' describes relative conditions, superficial appearance, the prior state of the birds confinement compared to being set free from its cage.

The bird itself had no choice in its confinement in the first instance, nor subsequently being released into the wild. Whatever happened to the bird was determined by its environment, its captors and the world at large. The bird had no choice in what happened to it.

It was not a matter of decision making in terms of free will.

When the term free will is used in common language, the underlying states and conditions, environment,state of the mind/brain, etc, that put someone into a givven situation, are not generally considered, making it a mere figure of speech.

The nature of the decision making process is not being considered.

I'm afraid I'm struggling to discern a coherent (clear and unambiguous) explanation here. Rather than guess at what you mean I'll leave it. Thanks for trying.

It shouldn't be hard to grasp. We've been through this years ago.

Basically, your argument from semantics fails as an argument for free will because it does not account for underlying non chosen causality.

The Punch and Judy Puppet show.

The Puppets (or marionettes) are manipulated by a Puppeteer hidden behind the screen working the strings that bring his Puppets into action.

Judy, being annoyed by Punch's insensitive comments has a habit of hitting punch over the head with a stick, which she does quite often: Judy is free to hit Punch. Punch, apparently tired of getting constantly hit, grabs Judy and ties her up: Judy is no longer free to hit Punch.

Punch, apparently feeling sorry for Judy's plight, free's Judy from her ropes, whereupon Judy is freed and able to renew her attack on Punch with even greater vigour.


As the word ''free'' is commonly used, within the context of this little deterministic world of the Puppeteer and his stage play, the puppets may be said to freely perform actions upon stage. The Puppeter being the determinant and motor function of their actions.

Now apply this principle to the world at large, where the 'Puppeteer' is Determinism - ''when, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.''

Again, without the possibility to choose otherwise in any given instance in time, where lies freedom of will?

 

[The AntiChris]

The argument from semantics is shallow and flawed. To say 'set a bird free' describes relative conditions, superficial appearance, the prior state of the birds confinement compared to being set free from its cage.

The bird itself had no choice in its confinement in the first instance, nor subsequently being released into the wild. Whatever happened to the bird was determined by its environment, its captors and the world at large. The bird had no choice in what happened to it.

It was not a matter of decision making in terms of free will.

When the term free will is used in common language, the underlying states and conditions, environment,state of the mind/brain, etc, that put someone into a givven situation, are not generally considered, making it a mere figure of speech.

The nature of the decision making process is not being considered.

I'm afraid I'm struggling to discern a coherent (clear and unambiguous) explanation here. Rather than guess at what you mean I'll leave it. Thanks for trying.

It shouldn't be hard to grasp. We've been through this years ago.

Basically, your argument from semantics fails as an argument for free will because it does not account for underlying non chosen causality.

The Punch and Judy Puppet show.

The Puppets (or marionettes) are manipulated by a Puppeteer hidden behind the screen working the strings that bring his Puppets into action.

Judy, being annoyed by Punch's insensitive comments has a habit of hitting punch over the head with a stick, which she does quite often: Judy is free to hit Punch. Punch, apparently tired of getting constantly hit, grabs Judy and ties her up: Judy is no longer free to hit Punch.

Punch, apparently feeling sorry for Judy's plight, free's Judy from her ropes, whereupon Judy is freed and able to renew her attack on Punch with even greater vigour.


As the word ''free'' is commonly used, within the context of this little deterministic world of the Puppeteer and his stage play, the puppets may be said to freely perform actions upon stage. The Puppeter being the determinant and motor function of their actions.

Now apply this principle to the world at large, where the 'Puppeteer' is Determinism - ''when, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.''

Again, without the possibility to choose otherwise in any given instance in time, where lies freedom of will?

That's a very log-winded way of saying that will, like everything else in the universe (determinism assumed), is subject to causal necessity (i.e. no possibility of realizable options). This is not in dispute.

You ask "If freedom does not require the possibility of realizable options, that the world procedes along a determined, singular, course of events, why call it freedom?". In asking this you are raising a semantic question.

In response I pointed out that the use of the terms 'free' and 'freedom', overwhelmingly apply to entities which are all subject to causal necessity (determinism assumed).

So...

I'm asking you why you appear to insist that human will is a special case to which the terms 'free' and 'freedom' cannot be applied (I was hoping for a clear and concise logical argument).

 

[fromderinside]

Most of us determinists accept it isn't really causal. Notice the definition. It's conditional on an observation of now. What happens thereafter is determined, not caused.