Free Will And Free Choice

[DBT]

Yet within a determined system, there is no actual deciding. There being no possibility of an alternative action in any given instance in time, the result is inevitable and our reference to a decision being made refers to surface appearance....the world progressing on the principle of the specified way things are at a time t and the way things go thereafter being fixed as a matter of natural law.

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 proceeds 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 alternatives, what is freedom?

4 - Without regulative control or realizable options, why call it free will?

Ironically, when someone uses phrases like "actual" deciding or "really" choosing, it often flags a switch from speaking literally to speaking figuratively. We can check for this by stepping back and observing what is actually happening in empirical reality.

For example, choosing is a real event that takes place in empirical reality. Choosing is an operation that inputs two or more options, applies come criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice. A woman goes into a restaurant, browses the menu, and places her order. She literally has a menu of options and she literally told the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please". So, we empirically observed the multiple options and the single choice. As to the evaluation phase, we can walk up to her and simply ask, "Why did you choose the Chef Salad?" She says, "I was tempted by the cheeseburger, but I had eggs and sausage for breakfast, and I wanted to balance that with some veggies for lunch. The Chef Salad will help me meet my dietary goals and it looks tasty".

So, the event we call "choosing" actually took place right there in front of us, we objectively observed it happening in empirical reality.

Was her choice determined? Yes. It was determined by her own purposes and her own reasoning. And, we may assume that her own reasoning was the inevitable result of prior events, events with their own prior causes, going back as far as anyone can imagine (I like to use the phrase, "causally necessary from any prior point in eternity"). But the most meaningful and relevant causes of her choice were the thoughts and feelings she experienced while making this decision for herself.

So, within a determined system, actual deciding does happen. The process of deciding was just as causally necessary as the choice. And the fact that she would be the single object within the physical universe that would make that choice was also causally necessary.

Let's take the questions now:

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

Well, determinism asserts that we live in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, where each event is the reliable result of prior causes, and each of these prior causes is the reliable result of their own prior causes, going back as far as we can imagine. We are assuming that there is such a chain of prior causes leading up to her deciding to eat at that restaurant, reading the menu, considering her options, and making her choice. And her choosing operation was also deterministic, following a reliable chain of reasoning, leading to her choosing the Chef Salad from her many options on the menu.

So, apparently, the notions of determinism and the notions of deciding for ourselves what we will do, are not contradictory, but are in fact compatible.

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

But her options were in fact realizable. The chef at the restaurant was able to prepare any of the items on the menu. All of them were real possibilities, things that could happen if she chose them. She imagined having the cheeseburger. She imagined having the salad. Real possibilities exist solely within the imagination, and that is were she evaluated her options. None of them would become an actuality until she chose them and the chef prepared them. That's how real possibilities work.

Was she "free" to choose either option? Free from what? Did anything meaningful or relevant keep her from choosing for herself what she would eat? No. So, apparently she was in fact free to choose for herself the Chef Salad.

The terms "free" and "freedom" are meaningless unless they reference some meaningful and relevant constraint, something that actually constrains us from doing what we want (meaningful) and something we can actually do something about (relevant). Is causal necessity a meaningful or relevant constraint? I don't think so. What we will inevitably do is exactly identical to us just being us, choosing what we choose, and doing what we do. And that is not a meaningful constraint. Nor is it something that anyone can, or needs to be, free of. So, bringing it up is usually irrelevant.

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

Freedom is the ability to do what we want. Freedom requires reliable causal mechanisms that enable us to do what we want. Right now, I want to type my thoughts in this comment. This requires a working brain, working fingers, and a working keyboard. If any of these mechanism were unreliable, I would not have the freedom to do what I wanted.

"4 - Without regulative control or realizable options, why call it free will?"

We actually need both, so it's fortunate that we have both. We need the ability to control what we do through reliable causal mechanisms. We need the ability to choose for ourselves what we will do. Free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and undue influence. Most of the time we are neither coerced nor unduly influenced by someone or something else. So, most of the time we are free to choose for ourselves what we will do.

My use of 'actual' was clearly used as distinction between 'apparent' and 'actual' - ie -something may be apparent but not actual. For instance, It appear that there is water on the road ahead, but it's actually a mirage, an illusion of heat and sunlight.

Appearances can be deceptive.

We may feel that we are making decisions, we may believe that we are making decisions. but if the world is determined, the way our brain works is subject to the way things are at a time t, and the way things go thereafter, fixed as a matter of natural law. Which means that our decisions are our mental mirages, illusions formed from our limited perception of the world and the inputs and processes of our brain.

If under the sway of determinism, there are no actual decisions(yes, actual as opposed to apparent), just a perception of decisions being made . The perception of decisions made because no possible alternative is open to us in any given instance in time as a course of action unfolds within the physical processes of the brain.

Freedom of action - that the objects and events of the World unfold, including our brains and minds, without coercion or impediment - does not equate to free will.

You claim regulative control, but given determinism, there is no possibility of doing otherwise in any given instance in time.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Ironically, when someone uses phrases like "actual" deciding or "really" choosing, it often flags a switch from speaking literally to speaking figuratively. We can check for this by stepping back and observing what is actually happening in empirical reality.

For example, choosing is a real event that takes place in empirical reality. Choosing is an operation that inputs two or more options, applies come criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice. A woman goes into a restaurant, browses the menu, and places her order. She literally has a menu of options and she literally told the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please". So, we empirically observed the multiple options and the single choice. As to the evaluation phase, we can walk up to her and simply ask, "Why did you choose the Chef Salad?" She says, "I was tempted by the cheeseburger, but I had eggs and sausage for breakfast, and I wanted to balance that with some veggies for lunch. The Chef Salad will help me meet my dietary goals and it looks tasty".

So, the event we call "choosing" actually took place right there in front of us, we objectively observed it happening in empirical reality.

Was her choice determined? Yes. It was determined by her own purposes and her own reasoning. And, we may assume that her own reasoning was the inevitable result of prior events, events with their own prior causes, going back as far as anyone can imagine (I like to use the phrase, "causally necessary from any prior point in eternity"). But the most meaningful and relevant causes of her choice were the thoughts and feelings she experienced while making this decision for herself.

So, within a determined system, actual deciding does happen. The process of deciding was just as causally necessary as the choice. And the fact that she would be the single object within the physical universe that would make that choice was also causally necessary.

Let's take the questions now:



Well, determinism asserts that we live in a world of perfectly reliable cause and effect, where each event is the reliable result of prior causes, and each of these prior causes is the reliable result of their own prior causes, going back as far as we can imagine. We are assuming that there is such a chain of prior causes leading up to her deciding to eat at that restaurant, reading the menu, considering her options, and making her choice. And her choosing operation was also deterministic, following a reliable chain of reasoning, leading to her choosing the Chef Salad from her many options on the menu.

So, apparently, the notions of determinism and the notions of deciding for ourselves what we will do, are not contradictory, but are in fact compatible.

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

But her options were in fact realizable. The chef at the restaurant was able to prepare any of the items on the menu. All of them were real possibilities, things that could happen if she chose them. She imagined having the cheeseburger. She imagined having the salad. Real possibilities exist solely within the imagination, and that is were she evaluated her options. None of them would become an actuality until she chose them and the chef prepared them. That's how real possibilities work.

Was she "free" to choose either option? Free from what? Did anything meaningful or relevant keep her from choosing for herself what she would eat? No. So, apparently she was in fact free to choose for herself the Chef Salad.

The terms "free" and "freedom" are meaningless unless they reference some meaningful and relevant constraint, something that actually constrains us from doing what we want (meaningful) and something we can actually do something about (relevant). Is causal necessity a meaningful or relevant constraint? I don't think so. What we will inevitably do is exactly identical to us just being us, choosing what we choose, and doing what we do. And that is not a meaningful constraint. Nor is it something that anyone can, or needs to be, free of. So, bringing it up is usually irrelevant.

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

Freedom is the ability to do what we want. Freedom requires reliable causal mechanisms that enable us to do what we want. Right now, I want to type my thoughts in this comment. This requires a working brain, working fingers, and a working keyboard. If any of these mechanism were unreliable, I would not have the freedom to do what I wanted.

"4 - Without regulative control or realizable options, why call it free will?"

We actually need both, so it's fortunate that we have both. We need the ability to control what we do through reliable causal mechanisms. We need the ability to choose for ourselves what we will do. Free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and undue influence. Most of the time we are neither coerced nor unduly influenced by someone or something else. So, most of the time we are free to choose for ourselves what we will do.

My use of 'actual' was clearly used as distinction between 'apparent' and 'actual' - ie -something may be apparent but not actual. For instance, It appear that there is water on the road ahead, but it's actually a mirage, an illusion of heat and sunlight.

Appearances can be deceptive.

We may feel that we are making decisions, we may believe that we are making decisions. but if the world is determined, the way our brain works is subject to the way things are at a time t, and the way things go thereafter, fixed as a matter of natural law. Which means that our decisions are our mental mirages, illusions formed from our limited perception of the world and the inputs and processes of our brain.

If under the sway of determinism, there are no actual decisions(yes, actual as opposed to apparent), just a perception of decisions being made . The perception of decisions made because no possible alternative is open to us in any given instance in time as a course of action unfolds within the physical processes of the brain.

Freedom of action - that the objects and events of the World unfold, including our brains and minds, without coercion or impediment - does not equate to free will.

You claim regulative control, but given determinism, there is no possibility of doing otherwise in any given instance in time.

Yes, appearances can be deceptive. Consider the phrase, "under the sway of determinism". Is determinism actually a real entity that goes about in the world swaying the way things happen? I'm pretty sure it is not. Causation never causes anything and determinism never determines anything. Only the actual objects and forces that make up the physical universe are able to cause events to happen. The notion of causation is what we use to describe the interaction between the objects and forces as they bring about events. The notion of determinism asserts that these interactions are reliable, things we can count on, making predictions of what will happen next at least theoretically possible. Turning a concept into a real object is called a "reification fallacy".

We, on the other hand, are actual objects that exist in empirical reality. We go about in the world causing events to happen, and do so to satisfy our own wants and needs, which exist solely and uniquely within each of us and in no other objects in the universe.

"Causation" and "determinism", on the other hand, are descriptive, not causative. They are about the actual objects and forces. They are about us. They do not control us, but they help describe how we control things. The mass of the Sun and the Earth, and the Earth's trajectory, control the Earth's orbit about the Sun. Causation does not control the orbit. Determinism does not control the orbit. Only the objects and forces themselves control events.

Causation and determinism are about us. They help describe our behavior. They do not exercise any control over us. Only other objects and forces interacting with us can control us. We could fall from a building (controlled by the force of gravity) or be hit by a baseball (controlled by an object and the force of its inertia).

The ability to do otherwise is built into the choosing operation. We encounter a problem or issue that requires us to make a choice. The choosing operation is deterministic. It logically requires at least two distinct things that we "can" do (A and B). It logically requires that "we can choose A" and that "we can choose B" are both true. This is the ability to do otherwise.

Without the ability to do otherwise, choosing could not happen. But choosing has been of great benefit to our species, enabling us to survive in a variety of challenging environments. So, it is best that we try to avoid breaking it.