What is Free Will?

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;122614 wrote:

Your answer was correct, for one of my questions.
Other questions, it did not address.

Oh. Sorry. Could you repeat those questions? I'll try to address them.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122619 wrote:

Oh. Sorry. Could you repeat those questions? I'll try to address them.

I'm certain you can address them, but I'm not certain you can answer them from direct experience, as from what I can see you do not make the argument that free will is an illusion, or that reality is some form of brain-in-a-vat/Matrix-type arrangement. I'd enjoy reading your take on the matter though, as I've always admired your common sense approach to such things.

My question then is to ask why a person who argues that free will is an illusion would want to do such a thing, and what might they feel they stood to gain if (hypothetically) their belief turned out, in fact, to be the irrefutable truth.

Rights to an "I told you so" seem somehow inappropriate.

We've touched on this briefly a few pages back as to the political aspects, but I'd like to look at it if possible outside of that particular sphere.

@fast,

Well, I don't know if anyone here is really arguing that. Mostly we're trying to refine the question. I could give some reasons for arguing that our free will is limited though.

When you were quitting tobacco, you may have had some left over after you decided to quit. Did you keep it around the house in plain sight? Probably you threw it out, acknowledging that it was more than a matter of "could do otherwise".

I think with any form of self control, understanding that willpower alone will not accomplish what you want is crucial. And that is a key part of the free will discussion. Because if we had a complete kind of free will, then everyone who wanted to be thin would be thin. Everyone who wanted to quit smoking would. But actually, those kind of drives exert a powerful force on our behavior, and it takes a conscious, informed effort to stave them off.

I think more people approach the argument trying to prove free will, because they think it is necessary for morality.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;122657 wrote:

I could give some reasons for arguing that our free will is limited though.

I'm not trying to make a case either way, but I'd like to hear your particular argument.

Jebediah;122657 wrote:

When you were quitting tobacco, you may have had some left over after you decided to quit. Did you keep it around the house in plain sight? Probably you threw it out, acknowledging that it was more than a matter of "could do otherwise".

Actually no. I kept half a can in my freezer for several months. You know, "just in case." I also got some sort of perverse kick out of knowing it was there, and willing myself not to give in and just have a wee pinch. Eventually though, I threw it out. Still, it would be no great hardship to walk to the C-store next door to where I work. It's all right there in my face every day when I get my morning cup of coffee anyway.

Jebediah;122657 wrote:

Because if we had a complete kind of free will, then everyone who wanted to be thin would be thin. Everyone who wanted to quit smoking would. But actually, those kind of drives exert a powerful force on our behavior, and it takes a conscious, informed effort to stave them off.

I was a hard-core chewer. I mean, practically the only time I didn't have a chew in was when I was eating or sleeping. We're talking a nearly continuous feed of nicotine. So how was it I was able to quit and others are not able to quit their addiction to _____________? (fill in the blank)

Did I exercise "a conscious, informed effort" to stave off my nicotine craving, or was I simply, somehow, informed by my unconscious (or sub-conscious) self that it was time to quit, and my feeling that I quit of my own free will simply confabulation? Was it something on a uncontrolled biological or even quantum level that clicked on some internal mechanism that made me quit?

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;122655 wrote:

I'm certain you can address them, but I'm not certain you can answer them from direct experience, as from what I can see you do not make the argument that free will is an illusion, or that reality is some form of brain-in-a-vat/Matrix-type arrangement. I'd enjoy reading your take on the matter though, as I've always admired your common sense approach to such things.

My question then is to ask why a person who argues that free will is an illusion would want to do such a thing, and what might they feel they stood to gain if (hypothetically) their belief turned out, in fact, to be the irrefutable truth.

Rights to an "I told you so" seem somehow inappropriate.

We've touched on this briefly a few pages back as to the political aspects, but I'd like to look at it if possible outside of that particular sphere.

Oh, that. My answer is that what they understand as free will, namely, a causeless action, probably does not exist. And, I would also say that kind of free will is an illusion too. But that is not what anyone really means by saying that he did something of his own free will. If I am asked whether I married Esmeralda of my own free will, I would rather resent it, and reply (huffily) "What are you suggesting. That I did not love Esmeralda. and that my wedding was a shot-gun wedding? That I was compelled to marry, Esmeralda? Well, let me tell you that I loved Esmeralda from the moment I met her, and,besides, her father is a billionaire. I was happy to marry lovely and rich Esmeralda, and don't you suggest I was not". That is the kind of free will I think exists. Don't you? No one, I know of, ever argues against that kind of free will.

@fast,

Jebediah wrote:

I could give some reasons for arguing that our free will is limited though.

Who couldn't? All one need do is realize we have finite options. I suppose that is what you mean by "free will is limited". That is, we can't do anything; we have limits to what we can do. And that of course is true. But I've never met a person that believed otherwise, albeit those who were clinically ill.

TickTockMan wrote:

Did I exercise "a conscious, informed effort" to stave off my nicotine craving, or was I simply, somehow, informed by my unconscious (or sub-conscious) self that it was time to quit, and my feeling that I quit of my own free will simply confabulation? Was it something on a uncontrolled biological or even quantum level that clicked on some internal mechanism that made me quit?

You should know if you made a conscious effort to quit. I question how you could not know. But more importantly, what is giving you the hunch that something made you quit? What has drawn you to even consider this?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;122762 wrote:

Who couldn't? All one need do is realize we have finite options. I suppose that is what you mean by "free will is limited". That is, we can't do anything; we have limits to what we can do. And that of course is true. But I've never met a person that believed otherwise, albeit those who were clinically ill.

You should know if you made a conscious effort to quit. I question how you could not know. But more importantly, what is giving you the hunch that something made you quit? What has drawn you to even consider this?

Ambiguity of the term, "made". Can mean, "forced", or can just mean, "caused".

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122766 wrote:

Ambiguity of the term, "made". Can mean, "forced", or can just mean, "caused".

I think he means "forced" (at least that's what I meant in response). I don't see how it couldn't be caused. Of course it's caused, but that doesn't mean it's forced.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;122770 wrote:

I think he means "forced" (at least that's what I meant in response). I don't see how it couldn't be caused. Of course it's caused, but that doesn't mean it's forced.

I don't know what he thinks about that. He may not make that distinction between being forced, and being causes, or he may think that all causes are compulsions. Let's see what he says.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122771 wrote:

I don't know what he thinks about that. He may not make that distinction between being forced, and being causes, or he may think that all causes are compulsions. Let's see what he says.

Of course he meant "caused." He apologizes for the ambiguity.

His question was, if some fundamental chemical change which he had no control over took place in his brain that somehow negated the need of certain receptor cells for nicotine (NIDA - Publications - NIDA Notes - Vol. 20, No. 2 - Research Findings), could this have been what caused him to quit chewing tobacco, as opposed to his attributing it to some act of will?

He is just wondering what others think though, and is not making a case one way or the other.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;122762 wrote:

Who couldn't? All one need do is realize we have finite options. I suppose that is what you mean by "free will is limited". That is, we can't do anything; we have limits to what we can do. And that of course is true. But I've never met a person that believed otherwise, albeit those who were clinically ill.

Sure, but people believed that they had chosen the object on the far right in the example I posted above, when clearly they had not. That's the context of my comment.

TickTock wrote:

So how was it I was able to quit and others are not able to quit their addiction to _____________? (fill in the blank)

Well, this is the role I give to free will (or guidance control). Thoughts can change feelings, and feelings determine behavior. We have free will to the extent that our thoughts can change our feelings.

If you had quit merely because you saw a public service announcement and became horrified, it would have been less your free will wouldn't it?

@fast,

TickTockMan wrote:

His question was, if some fundamental chemical change which he had no control over took place in his brain that somehow negated the need of certain receptor cells for nicotine (NIDA - Publications - NIDA Notes - Vol. 20, No. 2 - Research Findings), could this have been what caused him to quit chewing tobacco, as opposed to his attributing it to some act of will?

All choices are caused. This sounds obvious, but you may be overlooking this. If someone suggests that I go to X pizza parlor, and I decide to go, I could say that my making that choice was caused by my friend's suggestion. It wasn't that I didn't have choice since he suggested; he didn't compel me, I chose of my own free will.

Similarly, there may be biological reasons for why you made the choice to stop chewing. Maybe it was because your body didn't need the nicotine any more. And maybe that is what caused you to make the choice you did. But don't you think you still made the choice? If you were compelled, you would have done something against your free will, against what you wanted to do. But this is not the case. And, I think if you were conscious of quitting, and you wanted to quit, you made the choice to quit. I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that. Just an opinion.

Quote:

He is just wondering what others think though, and is not making a case one way or the other.

I'm not saying you are making a case. I understand what you're doing, and it's good. It's a great way to learn and allow others to voice their perspectives. I do it all the time, too.

---------- Post added 01-26-2010 at 03:50 PM ----------

Jebediah wrote:

Sure, but people believed that they had chosen the object on the far right in the example I posted above, when clearly they had not. That's the context of my comment.

Wait, which example is that? Sorry, I went back a few pages and still can't find what you're speaking about.

@Zetherin,

[QUOTE=Zetherin;121589]I think it may change how the person feels about humanity and the human condition. A sense of fear and depression seems to come over those who consider they are simply a highly complex mechanistic process, with no innate and unique "being". The beauty of life fades, so to say.

...but then they quickly forget about all this and go about their day [/QUOTE]I was catching up on the thread and noticed this post of yours several pages back. I started discussing free will and determinism about a year ago, and it didn't take me long at all to notice that there is something very dark yet captivating about the issue. I had tried to explain it to others, but no one ever seemed to get it. This isn't to say I still feel that way, but I can certainly relate.

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;122774 wrote:

Of course he meant "caused." He apologizes for the ambiguity.

His question was, if some fundamental chemical change which he had no control over took place in his brain that somehow negated the need of certain receptor cells for nicotine (NIDA - Publications - NIDA Notes - Vol. 20, No. 2 - Research Findings), could this have been what caused him to quit chewing tobacco, as opposed to his attributing it to some act of will?

He is just wondering what others think though, and is not making a case one way or the other.

Yes. It could have caused him to want to quit smoking. Or, not to want to smoke.

@kennethamy,

Jebediah;122781 wrote:

Well, this is the role I give to free will (or guidance control). Thoughts can change feelings, and feelings determine behavior. We have free will to the extent that our thoughts can change our feelings.

But where do these thoughts you speak of come from? Conversely, can feelings also change thoughts which determine behavior?

Jebediah;122781 wrote:

If you had quit merely because you saw a public service announcement and became horrified, it would have been less your free will wouldn't it?

How do you reckon? How would it be less a matter of free will?

Zetherin;122783 wrote:

All choices are caused. This sounds obvious, but you may be overlooking this. If someone suggests that I go to X pizza parlor, and I decide to go, I could say that my making that choice was caused by my friend's suggestion. It wasn't that I didn't have choice since he suggested; he didn't compel me, I chose of my own free will.

But if there may be biological/chemical reasons for why I made the choice to quit chewing, couldn't there also be biological/chemical reasons why you agreed to go to x pizza parlor?

Zetherin;122783 wrote:

Similarly, there may be biological reasons for why you made the choice to stop chewing. Maybe it was because your body didn't need the nicotine any more. And maybe that is what caused you to make the choice you did.

Maybe your body needed a specific type of ingredient found only in x pizza parlor's sauce, and maybe that is why you agreed with your friend's suggestion?

kennethamy;122808 wrote:

Yes. It could have caused him to want to quit smoking. Or, not to want to smoke.

So if the choice to do anything could be caused by biological/chemical actions, could it be that our belief that we are actually making free and conscious choices also simply be a consequence of these biological/chemical actions?

Could TickTockMan have been fated to quit chewing tobacco? Was a nicotine-free TickTockMan indexed to time, like a scratched pot?

@fast,

TickTockMan wrote:

So if the choice to do anything could be caused by biological/chemical actions, could it be that our belief that we are actually making free and conscious choices also simply be a consequence of these biological/chemical actions?

This is what I've referred to, pages ago, as mystifying choice. What do you think making a choice is? Well, it seems to me there are biological causes for my making a choice. Everything has a cause, and I don't believe I can make choices without my brain. But just because there are biological or chemical reasons, does not mean that I don't have choice.

Quote:

Could TickTockMan have been fated to quit chewing tobacco? Was a nicotine-free TickTockMan indexed to time, like a scratched pot?

Maybe you can explain fatalism to me. I thought that free will was compatible with fatalism, but on the Wiki it states fatalism generally refers to the idea that free will does not exist. However, the fourth idea listed that fatalism generally refers to says:

"That actions are free, but nevertheless work toward an inevitable end. [2] This belief is very similar to compatibilist predestination."

Actions are free, it says. How is this different than free will, I ask? I suppose they think that free will can't be compatible with determinism.

My answer to you is: Even if it was fated, you could still have made the choice. You can be fated to choose something!

@fast,

I think the details of why one made this or that decision do nothing but muddy the concept of free will.
Free will allows potential to exist, that's it!
To try and identify the mechanics of free will is a hopeless cause and not worth pursuing. That may sound high minded, but the question invites discourse, as is evidenced by the varied opinions proffered here.
To ask the question "What is?" of anything can only be valid if it can be examined, physically.
As free will can obviously not be examined to any kind of degree, I suggest the question is inherently incorrect, which is why no answer can be found.
The question of why do we have free will explains itself, and allows what we do with it to have the potential that it does.
By the way, I'm glad you quit the tobacco TickTockMan. I haven't, but that's just an example of free will at work.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;122867 wrote:

This is what I've referred to, pages ago, as mystifying choice. What do you think making a choice is? Well, it seems to me there are biological causes for my making a choice. Everything has a cause, and I don't believe I can make choices without my brain. But just because there are biological or chemical reasons, does not mean that I don't have choice.

So where do we draw the line, in neurological terms, between free actions and compelled actions? Is it the case that normal biological/chemical actions in the brain do not compel, whereas abnormal ones (of a certain kind) do? Or does the distinction between 'free' and 'compelled' depend purely on whether or not we experience the making of a free choice? In other words, is the distinction objective or subjective?

If this were as simple a matter as some people seem to think, it would not be such a contentious issue in philosophy. Smile

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;122867 wrote:

Maybe you can explain fatalism to me. I thought that free will was compatible with fatalism, but on the Wiki it states fatalism generally refers to the idea that free will does not exist.

Fatalism is the view that whatever we do, what will be, will be. "Che Sera, Sera" as the song has it. That means that human action is inefficacious, and that it makes no difference to the future what we do in the present. That is incompatible with free will, since to say that I do something of my own free will, is to say that what happens, happens because I chose it to happen. Fatalism is obviously false, since it implies that, for example, taking precautions when you cross a heavily trafficked street makes no difference to whether or not you are struck by a car. But that is clearly statistically false. So, if Fatalism implies that it does not matter whether or not you are careful when you walk across a heavily trafficked street. to whether you are likely to be struck by a car, Fatalism is clearly false.

Speaking abstractly, of course, we cannot see this. But when we see what the concrete implications of Fatalism are, we see that Fatalism is simply false.

What Fatalism is, is clearly expressed in this parable told by Somerset Maugham:

[SIZE=+2]"The Appointment in Samarra"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1](as retold by W. Somerset Maugham [1933])[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]The speaker is Death[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]There was a merchant in Bagdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions and in a little while the servant came back, white and trembling, and said, Master, just now when I was in the marketplace I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death that jostled me. She looked at me and made a threatening gesture, now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away from this city and avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me. The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the marketplace and he saw me standing in the crowd and he came to me and said, Why did you make a threating getsture to my servant when you saw him this morning? That was not a threatening gesture, I said, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Bagdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra.[/SIZE]

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;122867 wrote:

Maybe you can explain fatalism to me.

I wish I could.

Zetherin;122867 wrote:

My answer to you is: Even if it was fated, you could still have made the choice. You can be fated to choose something!

So in the pre-Big Bang universe, was fate already being arranged? Was it fate that a certain set of molecules got together and eventually led to my parents being created, meeting, and producing a son who would make the decision to quit chewing tobacco and eventually write about it on this forum, thereby causing others to reply?

Is it all just one big damn spider web of infinitely connected causes and effects?

Or, did TickTockMan just spend way too much time in a chemically modified state a long time back on the timeline?

.

---------- Post added 01-26-2010 at 05:15 PM ----------

kennethamy;122911 wrote:

What Fatalism is, is clearly expressed in this parable told by Somerset Maugham:

[SIZE=+2]"The Appointment in Samarra"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1](as retold by W. Somerset Maugham [1933])[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]The speaker is Death[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]There was a merchant in Bagdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions and in a little while the servant came back, white and trembling, and said, Master, just now when I was in the marketplace I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death that jostled me. She looked at me and made a threatening gesture, now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away from this city and avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me. The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the marketplace and he saw me standing in the crowd and he came to me and said, Why did you make a threating getsture to my servant when you saw him this morning? That was not a threatening gesture, I said, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Bagdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra.[/SIZE]

Cool. Wasn't this the intro to For Whom the Bell Tolls also?

Philosophy Forum

What is Free Will?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know