Why free will is impossible

[NMSquirrel]

the computer/programmer analogy is flawed in the respect that it can only reprogram itself with the knowledge/code it already has, we would not be able to reprogram ourselves if we didn't have any knowledge of other ways to program ourselves,

same applies to humanity, we cannot 'change our ways' if we know of no other ways to change, we are limited by our experiences and our expected experiences,(what each of us can know or what each of us has the ability to know)

to say we have a lack of free will because of our conditioning (by parents/society/peers/etc) encourages such conditioning, a self fulfilling statement, as conditioning is not free will, it is learned behavior.

and we know there are ppl out there who rebel at conditioning Instinctively,they may not even be aware of it, criminals come to mind..

does free will exist?
i think the question is more of 'is free will becoming extinct?'
(i think the word 'becoming' is superfluous)

 

[Regular0ldguy]

We also believe that we make unconscious decisions. So what determines them?

I'm not even sure we need to call those actions decisions, as no deciding was involved. They are more akin to a reflex. Auto-pilot. No deliberation, and no choice. And I don't think that means it wasn't free. We weren't "compelled" in any meaningful way. It wasn't unfree in any meaningful sense. Just non-deliberative action.

Another problem is our tendency to believe that when an outcome is good for us, it was because of a choice we made (to join an organisation, accept a job offer, buy a lottery ticket), but when an outcome isn't good, it was because of circumstances beyond our control, in which we had no freedom to choose.

I don't think that's a universal pattern. That's just a defense mechanism. I can freely admit that I have put a ton of thought and consideration into many decisions which I make freely that turned out to be lousy decisions.

And again, we think there is choice because we don't know all the details, we don't because we can't. This gives us a sense that some things are "freely caused", or that our limited knowledge of chains of causality gives the appearance of freedom (as in when a coin is spinning in the air, we have limited knowledge of its orientation).

I don't think the amount of info we have makes any difference. If I knew ALL the details I would certainly have a great foundation for making a decision, and if no one had a gun to my head and if I wasn't OCD or debilitatingly impulsive, I could take all that info into account and do whatever I wanted. Knowing all of the things that were going to influence me might make it much more likely that I would objectively evaluate the situation and decide whether the best thing to do was follow my inclination or to go against type. What part of that self-control process is illusory? What you must be thinking is that there is no such thing as "self" control, only control by what? -- chemicals, subatomic particles, personality traits, instincts. It seems to me if I can identify and evaluate the influences on me, I'm not being compelled by my make-up, I'm just freely using it to its greatest benefit.

So freedom is the illusion left when parts of the causal chain are "broken" by the limitation of knowledge about it. Choice can be about whether you think you acted freely, or had no choice (e.g. your house catches fire, a meteorite crashes through your roof, your car is struck by lightning, etc), Choice is "given", and we're free to choose, but only because we don't know any better.

Why would you assume that more knowledge would always make you certain you made the wrong decision? This is all about the nature of reflection. Self-awareness. Reappraisal. We are free because we can operate that type of feedback mechanism. We can judge ourselves and choose based on the knowledge we have. If anything, having more knowledge would make us act even more freely.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

the computer/programmer analogy is flawed in the respect that it can only reprogram itself with the knowledge/code it already has, we would not be able to reprogram ourselves if we didn't have any knowledge of other ways to program ourselves,

same applies to humanity, we cannot 'change our ways' if we know of no other ways to change, we are limited by our experiences and our expected experiences,(what each of us can know or what each of us has the ability to know)

We have the unique ability to recognize that we may have limited knowledge and the ability to seek greater knowledge. That feedback mechanism is the key to our freedom. Being self aware and reflective.

 

[arfa brane]

I don't think the amount of info we have makes any difference. If I knew ALL the details I would certainly have a great foundation for making a decision

I think you might misunderstand my point.
If you knew all the details, then "making a decision" would be moot, it wouldn't be necessary to make one.

The feedback mechanism you mention is that which appraises what is known, and what isn't. Both are fundamental to making a decision. If you know nothing, there's no decision to make, and likewise if you know everything. So the natural limitation of knowledge means we have decisions to make, because we simply can't know everything.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

You know what you can never know? What you are going to do in the future. You can't know that for sure because you haven't been faced with the situation. So the act of finding "everything" out has to happen before the decision, and that affects the decision. The piece of knowledge that is left out of knowing everything at T1 is what I am going to think about it at T2 and do about it at T3.

 

[arfa brane]

You know what you can never know?

I don't think that makes sense.

So the act of finding "everything" out has to happen before the decision, and that affects the decision.

I guess. But since you can't find "everything" out, how much does that affect a decision?

 

[Regular0ldguy]

I don't think that makes sense.
I guess. But since you can't find "everything" out, how much does that affect a decision?

Sorry. I was speaking casually. "Do you know what you can never know?" was the question and the answer was "You can never know what you are going to do in the future."

And to answer your question, I thought we were talking about "everything" really being just those things that would influence or control your decision, and not all knowledge of all things. And I would thing that sometimes getting some last bit of knowledge might make a difference, and sometimes it might not. It would depend on how important that particular bit of knowledge was to your decision. But the fact that it CAN affect your decision, tells me that "knowing everything" doesn't compel me or prevent me from being free in any meaningful way. I mean really, how pissed off would you be if others couldn't predict your behavior. Don't you want them to rely on your honesty and fairness and all your other great qualities? Isn't being solid and reliable how you want to be perceived? We call that having character. And we want to have that. And we try hard to develop a solid character to improve ourselves. And we do that freely. Of course, some of us don't. They like to be jerks. And some of them do that freely, though some just do it without thinking. You can choose freely or not. Even that is really up to you. Are you so self-indulgent and lazy that you like being an impulsive punk? That might be a free choice though I expect most people like that just deteriorate into that character. I can't imagine many deliberately choose to be that way. That's mostly in the movies, I hope.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

How about this example; You are a gunfighter in the old west. When you choose the practice the quick draw, you are exercising your free will so you won't have to when it really counts.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

How about this example; You are a gunfighter in the old west. When you choose the practice the quick draw, you are exercising your free will so you won't have to when it really counts.

I like that. THAT is building CHARACTER.

 

[Sarkus]

So I think we are moving from one definitional failure to another. What exactly is "actual self-determination"?
...
You apparently think "actual self-determination" means no influences at all. ...
Same problem, new phrase.

Actual self-determination, as opposed to the illusion thereof, is exactly "no influences at all".
Which, as I repeatedly have said, I consider impossible.

It's not a mistake in terminology nor a definitional failure... it is a definition that some use for free-will, and one that I consider to be a practical and logical impossibility.
However, a square-circle can be defined as a shape with all the characteristics of a square and of a circle... and it is also logically impossible. No mistake in terminology nor definition: it just doesn't exist.

So I fail to see your argument here.
If you want free-will to exist then, as far as I am concerned, you can not use a definition that does not allow it to exist.

That is all I am showing here.

So how is that different than "uncaused" and how is that different than no causal nexus, and how is that different than an unconnected string of miracles?

"Uncaused" remains an option - but these are then random and thus do not allow for free-will.

Such a definition of free-will (no influences at all) requires an event that is both uncaused AND non-random.

An alternative remaining is that the "free-will" we all seem to exhibit is merely an illusion of actual self-determination, an illusion created by our lack of full understanding (at both micro- and macro- level) of the cause-effect chain that leads to a choice.


As to how it is different to "an unconnected string of miracles?" - I fail to understand your meaning... as a miracle (to me) is something that defies the laws of the universe. Are you suggesting that free-will is "a miracle"?

 

[Regular0ldguy]

Nope. I agree with everything you said (as I have said it many times) except for that one thing. You seem to have selected the deterministic argument that if a decision has causes, then it can't be free, and only feels free and is an illusion. I would think the the reductio ad absurdum you lay out above would make you call that into question. Caused means caused and free means something else, and not "uncaused." Your argument requires me to believe that when we describe freedom we have never really had a concept that is consistent with causation. I'm saying we do know what we are talking about when we make a distinction between free acts and unfree acts that we both see in others and experience in ourselves. Whatever we think freedom is when we actually use the concept, it isn't what the Determinists think it is (which is something uncaused).

I am absolutely a materialist who thinks that causation is complete and without gaps, but I also believe that free will can only function in that system, so it requires a causal nexus, it just is a particular type or character of caused behavior (of the higher order, intentionally reflective version). A determinist is also a materialist but he has concluded that this makes free choices impossible. Which I say is because he fell for the oldest philosophical puzzle on the planet.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

Clarence Darrow tried to convince the jury of determinism in the Leopold and Loeb trial. The jury didn't buy it. They knew these guys, even if they were spoiled and abused or whatever, should (and could) have still evaluated their goals and decided to obey the law, but they thought they were geniuses who were above the law and entitled to murder.

Sure they are people that in some circumstances do not exercise free will, but all actions are not either free or unfree, they vary. That is the mistake the guy who set up the puzzle got us (philosophers) all to make in our initial "Problems in Philosophy" class.

 

[Sarkus]

You seem to have selected the deterministic argument that if a decision has causes, then it can't be free, and only feels free and is an illusion.

I am only holding to that position for that type of definition of "free-will".

As said, if you define free-will along the lines of being a pattern of activity that gives the appearance of self-determination... appearance even to the one making the "choice"... then this clearly exists, and would be in line with your view.

My entire position is that the question of free-will depends on the definition used... so I am not using one or another throughout, but showing how the answer is dependent upon definition.

I am absolutely a materialist who thinks that causation is complete and without gaps, but I also believe that free will can only function in that system, so it requires a causal nexus, it just is a particular type or character of caused behavior (of the higher order, intentionally reflective version). A determinist is also a materialist but he has concluded that this makes free choices impossible. Which I say is because he fell for the oldest philosophical puzzle on the planet.

I would say it is because he is using a different definition of free-will. What you call "free-will" he will call "the illusion of free-will" - both are exactly the same in terms of operation - they are just different perspectives... one would say it is an emergent property, and thus exists... the other would say that the emergent property is illusory with regard what it portrays... like the mirage: the mirage exists but is illusory with regard the image it seems to portray.
If you ask someone if the mirage exists or is an illusion... it depends what you define as the mirage: what it appears to be or the actual motion of molecules etc.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

My entire position is that the question of free-will depends on the definition used... so I am not using one or another throughout, but showing how the answer is dependent upon definition.

That's a little unsatisfying, don't you think. I mean, it is safe, but does it explain why this "Problem of Free Will and Determinism" has been active and alive, with solutions being sought for at least a couple of thousand years?

I don't get much comfort in saying "some folks use the word to mean one thing and others use it to mean another". That's kind of like saying we can't speak English. I think the solution to a philosophical "problem" needs to show the man behind the curtain. What causes the puzzle? What are the underlying assumptions that have caused us to go so far off track for so long?

At least that is what I have been trying to do. I really don't think it comes down to a labeling error. There is something wrong with some of the concepts used to set up the dilemma.

 

[Sarkus]

That's a little unsatisfying, don't you think. I mean, it is safe, but does it explain why this "Problem of Free Will and Determinism" has been active and alive, with solutions being sought for at least a couple of thousand years?

Unsatisfying to who?

A deterministic universe, by definition, makes free-will impossible.
However, the universe has been shown to be NOT deterministic (at least at the quantum level).

And as for solutions - surely one can only do that when one has adequate definitions to work with. I have put forward my views on two such definitions.

I don't get much comfort in saying "some folks use the word to mean one thing and others use it to mean another". That's kind of like saying we can't speak English.

Not like that at all.

Given that people DO define free-will differently, in terms of what is required for there to be free-will, isn't it therefore necessary to take a look at all definitions put forward, and see where they lead?
Solutions are meaningless unless there is a consistency of definition.

I think the solution to a philosophical "problem" needs to show the man behind the curtain.

What more of a solution from me are you looking for beyond me giving my view that: If you define it as X then it can not exist; if you define it as Y then it can and does.
Certainly the latter is not a complete solution - but it is, to me, the path that remains open... into realms such as emergent properties, for example.

What causes the puzzle? What are the underlying assumptions that have caused us to go so far off track for so long?

As science gives us insights and views into the micro, it starts to rule out certain views of the macro... at least without a total rethink of their relationship.

At least that is what I have been trying to do. I really don't think it comes down to a labeling error. There is something wrong with some of the concepts used to set up the dilemma.

It's NOT a labelling error. I merely have not insisted on a single understanding / definition of free-will.

 

[wellwisher]

The difference between will and free will is the cost. Something is free if there is no price to pay. Free will is the ability to freely choice between alternative without any price to pay; free.

I might have the will to jump off a bridge, but the price I might pay is fear. This would be will but not free will.Free will implies whether I jump or not i will feel the same; no cost. People who take sides in Politics or atheism vs religion, may have will, but lack free will in these areas. They might be able to defend the opposite, but the price will be discomfort.

Christ between the two thieves is a symbol of the process of developing free will; love your enemy makes switching sides free. Any one-sided POV that polarized people is a thief that steals your free will since there is a price for change, which for some is too high. Objectivity helps with free will since it can eliminate the emotional cost for subjective choices.

 

[arfa brane]

Free will is the ability to freely choice between alternative without any price to pay; free.

In the context of a choice being made, there is no cost other than the energy expended by you, in forming "thoughts".

Acting on the decision is not free, because there is risk involved in every action.
You are free to choose to jump off a bridge (the choice itself involves minimal effort), and if you act on the choice you are necessarily risking something. You could surmise that any decision involves risk--even deciding to think about one thing rather than another must have a risk factor.

Free will is scary shit. No wonder I dropped out of philosophy 101.

 

[Dominic]

TFor the trainng, one needs chose to be in a state of suspension, between left and right, until one can chose either. both. Then there is free will.

How about if I choose not to choose?

 

[NMSquirrel]

How about if I choose not to choose?

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

 

[madanthonywayne]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

You should give credit when quoting someone:

Rush: Free Will

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance

A planet of play things
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
'The stars aren't aligned
Or the gods are malign...'
Blame is better to give than receive

[Chorus:]
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill

There are those who think
That they were dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them
They weren't born in Lotusland

All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate

[Chorus]

Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet

[Chorus] ​

And here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpCASVFyQoE&feature=youtube_gdata_player