Here's one way I used to think of free-will... I still think it has some truth to it but I'd like to get input from others. Perhaps many others who aren't familiar with philosophy and science might think along these lines, as well.
When I think of free-will, I tend to view it as a decision that I made based only on my thoughts/beliefs. If you say that my thoughts/beliefs are also determined, then I can just say that I am my thoughts/beliefs. So if thoughts/beliefs determine my action, then that is till the same as the individual (myself) determining actions. An example of a decision or behavior without free-will would be when my girlfriend gets upset with me in the car, and it's because it's hot and the AC is not working. Basically, only external influences don't count as free-will.
Is this the right idea of free-will and determinism? If not, how are my actions determined in the above description?
Misconception about free-will?
Moderator: Moderators
- AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1620
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
- Contact:
Misconception about free-will?
Post #1- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Misconception about free-will?
Post #2Fine, but aren't you more than your thoughts and beliefs, like your toes, teeth, and brain perhaps, the place where neurons release brain chemicals, which generate electrical signals in neighboring neurons. The electrical signals then propagating like a wave to thousands of neurons, which leads to thought formation? A formation that is specific to the manner and construct of the firings? If the propagating electrical signals specifically result in thought A they certainly couldn't result in thought B without there being some difference in the signals, but there wasn't anything different so you had to think A. Ergo: no free will to think any differently.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:56 pm Here's one way I used to think of free-will... I still think it has some truth to it but I'd like to get input from others. Perhaps many others who aren't familiar with philosophy and science might think along these lines, as well.
When I think of free-will, I tend to view it as a decision that I made based only on my thoughts/beliefs. If you say that my thoughts/beliefs are also determined, then I can just say that I am my thoughts/beliefs.
.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Misconception about free-will?
Post #3Free will pretty much means an absence of determinism, cause-effect. Science generally abhors this idea but quantum physics shows that reality might well be stochastic, but it all depends upon which interpretation of quantum physics, one favors.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:56 pm Here's one way I used to think of free-will... I still think it has some truth to it but I'd like to get input from others. Perhaps many others who aren't familiar with philosophy and science might think along these lines, as well.
When I think of free-will, I tend to view it as a decision that I made based only on my thoughts/beliefs. If you say that my thoughts/beliefs are also determined, then I can just say that I am my thoughts/beliefs. So if thoughts/beliefs determine my action, then that is till the same as the individual (myself) determining actions. An example of a decision or behavior without free-will would be when my girlfriend gets upset with me in the car, and it's because it's hot and the AC is not working. Basically, only external influences don't count as free-will.
Is this the right idea of free-will and determinism? If not, how are my actions determined in the above description?
To prove that some system has free will means to prove that it can get into a state that was uncaused and that seems impossible to prove, the uncertainty principle is the reason.
In Christianity, the Bible, the view emerges that God is free will, God is will and that will is the most fundamental aspect of reality not determinism. Determinism itself - if it does exist - is impossible to explain deterministically too, I mean what caused cause and effect to exist?
God's will causes but is not caused, will can create determinism but is not subject to it, we too have will it seems.
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3543
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1144 times
- Been thanked: 735 times
Re: Misconception about free-will?
Post #4I don't see a flaw in that. It means you determine your actions but they're still set in stone by the laws of physics because you're still a physical machine, just a complex fleshy sort of machine. The statement I highlighted just means nobody is forcing you. It doesn't mean you're not a clacker ball, that strikes the next because of, and with proportion to, the force with which it was struck by the one before it. It means you're a lot of clacker balls. And there's still a meaningful difference between someone who is one clacker ball, who lashes out when overheated, and someone who is many clacker balls, because the person who is many clacker balls has a complex gate system and through that, has the ability to make rational choices.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:56 pm Here's one way I used to think of free-will... I still think it has some truth to it but I'd like to get input from others. Perhaps many others who aren't familiar with philosophy and science might think along these lines, as well.
When I think of free-will, I tend to view it as a decision that I made based only on my thoughts/beliefs. If you say that my thoughts/beliefs are also determined, then I can just say that I am my thoughts/beliefs. So if thoughts/beliefs determine my action, then that is till the same as the individual (myself) determining actions. An example of a decision or behavior without free-will would be when my girlfriend gets upset with me in the car, and it's because it's hot and the AC is not working. Basically, only external influences don't count as free-will.
Is this the right idea of free-will and determinism? If not, how are my actions determined in the above description?
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:40 pm
- Location: Houston
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
Re: Misconception about free-will?
Post #5Your description is consistent with compatibilism - a concept of "free will" that's consistent with determinism. By contrast, "libertarian free will" (LFW) is the concept of free will that denies determinism. Here's a good article about this in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:56 pm
Is this the right idea of free-will and determinism? If not, how are my actions determined in the above description?
It is logically impossible to prove which version of free will is true. On the other hand, the primary reason people deny determinism is because they want to believe there is LFW, typically for theological reasons.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14375
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 922 times
- Been thanked: 1664 times
- Contact:
Re: Misconception about free-will?
Post #6In light of that, what do you make of the following?fredonly wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 11:06 amYour description is consistent with compatibilism - a concept of "free will" that's consistent with determinism. By contrast, "libertarian free will" (LFW) is the concept of free will that denies determinism. Here's a good article about this in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:56 pm
Is this the right idea of free-will and determinism? If not, how are my actions determined in the above description?
It is logically impossible to prove which version of free will is true. On the other hand, the primary reason people deny determinism is because they want to believe there is LFW, typically for theological reasons.
In Christianity, the Bible, the view emerges that God is free will, God is will and that will is the most fundamental aspect of reality not determinism. Determinism itself - if it does exist - is impossible to explain deterministically too, I mean what caused cause and effect to exist?
God's will causes but is not caused, will can create determinism but is not subject to it, we too have will it seems.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:40 pm
- Location: Houston
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
Re: Misconception about free-will?
Post #7It sounds like a unique, but unconvincing, "first cause" argument. The premise: free-willed intentionality (i.e. "God") exists uncaused, with the power and knowlwdge to produce a fully functioning physical universe that would lead to the appearance of intelligent life.
IMO, a much simpler premise is that the bedrock of reality has properties that necessitate its evolution- an evolution that is (in principle) predictable because it's manifests as laws of nature.
The bedrock of reality (whether it's "God" or a quantum field) necessarily exists uncaused and without explanation. But "God" entails something vastly more complex, and thus, implausible.
IMO, a much simpler premise is that the bedrock of reality has properties that necessitate its evolution- an evolution that is (in principle) predictable because it's manifests as laws of nature.
The bedrock of reality (whether it's "God" or a quantum field) necessarily exists uncaused and without explanation. But "God" entails something vastly more complex, and thus, implausible.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14375
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 922 times
- Been thanked: 1664 times
- Contact:
Re: Misconception about free-will?
Post #8[Replying to fredonly in post #7]
This idea stems from supernaturalism and is one of the numerous philosophies derived from that belief in a supernatural creator.
The inability to be able to explain why this supernatural being which caused the natural universe, would be uncaused leaves the door open for the problem of infinite regress.
Rather, the universe is in a constant state of change re its creation.
(Natural Philosophy argues that mindfulness is actually a physical thing as minds have to be physical in order to influence physical things and that the interaction between unseen and seen things does not mean that the unseen things are either hallucinations or supernatural in order to explain the existence of mindfulness/minds as these can be explained naturally.)
Yes - I agree.It sounds like a unique, but unconvincing, "first cause" argument. The premise: free-willed intentionality (i.e. "God") exists uncaused, with the power and knowlwdge to produce a fully functioning physical universe that would lead to the appearance of intelligent life.
This idea stems from supernaturalism and is one of the numerous philosophies derived from that belief in a supernatural creator.
The inability to be able to explain why this supernatural being which caused the natural universe, would be uncaused leaves the door open for the problem of infinite regress.
That is more along the lines of Natural Philosophy. It is simpler because it rejects the unprovable layer of supernaturalism/a supernatural realm which caused this natural realm to exist.IMO, a much simpler premise is that the bedrock of reality has properties that necessitate its evolution- an evolution that is (in principle) predictable because it's manifests as laws of nature.
Rather, the universe is in a constant state of change re its creation.
Or, perhaps a Universal Mind which organizes the matter/quantum field into functional forms which it can diversify into for the experience and whatever else such would provide it with.The bedrock of reality (whether it's "God" or a quantum field) necessarily exists uncaused and without explanation. But "God" entails something vastly more complex, and thus, implausible.
(Natural Philosophy argues that mindfulness is actually a physical thing as minds have to be physical in order to influence physical things and that the interaction between unseen and seen things does not mean that the unseen things are either hallucinations or supernatural in order to explain the existence of mindfulness/minds as these can be explained naturally.)
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14375
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 922 times
- Been thanked: 1664 times
- Contact:
Re: Misconception about free-will?
Post #10Please explain the philosophy you are coming from re your reply.