Questions for those who believe in free will

[Rational Atheist]

I'm trying to understand the belief in free will. For those who believe in free will, do you believe that your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes or not? If you do, you're a determinist and do not believe in free choice, since you can't control the causes that took place before you were born. If you don't believe your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes, or don't believe that that causal chain extends to before your birth, then you believe that at some point before your action, an event occurred for no reason whatsoever (purely random). How could this possibly get you free will either? No combination of determinism nor indeterminism (randomness) gives you "free will" in the sense of authorship of and responsibility for your actions. How can you believe anyone is ultimately responsible for what they do?

[Miles]

So what is the mental process that brings a person to choose A rather than B?


.

You can condition yourself to want/choose a or b. If I was to explain this in terms of cause and effect then I'd say it would be a feedback loop. This mechanism can be used to reinforce or deter behavior.

feedback loop concept has several sources, and there are several different ways to think about it. One way is to think about the meaning of cause and effect. People often think about variable A causing outcome B to happen, and that being the end of it—a straight line from cause to effect. The logic behind feedback processes is that that picture often is too simple. Sometimes variable A causes outcome B, but outcome B then turns around and exerts an influence (directly or indirectly) on variable A, the original cause. This, in turn, causes variable A to make something else happen with respect to outcome B. In this circumstance, there is not a straight line of cause and effect, but a closed loop. Causality occurs all around the loop.

Source: http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/soci ... back-loop/

For example... I know certain overreactive brain activity causes obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).
Let A= Brain activity
B= OCD (obsessive/persistent thoughts and behaviors).
C= target behavior (no OCD).

So I can use B (working with the thoughts/behaviors and changing them) to change A (which leads to neuroplastic changes in the brain) to bring about C. All of this has been experimentally validated by Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz studies on OCD. He terms the process 'self-directed neuroplasticity'.

It appears you've deviated from the "or" concept, which posits "A or B," to a linear "then" progression, "A then B," which of course is a whole different animal.


.

[William]

Thanks for your reply.

Are you willing then to compromise and say that everyone has both, [will and free-will] depending on particular circumstance?

You're welcome, William.

Are you saying these are different things? I'm saying everyone has a will. And that this will is either free (in the libertarian sense, where at least some of a person's decisions are controlled by this will) or determined (where all of the person's decisions are controlled by factors outside of the will). Thus, free-will and determined-will are sub categories of the will, or ways the will can be.

I am really asking you if you think you have one, or the other, when it may be that you have both and depending upon circumstance use one or the other. That is why I ask "Are you willing then to compromise and say that everyone has both, [free-will and determined-will] depending on particular circumstance?"

This, because we exist within a circumstance which determines how our wills can be used, and as such, while there may be pockets in which we are able to use free will, these themselves are enveloped in the greater reality which limits how much freedom we do have to exercise our will.

[The Tanager]

So what do you see as the two premises and conclusion of the Kalam that provides a very good rational case for the existence of the supernatural?

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The natural universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause
4. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural
5. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is supernatural

[Miles]

So what do you see as the two premises and conclusion of the Kalam that provides a very good rational case for the existence of the supernatural?

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The natural universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause
4. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural
5. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is supernatural

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The natural universe began to exist
_________________________________________
3. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause

Is fine.

__________________

4. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural
5. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is supernatural

Sorry, but if 4. is to be taken as true it requires substantiation, and lacking this, it's a deal breaker. Moreover, 5. (a conclusion) requires more than a single premise (4) in order to work. To assume 3. qualifies as a major premise so as to construct :

3. the natural universe has a cause
4. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural
5. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is supernatural

doesn't work either

The inadmissibility of 4 aside, this doesn't work because "supernatural" isn't found in either premise, and each of the premises must have one term in common with the conclusion: A huge mistake. For another thing, the form

All M are P
No P is S (from P is not S)
__________
M is X

is invalid because the subject of the major premise (M) can never be the subject of the conclusion.


.

[The Tanager]

Are you saying these are different things? I'm saying everyone has a will. And that this will is either free (in the libertarian sense, where at least some of a person's decisions are controlled by this will) or determined (where all of the person's decisions are controlled by factors outside of the will). Thus, free-will and determined-will are sub categories of the will, or ways the will can be.

I am really asking you if you think you have one, or the other, when it may be that you have both and depending upon circumstance use one or the other. That is why I ask "Are you willing then to compromise and say that everyone has both, [free-will and determined-will] depending on particular circumstance?"

Yes, as you can see in the bolded part, I'm open to some of our decisions being controlled by factors outside of our will. Libertarianism vs. determinism addresses the moral decisions of normal humans. There, in that more narrow category of decisions, libertarianism says our wills are free.

This, because we exist within a circumstance which determines how our wills can be used, and as such, while there may be pockets in which we are able to use free will, these themselves are enveloped in the greater reality which limits how much freedom we do have to exercise our will.

I, as a believer in libertarian free will, agree. We aren't saying there is no limit to our wills. We are saying that within our human limitations, we have, at least, moral freedoms. We also believe that our will can be thwarted by outside factors, including the wills of others. Our actions, even in moral decisions, may not be free but our wills are.

[The Tanager]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The natural universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause
4. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural
5. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is supernatural

Sorry, but if 4. is to be taken as true it requires substantiation, and lacking this, it's a deal breaker.

Every premise requires substantiation. Arguments are put in premise-conclusion form to give a succinct summary. The proponent can then clarify terms, offer the support for individual premises, etc.

The natural universe is all of the natural or physical world. It's the whole of space-time. For its cause to be natural would be self-causation, which is logically impossible since it requires something to exist prior to when it exists in order to be the cause. Nothing can exist prior to when it exists.

Moreover, 5. (a conclusion) requires more than a single premise (4) in order to work. To assume 3. qualifies as a major premise so as to construct :


3. the natural universe has a cause
4. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural
5. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is supernatural


doesn't work either

The inadmissibility of 4 aside, this doesn't work because "supernatural" isn't found in either premise, and each of the premises must have one term in common with the conclusion: A huge mistake.

I was assuming the terms were more generally understood and I shouldn't have done that. Here is a formulation without those hidden shortcuts:

3. the natural universe has a cause
4. the cause of the natural universe can either be natural or non-natural (i.e., supernatural)
5. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural
6. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is non-natural (i.e., supernatural)

[Bust Nak]

The natural universe is all of the natural or physical world.

Is this premise up for debate, or is this how you define "natural?" I ask because something like a similar universe to ours that collapsed on itself which in turn spawned this one, as proposed by "Big Bounce," would qualify as natural in my book.

[William]

Are you saying these are different things? I'm saying everyone has a will. And that this will is either free (in the libertarian sense, where at least some of a person's decisions are controlled by this will) or determined (where all of the person's decisions are controlled by factors outside of the will). Thus, free-will and determined-will are sub categories of the will, or ways the will can be.

I am really asking you if you think you have one, or the other, when it may be that you have both and depending upon circumstance use one or the other. That is why I ask "Are you willing then to compromise and say that everyone has both, [free-will and determined-will] depending on particular circumstance?"

Yes, as you can see in the bolded part, I'm open to some of our decisions being controlled by factors outside of our will. Libertarianism vs. determinism addresses the moral decisions of normal humans. There, in that more narrow category of decisions, libertarianism says our wills are free.

This, because we exist within a circumstance which determines how our wills can be used, and as such, while there may be pockets in which we are able to use free will, these themselves are enveloped in the greater reality which limits how much freedom we do have to exercise our will.

I, as a believer in libertarian free will, agree. We aren't saying there is no limit to our wills. We are saying that within our human limitations, we have, at least, moral freedoms. We also believe that our will can be thwarted by outside factors, including the wills of others. Our actions, even in moral decisions, may not be free but our wills are.

All in all it appears to me to be that you believe "free" will is about moral considerations, which are built from human concepts [how the individual defines/accepts the definitions of nature] rather than the nature of nature [because nature is not bound by moral considerations.]
The definitions created this way bring about moral awareness which would otherwise be absent and are largely done through some supernatural authority outside of nature [because nature has no morals] and thus deities are created to compensate, and morals are forced into nature through that means.

[Miles]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The natural universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause
4. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural
5. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is supernatural

Sorry, but if 4. is to be taken as true it requires substantiation, and lacking this, it's a deal breaker.

Every premise requires substantiation. Arguments are put in premise-conclusion form to give a succinct summary. The proponent can then clarify terms, offer the support for individual premises, etc.

Actually not. Most syllogistic premises are axiomatic. That is, we regarded them as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. such as:

All mammals are animals.
All elephants are mammals.
_____________________________
Therefore, all elephants are animals.

No one would dispute that "All mammals are animals", or that " All elephants are mammals." Where premises are not established, accepted, or self-evidently true, such as "The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural" they need to be substantiated in order for the argument to be sound. Sound conclusions (arguments) require true premises.

The natural universe is all of the natural or physical world. It's the whole of space-time. For its cause to be natural would be self-causation, which is logically impossible since it requires something to exist prior to when it exists in order to be the cause. Nothing can exist prior to when it exists.

How do you know? There have been quite a few hypotheses concerning the origin of our universe that posit pre- and co-existing states.

Moreover, 5. (a conclusion) requires more than a single premise (4) in order to work. To assume 3. qualifies as a major premise so as to construct :


3. the natural universe has a cause
4. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural
5. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is supernatural


doesn't work either

The inadmissibility of 4 aside, this doesn't work because "supernatural" isn't found in either premise, and each of the premises must have one term in common with the conclusion: A huge mistake.

I was assuming the terms were more generally understood and I shouldn't have done that. Here is a formulation without those hidden shortcuts:

3. the natural universe has a cause
4. the cause of the natural universe can either be natural or non-natural (i.e., supernatural)
5. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural
6. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is non-natural (i.e., supernatural)

Although this is not a legitimate syllogism, (it has four premises), taken as it stands and rephrasing a bit;

3. the natural universe has a cause
4. the cause of the natural universe can either be natural or supernatural
5. The cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural
_________________________________________________________
6. Therefore, the natural universe has a cause that is supernatural

it still fails.

Premises 4 and 5, not having the status of an axiom, require that you demonstrate, substantiate, show, prove, or provided conclusive evidence that they are true in order to claim that your conclusion is true.

So:

Prove that the cause of the natural universe can be supernatural.
Prove that the cause of the natural universe could not itself be natural

Until you do this your argument fails.


.

[The Tanager]

Is this premise up for debate, or is this how you define "natural?" I ask because something like a similar universe to ours that collapsed on itself which in turn spawned this one, as proposed by "Big Bounce," would qualify as natural in my book.

Every premise is up for debate. Assuming that to be true, I think there would still need to be a cause for that prior natural stage.