Science and free will

[paximperium]

So "originatory free will" is uncaused, undefined, untestable(at least with the current state of technology) but must somehow be necessary?

It seems to be nothing more than ass backwards semantics, a label placed on an end effect and then fitting evidence to support said claim and ignoring everything else. Seems awfully familiar...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So "originatory free will" is uncaused, undefined, untestable(at least with the current state of technology) but must somehow be necessary?

I'm not arguing that libertarian free will necessarily exists, no. I'm merely stating that I personally believe that it does. It's completely untestable and always will be. It's untestable because the agent of free will is not a component part of physical reality.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I'm not arguing that libertarian free will necessarily exists, no. I'm merely stating that I personally believe that it does. It's completely untestable and always will be. It's untestable because the agent of free will is not a component part of physical reality.

Would a structured study of different humans' experiences throughout different cultures be considered "physical"?

If such a look at the "outsides" of "insides" reveals patterns stable over long periods of time I believe the answer would be "yes".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Would a structured study of different humans' experiences throughout different cultures be considered "physical"?

If such a look at the "outsides" of "insides" reveals patterns stable over long periods of time I believe the answer would be "yes".

I didn't understand any of that.

 

[yy2bggggs]

I don't see it as a decision at all. It was an originatory act, not a decision.

Sure, why not.

If it's acausal, what links you to the particular act? I.e., in what sense did you commit the particular act?

 

[Frank Newgent]

I didn't understand any of that.

Like surrealism. An artifact of that such as a painting or crazy saying might seem meaningless on its own.

Though I think the movement as a whole affected greatly political practice, thought , and social theory.

edited to add: what better example of someone expressing free will (at least at JREF) than an absurdist?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sure, why not.

If it's acausal, what links you to the particular act? I.e., in what sense did you commit the particular act?

We don't have enough pronouns. There's two I's (our you's) here:

1: your body/brain/mind
2: the agent of free will (your own subjective "I").

(1) did not commit the act. (2) did. (1) is what makes decisions. (2) acts upon them, usually unfreely.

 

[Belz...]

I've repeatedly explained it, but the skeptics/materialists do not appear to understand that explanation.

Perhaps the fault is in you.

The man standing at the top of the building has finished thinking. He's already made the decision that he is going to jump. He doesnt' jump immediately. He gazes around at the world for one last time. Then he jumps. The exact moment he jumps is not arbitrary or random, because it is an intentional act of will.

I agree that it is far from being random, but you forget to adress the other possibility. Namely, that his decision to jump is wholly determined by previous states. Why does he jump ? Why does he pause ? There are answers in the real world for both those questions, and no answer to be found in LFW.

The reason the skeptics/materialists do not understand this explanation is that they are trying to reduce "will" to something else - something physical like a cognitive process. They are thinking about the problem by "looking in" on the suicidal jumper from outside. If you look at it like this, then it doesn't make sense.

Of course it makes sense. It makes sense when you know that his decision is based on factors. If there's any influence from random elements, then fine, but it still doesn't help your case that there is a "third" option. Logically, there is no third option, and I think you'll agree that the laws of logic are pretty much inviolate.

WILL is an originatory entity in its own right. It's not like anything else. It can't be reduced to anything else. When I exercise my will it anything but random. It is informed by everything else I know, but not caused by it, because it isn't caused by anything.

There is your explanation.

No. It is speculation. You say it isn't random but don't demonstrate it. You say it's uncaused but you don't demonstrate it. Basically you dance around both options, trying to have us believe that there is a third one without ever having to define what it could be. I'm not dupe.

You say it's "informed by everything else I know" but "not caused by it". That is a contradiction. What OTHER possible source of decision could there be, that isn't arbitrary/random, EXCEPT everything else you know ?

Think about it. What you are saying, effectively, is that if you stop at a stop sign and can go left or right, but where you want to go is left, you could still choose to go right. Why ? If your decision to go left or right is NOT caused by your previous states, then it is, by definition, arbitrary.

It is a false dichotomy precisely because you aren't taking into account the possibility of originatory free will.

It is not a false dichotomy because there are no other logical alternatives.

Q) How can a decision not completely based on known factors be anything but arbitrary (random)?
A) We aren't talking about a decision at all. We are talking about an originatory act of free will.

Which is, in and of itself, a decision.

Why isn't that an answer?

Because it goes right back to my question: how the hell can this happen ? The free will you describe seems arbitrary to me, because it doesn't make decisions based solely on previous states. There is no way around this.

I suspect that you will respond to this by re-asking the same the question rather than explaining what is wrong with the answer I have already given to it.

What's wrong with it is that it DOESN'T answer my question. Hence why I ask it again.

 

[yy2bggggs]

We don't have enough pronouns. There's two I's (our you's) here:

And how many acausals are there?

(1) did not commit the act. (2) did. (1) is what makes decisions. (2) acts upon them, usually unfreely.

Sure, why not. If it's acausal, what links the action to 2?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I agree that it is far from being random, but you forget to adress the other possibility. Namely, that his decision to jump is wholly determined by previous states. Why does he jump ? Why does he pause ? There are answers in the real world for both those questions, and no answer to be found in LFW.

It's impossible to answer those questions without begging the question. I haven't "forgotten" the other possiblity. I'm perfectly aware of it. I just don't happen to believe it is true.

Of course it makes sense. It makes sense when you know that his decision is based on factors. If there's any influence from random elements, then fine, but it still doesn't help your case that there is a "third" option. Logically, there is no third option, and I think you'll agree that the laws of logic are pretty much inviolate.

You are trying to claim that there is some sort of logical, necessary reason why his act must be fully determined by previous states. That is what you believe. It is not logically necessary that you believe that, you just happen to believe it.

You say it's "informed by everything else I know" but "not caused by it". That is a contradiction. What OTHER possible source of decision could there be, that isn't arbitrary/random, EXCEPT everything else you know ?

Think about it. What you are saying, effectively, is that if you stop at a stop sign and can go left or right, but where you want to go is left, you could still choose to go right. Why ? If your decision to go left or right is NOT caused by your previous states, then it is, by definition, arbitrary.

All you are doing is repeating your assertion that you don't believe in free will, and trying to claim you are doing so for logical reasons. There is no logic to support your view. You just don't happen to believe in originatory free will.

It is not a false dichotomy because there are no other logical alternatives.

OMG.

Yes there are, it could be an originatory act of will. How many times do we have to go around this loop?

Which is, in and of itself, a decision.

No it isn't, it is an act. It is a point in history where events could either take one path or another path, but there is no "decision".

Because it goes right back to my question: how the hell can this happen ? The free will you describe seems arbitrary to me, because it doesn't make decisions based solely on previous states. There is no way around this.

Your whole position depends on begging the question. You start off with an implicit assumption that there's no such thing as originatory free will then end up coming to what you think is a logically necessary conclusion that there is no such thing as originatory free will.

What's wrong with it is that it DOESN'T answer my question. Hence why I ask it again.

You are asking the question within the context of your own belief system, which denies the possiblity of free will. I can never answer your question in a way that would satisfy you because your own belief system neccesarily makes it impossible for you to understand the answer I am giving you. You want me to explain how free will works. I can't. All I can do is ask you to consult your own subjective experiences. If you do that and still don't know what I mean by "free will" then there's nothing I can say which will change your mind. It's an impasse. There's nowhere for the debate to go. However, every time you say that it is logically impossible for free will to exist I will reply by saying that your belief is dependent on a metaphysical assumption, not logic. Logic can only work on the assumptions you feed into it, and you are feeding in the assumption "everything is either completely determined or completely random." Free will is neither of these things. (you will ask "but how can it be neither?" I will reply "because it is an originatory act of free will.") Round and round and round and round and round we go.

Instead of starting with the assumption it's impossible, start by assuming it is possible. If you can't do that, please tell me why, without simply asserting ""everything is either completely determined or completely random", (which is back to assuming it is impossible.)

Put it another way: How do you know that everything is either completely determined or completely random???

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And how many acausals are there?

Only one.

Sure, why not. If it's acausal, what links the action to 2?

(2) is the actor.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Interesting story.

As an aside: does this count as science? Can you do "subjective science"?

Well, I wouldn't call it science without further formalization of the experiment, including many more test subjects. But it is an interesting point of view to the whole issue of free will, and one of those things I would like to try myself. It seems to me that the whole issue of subjectively experiencing free will – as in the feeling of actually having it – might just be an inference. Pragmatic for upholding the illusion of a doer, but ultimately faulty.

 

[yy2bggggs]

(2) is the actor.

If it's acausal, what links the action to the actor?

 

[Belz...]

It's impossible to answer those questions without begging the question. I haven't "forgotten" the other possiblity. I'm perfectly aware of it. I just don't happen to believe it is true.

Huh ? How can you NOT believe in determinism ? It's not something you can believe or disbelieve, it is one of only two logical possibilities.

You are trying to claim that there is some sort of logical, necessary reason why his act must be fully determined by previous states.

I am saying that the necessary reason is one of two logical possibilities.

That is what you believe.

No, it isn't. This is what I've been telling you for a while, now. Belief has NOTHING to do with it. It is one of two and only two logical options.

All you are doing is repeating your assertion that you don't believe in free will

LFW is logically impossible. My beliefs have nothing to do with it.

and trying to claim you are doing so for logical reasons. There is no logic to support your view. You just don't happen to believe in originatory free will.

That is false. So far, your attempts to explain your belief has fallen into the two possibilities I have mentioned. Therefore it is quite obvious that you accept them, as well.

Yes there are, it could be an originatory act of will. How many times do we have to go around this loop?

It could also be a Poofan Illan Rus! But inventing stuff doesn't make it true. What the hell if an "originatory act" of whatever ?

If an act is "informed" (which is a way of saying "influenced" and, therefore "caused") then it is deterministic. Otherwise, since there are NO causes for the act, it is necessarily random. I dare you to find any one on this planet who can describe a third possibility.

No it isn't, it is an act.

Irrelevant. An act is either caused by deterministic factors or it is random.

Your whole position depends on begging the question. You start off with an implicit assumption that there's no such thing as originatory free will then end up coming to what you think is a logically necessary conclusion that there is no such thing as originatory free will.

UE, you simply do not understand the logic involved here.

This is a "P" and "Not P" situation. There IS NO third option. It's not even a question of following from premises. We're not even at the point of forming an argument. There simply isn't any other option. And again, I DARE you to find a third. So far you've simply stated that you think there is, but your descriptions always fall into "P" or "Not P".

You are asking the question within the context of your own belief system, which denies the possiblity of free will.

I honestly don't care what you think I believe. If you can't answer the question, then just say that it's an irrational belief of yours and we'll be done.

I can never answer your question in a way that would satisfy you because your own belief system neccesarily makes it impossible for you to understand the answer I am giving you.

Unsupported assertion. You haven't even tried. You refuse to go even further because you think I can't accept it ? What a wonderful debater you must be!

You want me to explain how free will works. I can't.

There's a good reason for that.

All I can do is ask you to consult your own subjective experiences.

My subjective experiences are unreliable, as are yours. But were I to do as you ask, I'd still say this: All the actions I undertake are wholly determined by previous states. I don't see why that's a problem.

If you do that and still don't know what I mean by "free will" then there's nothing I can say which will change your mind.

It's unfortunate that you think that way. If that's how I went around forming opinions, I would never accept quantum mechanics or relativity because I can't quite grasp the concepts. But I can and do accept them because I can understand the objective confirmations of the theory.

However, every time you say that it is logically impossible for free will to exist I will reply by saying that your belief is dependent on a metaphysical assumption, not logic. Logic can only work on the assumptions you feed into it, and you are feeding in the assumption "everything is either completely determined or completely random."

I refer you to the "P" and "Not P" thing above. If something is caused, then the cause determines the outcome. If it isn't determined, then there is no way to know what the outcome will be and, whatever the nature of the act, it will be indistinguishable from randomness. Ergo, it IS random.

Instead of starting with the assumption it's impossible, start by assuming it is possible.

I'm not starting with it. It's simply obvious. In fact, it's the very same basic logic that makes us accept that "something exists".

Put it another way: How do you know that everything is either completely determined or completely random???

I never said it was either completely one or the other. It could very well be some of one and some of the other, though in the end, if it's even partially random, then the outcome in some of those cases will be impossible to determine e.g. random.

 

[linusrichard]

LFW doesn't violate logic.

It might violate the known laws of the universe. It might violate the actual laws of the universe. Or it might just not exist. Or it might exist. But it doesn't violate logic.

Either "random" is defined as "not determined," as was asserted earlier in the thread, in which case the set of "random" includes everything that is not determined, which logically might include anything not described by the definition of "determined," including things you wouldn't normally describe as "random" - including LFW;
or
the definition of "random" has some substance to it, other than being simply defined negatively against "determined," in which case there is a set outside of "determined" and "random," and logically there is room for LFW there.

Now, you can assert that, in the first case, all things that are not determined have something in common that makes LFW impossible. Or you can assert that, in the second case, the set outside of "determined" and "random" is an empty set. And whichever way you go, that assertion might be right, and I might be wrong. But that's not the same as saying that LFW is logically impossible.

It's a matter of trying to have it both ways.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

No evidence is possible in principle. It's exactly the same as the situation with idealism/materialism. People say things like "of course materialism is true, because if I throw a cat out of the window, it doesn't hover in mid-air." They have missed the point. Science doesn't provide evidence which can falsify or support metaphysical beliefs like this. There is no reason to believe that science could falsify or support free will either. Free will could exist and science would never know anything about it.

I still don't understand your argument

Why is the premise: "throwing a cat out the window can only result in it falling down" a metaphysical claim, when all we have is evidence that that's the only way it can happen given basic laws of physic that act in a consistent way every time?

Why isn't a metaphysical claim "A cat will hover in the air" instead?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I still don't understand your argument

Why is the premise: "throwing a cat out the window can only result in it falling down" a metaphysical claim, when all we have is evidence that that's the only way it can happen given basic laws of physic that act in a consistent way every time?

The claim that the laws of physics always act in a consistent way is itself a metaphysical claim, but not a claim that is directly related to materialism and idealism. An idealist can say that the laws of physics always act in a certain way without it contradicting his idealism. A supernaturalist cannot. Not all idealists are supernaturalists.

An ontological materialism doesn't rule out supernaturalism either. In other words, you can believe that only material things exist and also believe that this material realm doesn't always behave the same way.

Why isn't a metaphysical claim "A cat will hover in the air" instead?

Nobody makes this claim. Nobody thinks cats can hover in mid-air. If anyone did claim this then it would be an incorrect empirical/scientific claim.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If it's acausal, what links the action to the actor?

I think the actor loads the quantum dice. That's why I suggested free will has to involve retrocausality.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm not starting with it. It's simply obvious.

You've just contradicted yourself in two sentences. First you claim you're not starting with this as an assumption, then you declare that the reason you believe it is because "it's simply obvious." If you believe something because "it's obvious" then it is an assumption that you are starting with - something you don't feel you need to justify because "it's obviously true."

It's not obvious to me. On the contrary, it's obvious to me that I do have free will. NOT random will.

I never said it was either completely one or the other. It could very well be some of one and some of the other, though in the end, if it's even partially random, then the outcome in some of those cases will be impossible to determine e.g. random.

OK, rephrase the question:

How do you know that an act has to be either determined or random or a combination of both?

How can you justify that belief apart from to say "it's simply obvious" (no justification at all) or "because it either has to be be determined or random or a combination of both"? (circular justification)

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Belz.

What is going on at the moment the suicidal jumper actually jumps? What caused him to jump? Well, it was partly caused by all that thinking he did in the previous hours, because if he'd concluded he didn't want to die yet then he wouldn't have jumped at all. But that can't be the whole story, or he'd have jumped the instant he'd made his mind up that he was actually going to jump. So there's something else involved. You come to the conclusion that it must either be because of some other deterministic cognitive processes (maybe subconscius ones) or that there is a combination of deterministic cognitive processes and pure randomness, presumably coming from quantum effects, but that's because you're a materialist. The difference between you and me as that I don't believe those quantum effects are actually purely random. Instead, I think they are being influenced by the "I", "the soul", or whatever else you want to call the agent of free will. Your next question will be something like "but how does the agent decide whether/when to act?" The answer is that it doesn't "decide", it just acts. It's a simple entity. It can't "decide" things because it doesn't have it's own brain. It does, on the other hand, have access to brains, because it is the observer of minds. Does that get any closer to answering your question? The agent of free will can act in a way which is neither determined nor random because it has access to the contents of mind but is not constrained by those contents.