Does "unfree will" exist?

James_S_Saint · August 20, 2014, 12:40am

When discussing anything being “free”, one has to include of what it is to be free. Nothing is free from literally ALL things, else it wouldn’t physically exist.

Mr_Reasonable · August 20, 2014, 4:51am

You can’t prove that I don’t have free will until you can predict all my actions.

Ben_JS · August 20, 2014, 9:34am

Yes.

I gave free will a definition - highlighting my interpretation of it. I also quoted the definition of free you gave, in the context that I believe is relevant to the issue of free will.

My argument is that our will doesn’t meet the criteria of being free.

You agree then that our will isn’t ‘literally’ free, and free will ‘literally’ doesn’t exist?

Now the question is, could your actions ever have been different than they were?

Is this not to say the past determines the future?

If the past determines the future, and all elements of our existence are a progression of an environment that existed long before us, how can we claim complete authority of the result?

Non-free or confined will doesn’t stumble at this question, it can ‘literally’ exist, and I argue it does.

==

Free will - the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. + freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

All I have to prove is that your will is either constrained or determined by prior causes.

It’s widely accepted that a person’s external environment contributes significantly to their development. Since we do not control our external environment, the effect of the external environment on the individual undermines their capacity for free will.

It doesn’t even seem necessary to make arguments relating to one’s authority of their internal environment.

Arminius · August 20, 2014, 2:38pm

Humans have no “free will”, but only a relative free will.

James_S_Saint · August 20, 2014, 3:49pm

Those are two different types of “free-will”. The first specifies that something is free from “certain factors” (not free from all). The second specifies that something is free from ALL things by referring to “[any] prior causes”. The first type always exists and the second type never exists.

From the “God perspective”, no they could not. All things are determined by the past Situation (also known as “God”).

Certainly.

But if anyone is expecting to make an argument concerning the lack of blame due to determination, it won’t fly.

Ben_JS · August 20, 2014, 8:53pm

Thought is directly correlated to processes within our brain.

Thought is a product of the brain.

As smell is to one’s nose, as sound is to one’s ears, as taste is to one’s tongue, as sight is to one’s eyes.

Thought is not some mystical thing detached from reality. It’s the product of a chemical process within our brain.

The certain factors aren’t specified.

I believe a certain factor that restricts one’s will is the past, which one had no control over.

As you say further in your post, the past determines the present, thus, the past completely restricts the present.

This is sufficient reason to reject the idea that our will has any degree of freedom.

Our will is completely constrained, but we’ll still call it ‘free will’?

That doesn’t make sense.

We’ll hold people accountable for a will that is completely determined by factors beyond their control?

Are you listening to yourself?

A determined universe is different than God.

A determined universe isn’t said to love man, isn’t said to have any interest in man, isn’t said to have any intent, isn’t said to be sentient, isn’t said to be benevolent, isn’t said to be watching everything we do, isn’t said to be judging us.

A determined universe doesn’t command that we do not murder, that we do not steal, that we’re not allowed to believe in anything else.

You’re the one saying it’s God, but that’s your mistake.

The situation, as you describe it, is responsible.

The composition of all factors that contributed to an outcome, is responsible.

An individual isn’t the composition of all factors that contribute to any result, thus, the individual should never be held solely responsible.

Even within the system that is the individual’s body, there are many different factors that compose the reason for any act. Yet, not all elements that compose the individual contribute equally to any given result. Thus, to retaliate against the entirety of an individual, is a crude means of resolution.

A man has a tumor in his brain. The tumor led the man to commit a crime. The tumor is the main culprit, not the the man in his entirety. Respond to the tumor.

A man is raised to be racist. Racism led a man to enslave another man. The racism is the culprit, not the man in his entirety. Respond the the racism.

These are very simplified scenarios, but I’m trying to make a point. That is, respond directly to the source, whilst doing as little harm as possible.

To villainize, to accuse of being ‘evil’. That isn’t a real solution. That’s ignorance.

Why do you want to perpetuate ignorance?

=

You imply that determinism is a crutch, just people who don’t want to accept responsibility.

This is bullshit.

I’ve done more things in my life that I have to be proud of, than I have of things that ever caused me shame. My existence has been a net positive, I’m well in the green. Beyond that, I face all my mistakes, learn from them, and set them right.

I believe free will to be false and determinism to be the truth, and if those beliefs are true, there are serious implications that ought be considered and responded to.

Determinism humbles me. Anything positive I have done, is simply a product of the past, which I did not cause.

James_S_Saint · August 20, 2014, 9:09pm

Well… You do. That isn’t what I call it.

So why keep doing it?

Do you seriously think that I am ever not?

I will ignore your misinterpretations and bow to your vastly superior wisdom.

Magnus_Anderson · August 20, 2014, 9:11pm

I prefer to see everything in here-and-now. With that in mind, it is not desirable to attribute restraint to the past, but rather, to the forces in our brain that were shaped by the past events.

Ben_JS · August 20, 2014, 9:30pm

I’ve been claiming free will doesn’t exist from the moment I entered this thread and a long time before that.

I say we have a will, but it isn’t free. I do not claim we have free will.

You’re the one misrepresenting me.

You did, and I quote:

James: ‘Those are two different types of “free-will”. The first specifies that something is free from “certain factors” (not free from all). […] The first type always exists.’

You just claimed free will exists, and now you’re denying it.

You’re purposefully trying to confuse the situation. You’re perpetuating ignorance.

You’re blatantly misrepresenting the situation.

You claimed free will exists.

I did not.

Cut the bullshit.

You keep implying that a deterministic universe is synonymous with God.

It isn’t.

I pointed it out, and now you’re going into the refuge of sarcasm.

Typical bullshit from James, ladies and gentlemen.

==
==

And as I want people to see my post, not your shitty half arsed misrepresentation of it, I’ll quote it below.

Ben JS:

Thought is directly correlated to processes within our brain.

Thought is a product of the brain.

As smell is to one’s nose, as sound is to one’s ears, as taste is to one’s tongue, as sight is to one’s eyes.

Thought is not some mystical thing detached from reality. It’s the product of a chemical process within our brain.

James:

Those are two different types of “free-will”. The first specifies that something is free from “certain factors” (not free from all).

The certain factors aren’t specified.

I believe a certain factor that restricts one’s will is the past, which one had no control over.

As you say further in your post, the past determines the present, thus, the past completely restricts the present.

This is sufficient reason to reject the idea that our will has any degree of freedom.

James:

The second specifies that something is free from ALL things by referring to “[any] prior causes”. The first type always exists and the second type never exists.

Our will is completely constrained, but we’ll still call it ‘free will’?

That doesn’t make sense.

We’ll hold people accountable for a will that is completely determined by factors beyond their control?

Are you listening to yourself?

James:

From the “God perspective”, no they could not. All things are determined by the past Situation (also known as “God”).

A determined universe is different than God.

A determined universe isn’t said to love man, isn’t said to have any interest in man, isn’t said to have any intent, isn’t said to be sentient, isn’t said to be benevolent, isn’t said to be watching everything we do, isn’t said to be judging us.

A determined universe doesn’t command that we do not murder, that we do not steal, that we’re not allowed to believe in anything else.

You’re the one saying it’s God, but that’s your mistake.

James:

But if anyone is expecting to make an argument concerning the lack of blame due to determination, it won’t fly.

The situation, as you describe it, is responsible.

The composition of all factors that contributed to an outcome, is responsible.

An individual isn’t the composition of all factors that contribute to any result, thus, the individual should never be held solely responsible.

Even within the system that is the individual’s body, there are many different factors that compose the reason for any act. Yet, not all elements that compose the individual contribute equally to any given result. Thus, to retaliate against the entirety of an individual, is a crude means of resolution.

A man has a tumor in his brain. The tumor led the man to commit a crime. The tumor is the main culprit, not the the man in his entirety. Respond to the tumor.

A man is raised to be racist. Racism led a man to enslave another man. The racism is the culprit, not the man in his entirety. Respond the the racism.

These are very simplified scenarios, but I’m trying to make a point. That is, respond directly to the source, whilst doing as little harm as possible.

To villainize, to accuse of being ‘evil’. That isn’t a real solution. That’s ignorance.

Why do you want to perpetuate ignorance?

=

You imply that determinism is a crutch, just people who don’t want to accept responsibility.

This is bullshit.

I’ve done more things in my life that I have to be proud of, than I have of things that ever caused me shame. My existence has been a net positive, I’m well in the green. Beyond that, I face all my mistakes, learn from them, and set them right.

I believe free will to be false and determinism to be the truth, and if those beliefs are true, there are serious implications that ought be considered and responded to.

Determinism humbles me. Anything positive I have done, is simply a product of the past, which I did not cause.

Notice how much James completely skewed what I said?

Ben_JS · August 20, 2014, 9:46pm

And if your preferences of perception and desires for attribution are the source of problems in the here-and-now, what then?

The effects of the past are in the here-and-now. Determinism doesn’t only relate to the past, it informs the present. It does not restrict one from focusing on the present, as I focus on the present. I just don’t falsely attribute the present as a product of the present detached from the past, and I do not ignore the past.

I’m going to sleep now, but I think your reasoning is flawed.

Magnus_Anderson · August 20, 2014, 10:07pm

I am not saying you’re wrong. There is indeed no “free will”. “Free will” implies that some things are not connected to each other, which is logically impossible (things that are not connected cannot co-exist.)

Our willing is a product of certain system of forces located inside our brains (which we are unaware of, for it is impossible for an observer to observe itself) in relation to some other system (or systems) of forces (which can be located outside of the brain as well as inside the brain.)

Lev_Muishkin · August 20, 2014, 11:33pm

Yes. Nothing is free in this world, nor could it be. Moreover; nor should it be.

The idea of free will is completely absurd. How could any act of will be free? To be worthwhile is has to be motivated by ourselves, or intentions and limited by our capabilities, all of which are determined at any given moment by the lives we has led, starting with a act which was beyond our power to intend - that act of sex by our parents.

I think those that believe in free will lack imagination.

Mr_Reasonable · August 21, 2014, 4:56am

Ben, prove that there is or isn’t something restraining my will by showing that you can predict my behavior by reference to whatever proof you have.

I’ll let you guess which hand I’m about to hold up. Right or left. If you can guess right every time, then you’ve got proof. If you can’t, then there’s some percentage of the time at least where you don’t have proof, and thus any hard stance on way or the other would be one that doesn’t factor for every instance of behavior.

These are old, settled debates. There’s nothing new under the sun when it comes to where all the arguments fall when you’re talking about shit like free will.

zinnat · August 21, 2014, 5:32am

pharaoh:

[i][i]Using the term “free will”, whether by its advocates or its opponents, denotes the concept of “unfree will” in contrast.
If, by any chance, there is no unfree will, and what all the "will"s in the world can be, is free, then there is no need to argue whether there is “free will” or not. In that case, what may be in question is if there is a will or not, since a “will” is inherently taken to be free.
On the other hand, if there are such distinctive concepts as “free will” and “unfree will”, however, they should naturally have distinctive properties, too, differentiating them from one another.
Suppose you decide to cross the street; who is going to tell if that is an example of a free will or an unfree one, and by what criteria?
One thing worth mentioning here, is that if someone forces you into doing that, at gun point, it cannot be considered an example of an unfree will, unless you call all “will"s unfree, since it is a normal cause and effect process which is not essentially any different from other cause and effect processes that take place in decision making, but might not look as evident.
If you decide to cross the street at gun point, 1. you know why you have made such a decision; and 2. you most probably are not very interested to do so.
On the other hand, if you decide to cross the street where there’re no guns, 1. you may not be quite sure what your ultimate cause would be, and 2. most of the time, you might not feel much dislike to do so. These differences are not enough to make for such dramatic distinction.
If you can never tell the true difference, however, why should you be so happy about having a philosophically free will (in contrast to a common"free will”, meaning “you are free to do whatever you like to, or you deem necessary”.)
It is ok, if you say you stick to any idea, whether right or wrong, as long as it gives you comfort, but what if the sum of the consequences of having such notion proves the contrary?
Still, my main questions are:

Is it possible to practically make a distinction between a free will and an “unfree will”(if it exists)?

On the assumption that there are no "unfree will"s, why should one use the term “free will”? [/i][/i]

By definition, unfree will cannot exist. The definition of the will entails freedom. Will means freewill.
If it is not free, it cannot be considered will, in the first place, but merely thoughts.

Willing means taking decisions by the conscious mind over the its own and subconscious mind’s thoughts.

with love,
sanjay

James_S_Saint · August 21, 2014, 8:41am

In case you had any doubt, at least now you know for certain what the mainstream wants everyone to believe.

Lev_Muishkin · August 21, 2014, 10:33am

As usual you have an empty apothem that is not relevant or useful.

Ben_JS · August 21, 2014, 11:20am

Will - Diligent purposefulness; determination + A desire, purpose, or determination + Deliberate intention or wish

None of these definitions rely on freedom in order to exist.

Will = will. Free will = free will.

Lev_Muishkin · August 21, 2014, 3:18pm

Yes.
What would a will need to be free of?
The inherent contradiction of free will, is that those that promote the idea insist that the will has to be free of the self which generated it, which is absurd.

zinnat · August 21, 2014, 5:55pm

Ben,

I think that you are not paying the full attention to what i am saying. It seems to me that you are confusing will with willful action. It is not necessary that every will/free will would result to action also. That may or may not happen. Will is purely an mental construct.

You just cannot will if you are not free, in the first place.
There cannot be any situation when you can will without being free.

Think again.

with love,
sanjay

finishedman · August 21, 2014, 9:44pm

I’d pretty much agree with this since one is free to will whatever he wants. A person can have a purpose, desire or determination about anything under the sun that he wants. But, much of what one wants is what he has been told, or taught, or has been indoctrinated into (society) and has been therefore conditioned to. If one goes against this ‘reality’ of state of affairs, his functioning will be taken away and he will be detached and his freedom controlled.( Not that his thoughts and knowledge are not already controlled by the present society.)