the basis of free will?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I was talking to a friend about it just lately.
I’ve talked to many people about it.

Free will, i see as an erroneous word, and as a concept, nearly meaningless.
The idea of free will requires many preceeding opinions, such as egos and selves as reall things, will as a real thing, free as a real or true state, etc.

Free will means different things to different people, too.

I cannot describe free will as it is used today, in anything other than what i precieve as erroneousness.
So i will not be describing free will yet, as the word is commonly used.

My claim is that what appear to be choices and intentions arise from structures.
For example, everyone wants to eat. Their will is to eat. They choose to eat.
Does that mean that eating is a part of free will? I dont think so.
The will to eat exists in basically every person, because of the structures present in the human body.
A variety of genetic and bio-chemical structures, as far as i know, bring about the will to eat.
This will to eat does not come from God, from the soul, from outer space, from an incomprehensible transcendant dimension, from freedom, or from any other confusing concepts. Instead, the sensation of intention and choice comes about from matter and energy, as an expression of the mode in which matter and energy are set.

Any change in structure brings about also a change in Will.
A drug of physical matter can inhibit or stop hunger.

Different species want different things and have different Will, due to instinct which comes about from biological structure.

This does not make us a slave to our desires.
This does not make us free to do what we want.
This does not equate to, or proove, any sort of nonsense.
This just means that when a energy is moving, energy is moved.

I believe that not all species of life feel that they have free will.
Belief in free-will depends on and comes about from structures which are ultimately unwilled, subconscious machinery which simply moves.

The christians i have met claim that God gave humans free will, but did not give free will to animals, and thus animals are not morally sinful, because they only blindly follow instincts like machines, and have no sense of morality.
Appearantly our human capacity to suppress our urges elivates us up into the righteous piety of morality, and also makes us worthy of the cruelty otherwise known as punishment if one desire disobeys another.

To even talk about this farther, i feel i would need to say nothing but garbage even if not agreeing with but merely portraying any of that.
Through piles, herds and gangs of the inner refuse of the human mind, comes the religion of thought.
With a whip in one hand and a sword in the other hand, the man-shaped God threatens and screams “thou shalt be free!”, and will not tolerate anything else deviating away from, or defying such freedom.

2

free will is suicide- humans are the only ones that get to do it
free will means having the option of ending your will- or existence

an entity far far smarter would not have this option just like an entity far far less intelligent would not have this option

3

I don’t know, man… I’ve known a few people who killed themselves, and I wouldn’t describe it as a situation of free will, but rather of extreme desperation, severe mental disturbance, or at very best, escaping. When circumstances imprison us, do we “choose” to escape, or are we compelled?

The “thought” that we “could” if we “wanted to” provides a sense of psychological freedom, where “sense” = “whiff”. But even the extreme Nihilist who commits suicide on a bet does so by the compulsion to prove a point…

More generally, I think “free will” is a necessary illusion, as is “hard determinism”: the former allows us to make sense of our experience of inconsistency (e.g. that we don’t necessarily do the same thing all the time and life isn’t always boring); the latter allows us to believe there’s a solid backbone to reality (e.g. that we might discover how to emulate and so avoid future moments of chaos). I think the “truth” is not so clear either way.

4

Well, when I hear someone say that he did something of “his own free will”, I understand him as saying that he was not compelled (forced) to do what he did. So, for example, if he says that he married Edna of his own free will, I understand him as meaning that he was not compelled to marry Edna, but he married her because he wanted to marry her. Isn’t that what it means in English?

5

But Edna might not be so happy to find out he wasn’t compelled, e.g. by her charming scent and stunning beauty and sweet, sweet love… Once they’re married, can he still resist her? Is their nuptual bond but a mere valence of whimy, and his “want” a freely chosen desire? Alas, if only matrimony were so!! :laughing:

6

Good analogy Kennethamy. :slight_smile:

7

Eloquently put, Dan~. You’re a hard act to follow.

What is our will free from?

That other things are not free from?

“Free will” puts the issue on a cosmic scale.

But wills are very, very local.

And this is where the whole issue has gone horribly awry - to see will as a moral entity.

It’s a physical entity - it’s you, and me. It’s bodies in space.

“Free will” has it sideways, it’s contradictory and redundant at the same time. If it’s not free, it’s not will, and if it’s free, it can’t survive.

The term has no meaning whatsoever.

I share your pain on this one. It hurts to read the phrase.

Religious mumbo-jumbo.

There are no moral entities.

8

Free will can be a precious commodity if used in pursuits of raising one’s self spiritually.

9

To me, to have free will is simply to be in a state where the relevant parts of our character are able to determine our actions. In cases of moral significance, the question “Did I act freely?” simply means “Was my moral character in charge when I did this?”. We don’t even have to be too pinickity about which parts of our character are moral here, so long as we have a way of separating them from things like basic desires like the need to eat. Animals don’t have moral characters so they don’t have moral free will. They may have some other form of free will that plants don’t, though (for example, they can move from A to B voluntarily in search of food).

For example: if a man is against the Jury for shooting his wife, the court needs to know whether he acted freely. But by this, I feel that all they need to know is whether if his moral character were different, could he have done otherwise? In other words, if he hadn’t have got in a rage so easily, been a well tempered and forgiving guy and not too jealous - would he have been able not to shoot her? Or was there some other factor (like, for example, that he had been drugged, or had aspergus) that would have meant that his moral character was not in charge at the time he made his decision.

This story of free will has, I feel, a great deal of explantory power. Maybe not quite as much as some people require, but then again I do feel that it is often held that free will should be something it can never be: the power to perform uncaused actions. I think this is what leads to a lot of uneccessary debate in the subject, people seem to want free will to be something utterly impossible, then get all depressed and nihilistic when they realise it’ll never live up.

10

I think the problem is the way people tend to conceive of freedom of any kind, let alone of the will - but we’re conditioned to see things as we do, generally.

First, here we are again, egregious in our tendency to oversimplify things - indeed there is a great deal of psychological complexity (and yet also beautiful simplicity, I think) here that I think eludes most of you entirely.

We toss around words like ‘freedom’ and ‘will’ and assume they’re backed by some idea, some depth of understanding of what we mean, either for ourselves or for others - the fact is, for most of us, it is an empty string of letters

Surely this is in part what you mean, Dan. But I think your example of a biological necessity (eating) is rather crude, to be quite frank, as in many ways it is an obvious necessity - a man chooses to eat because his existence depends on it.

It gets much more complex when we consider things people choose to do that they do not ‘need’ to do - at least in the same sense as eating - consider a man, call him Larry, who has his very best interests in his intentions, and say he chooses some x rather than y, assuming mutual exclusion, even though y would in fact serve his real ‘needs’ better than x.

Larry may not be aware of what he really needs, perhaps because he is not aware of certain patterns in his thoughts, inclinations, dispositions, and general behavior which would provide him insight into what his real needs are - what he would want to want if he knew himself a little better, basically.

Any notion of freedom we entertain for the will must be conceived of in a physically limited sense - this is obvious. Our notion also cannot do away with cause and effect, past, present, and future - all this must be interpreted within something of a probabilistic paradigm.

Everything is a process, everything in a constant state of inconstancy and fluctuation - this includes both our will and any freedom we have with it.

Our freedom, at bottom, is in direct proportion to one’s awareness of one’s own thoughts and emotions in the eternally present moment - this awareness comes with observing patterns within oneself, recurring thoughts and feelings, or rather types of thoughts and feelings, and then digging into our own depths to discover their source (fear, desire, insecurity, resentment, etc), and all this presupposes more or less ‘complete’ knowledge of his physical organism, what is more or less good for him, bad for him, whether it be in the types of foods he eats, drinks he drinks, the kinds of people he surrounds himself with, how he spends his free time, general prudence, etc. etc. etc.

Our ability to overcome ourselves - I speak to you, Nietzsche fans - is contained entirely in this. This is freedom, and it is freely limited; our freest will is in fact a willing surrender to the present: amor fati

Wisdom is acquired over time through continual and unrelenting observation of oneself, which necessitates we face the things about ourselves we would rather not see, everything about which we are insecure or are in denial about - we all lie to ourselves, we are all most foreign to ourselves.

Our chatty idleness and incessant thoughts, resentment and anxiety-laden feelings cloud us and hide us from outselves - freedom depends on awareness. We cannot choose something we are not aware of, as a reason, option, or otherwise.

But that silent background of the mind is the source freedom, but is only heard in the present moment. Freedom is a spiritual term in this very sense, but it is no less ‘real’ on that account - observe yourselves.

People do tend to be most ‘objective’ with respect to their perceptions of others, and conversely most subjective with respect to themselves - and it should be precisely the other way around. Many very much are slaves (in a sense) to their own thoughts and feelings (we all are to some degree).

But thoughts and feelings only become real when they are identified with and made real - observe and see for yourselves. This is the essence of overcoming, truth be told.

11

How about this - a person is said to have “free will” if they are capable of being their own cause at least some of the time rather than to be caused upon all of the time.

Here’s an example from my own experience. I will gain weight because when stressed I have a tendency to eat. It’s not really because I’m hungry, although my stomach may only feel a slight twinge. I realized it was more the need to chew as a stress release.

So I thought to myself - maybe I should find something to chew other than food, like gum? So whenever I need to go on a diet, I chew gum. I lose the twinge in my stomach, my mouth is occupied, and so I don’t pick between meals and I lose weight. I think in this instance I’m steering a determined cause-effect relationship. My will is directing the cause.

Whether or not there is free will on the cosmic scale traditionally discussed in philosophical texts may be irrelevant. If I am capable of leveraging whatever cause-effect relationships are out there and steer them to what I want, that’s free enough for me. It’s the exercise of my will in order to free myself in some way from just being a reactive body to various external causes.

12

free will is not a good thing- as i said- free will is suicide- if it were not for suicide there would be no free will !!!

ONCE AGAIN YOU’RE NOT LOOKING AT WHAT MATTERS. the reason the nihilist commits suicide doesnt matter-
only the fact that he has the option matters.

i’ve noticed that many things that you dont understand are because you are a little too simple minded and you really dont pay much attention- you have to try and learn to compare yourself to everything else. what else do you know that exists which can commit suicide? -nothing-

humans are the only entities that can commit suicide- therefore it is a human thing for right now-

the fact that we have the option is what differs us from any other entity. this is a fact- i hope you’ll be able to understand the fact that this is a fact :smiley:
once again…

free will is suicide- humans are the only ones that get to do it
free will means having the option of ending your will of existence

an entity far far smarter would not have this option just like an entity far far less intelligent would not have this option

13

^ Sorry Herd, I forgot about your proclivity for talking in terms of universals. Don’t know how I could have forgot that!! :blush:

And yes, I’m quite willing to admit my own simple mindedness. I will endeavor to compare myself with everything else. Thank you for the advice

Anyhow, some think the beaching of whales might involve a suicidal impulse; chimpanzee mothers have been known to starve themselves to death upon the loss of their infants…

But in the end, I guess I still don’t buy the “suicide as an option” thing as an explication of free will, at least in its classic sense, though I understand your point better now. Rather, I think it’s ultimately just an additional thing, even if uniquely human, that is done in desperate situations. The cornered mouse attacks. The fiddle-playing grasshopper dies of starvation.

The acknowledgement of finitude, though, is perhaps relevant to the discussion. Insofar as one might see one’s existence as expressly limited, and do the live-it-as-if-today-were-your-last-day thing (though, personally, I’d find that rather tiring…), perhaps we might note a “freeing” of the will, or something, I dunno…

14

yes except an animal such as a monkey and any animal does not have true self-knowledge- they do not understand life and death. they do not understand that we are born and understand that we die and that we dont come back to life and then go and kill themselves anyway- thats not the same as an animal feeling sad and if it feels sad it does not eat so it dies lol- a monkey doesnt sit there and think about life and death. yes animals know a difference between another animal and a rock but they dont know alot :slight_smile:

edit: to reiterate- just because an animal can tell if something isn’t alive doesnt mean they understand death- which is a key component in speaking of free will/suicide

15

to choose beyond instinct reaction only

16

This court is using the fantasy world of what could have been, over and above the actuality of what is.
If… anything… then i’d be something else, but i never will be.

Where does freedom begin, and where does it end?
Where does it come from and what is it made of?
At best it is felt as a liberation from a ghost’s tomb.
“Allowance” as a concept, would not be there without first the concept of disallowance, or suppression.
Therefor if a man had no suppression, hinderance or disallowance in him, he would not have any concept of freedom or any sense of liberation, and he would not feel as though he “needed” to “be” “free”, either.

The sensation of hinderance, suppression, disallowance, inside of a man, is also not necissarily or likely to be a real thing, or an essential truth at all.
When a Will has been defeated, sick, stupified and overpowered by a reality, it is left confused, and would not have failed if it was not completely blind in the first place; but this looser of becoming, the roadkill of greater things, the footprints of the great, in some men spurs a faint memory of power. Unable to become, and existing only as a bistandard of true becoming, the true nature of this footprint of the great, (great otherwise known as simply the real and the actual,) can be sensed as a deductive trace of truth. But as man is repulsed with truth, he feels defeat and loss whenever he finds entrails of true and real things. (thus also negation as the silhouette in mans game of the discovery of the objective world, the inescapable nature of what is supposed as unstoppably being real, such things cast a shadow and man lives in shadows, therefor the realist lives in negation).

In the negation of victory which is also defeat, man measures the unreal in his dreams of freedom and oppression.
Although this zombie-desire is made of failures and the dead Will, the slayer of the Will makes it alive by sharing with it the realness and brutal force of actual energy, therefor making it alive.

Now all i have said has nothing to do with truth but instead is a worm in the heart of an imaginary being.
But even this worm i see as greater than a dead Will.
The worm will always defeat the courts, whom quiver and seek to escape - yet never get away from little atheists such as these worms.

17

No matter where this thread goes, i am glad to-day.
A grand number of the spirits of sanity, have noticed me.
Their sabers had been cutting off mythical and mystic powers, cutting some of the devil’s tentacles off of my body.

Today is my better day.
A good ghost has killed a bad one.
There was a sick star which made pain in itself,
but it cannot become through or over me.

In such i have gotten a step closer to being free from freedom.
Two goats arrived and succeeded in eating five dogs.
Even God has descided to offer me a droplet of himself for this request : a request for a good day :
a good day free from stunning reasons for goodness.

I have gained agreement with a warm blooded python 3 months ago; she less so needs the sun, and offers a helpful constriction.
The tiny and air-tight cage of my mind, wrapped over me, prevents me from bleeding to death.
In my total lack of freedom, all parts of me entrapped, without a centimeter of “free space”, there no longer is death, mortality, gifts, creation, dispersion, radiance of The Lights, or anything else which the stars die from.
Total suppression insulates my meager warmth, the star fragment that i only have but one of, and will never have another.
So it is best if this thing is never let loose. If it were to shine and radiate… it would be lost at that same time.
“and if it’s free, it can’t survive.”, said faust.
So the python’s constriction, this prevention of “freedom” - is my survival.

18

Life and death are not dependent on any form of knowledge. These phenomena exist independently of consciousness. Cosmologically speaking, the termination of life cannot be caused by any conscious action, ‘free-willed’ or otherwise.

19

I don’t believe my account relied on counter factuals in any special way. I used them to help explain the story I was telling: but I could well have lived without them if you find the troublesome. There are other ways of asking the question: “was his moral character in charge?” if, unlike most people, you find counter factuals troubling.

One of the main features of my account is that it doesn’t actually include a thing called freedom. The freedom to act morally is explained as simply being in a state where the moral parts of your character are in charge. It may be seen as a skeptical answer to the problem: I am essentially denying that there is such a thing as “freedom” itself, but note I also hinted that that’s because I don’t believe it is a coherent concept in the first place.

I’m not sure I completely follow, but if I had to comment I would say that the desire for freedom that every self has comes from every individuals desire to look after itself. The self always wants to be in charge - because when it isn’t, it ceases to be. Perhaps this is one thing that Schopenhaur missed: when the will is Ounable to act in the physical world, it is nothing. My will will always want to be in charge of me because this is necessary for my will to preserve itself. On the same level, it fears my bodies death, immobilisation or imprisonment, or any other thing that would stop my self from controlling my body. So, the need to be free is born.

You are right, of course, all people fear the lack of freedom and most people at somepoint in their life will question whether they really are free, seeing as it is the world that seems to be a prison of sorts in itself (it limits what the self will can achieve).

20

Counter factuals are quite popular.
They couldnt exist if there was not an imagined factual, either.
All preception starts out positive, then is later negated.
As such trust is the father of doubt, doubt is : trusting negatives.

The words used make no sense to me, but they still are the language of human behavior.

You’ve described the will of life pretty well.