Another "Free Will" debate.

Great Debates
121

[QUOTE=John Mace]
You’d have to posit some supernatural agent (the soul?) to say that we can determine the wanting. I wouldn’t posit such an agent.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think positing a supernatural agent or soul helps: that’s sort of the point. Because the concept is itself flawed/incoherent, not even supernatural intervention or explanatory leeway can get one out of the problem. Souls, at best, could explain how one could make choices and have experiences without a physical brain. But they cannot resolve the basic problem of explaining how one could be free from ones own nature in making choices and yet still be responsible for those choices.

122

[QUOTE=Apos]
I don’t think positing a supernatural agent or soul helps: that’s sort of the point. Because the concept is itself flawed/incoherent, not even supernatural intervention or explanatory leeway can get one out of the problem. Souls, at best, could explain how one could make choices and have experiences without a physical brain. But they cannot resolve the basic problem of explaining how one could be free from ones own nature in making choices and yet still be responsible for those choices.
[/QUOTE]

I do believe that a supernatural “soul” can account for Free Will on a deterministic universe but that is the subject of a different thread. This thread is mostly about the incongruence of a natural Free Will, I believe and I am really trying not to derail it into the supernatural :wink:

123

Apos. Sapo. Deterministic forces compel me to change my username to Soap.

124

[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
Apos. Sapo. Deterministic forces compel me to change my username to Soap.
[/QUOTE]

are we foncusing you?

125

[QUOTE=Apos]
I don’t think positing a supernatural agent or soul helps: that’s sort of the point. Because the concept is itself flawed/incoherent, not even supernatural intervention or explanatory leeway can get one out of the problem. Souls, at best, could explain how one could make choices and have experiences without a physical brain. But they cannot resolve the basic problem of explaining how one could be free from ones own nature in making choices and yet still be responsible for those choices.
[/QUOTE]

A supernatural agent can explain anything. It’s literally waving a magic wand.

126

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It [free will] can’t exist. You might as well ask what a square circle would look like. Will cannot be self-determining.
[/QUOTE]

In other words, this whole thread is about why ishma-kabibble can’t exist?

I don’t understand your definition of the term “free will” (and I’m not entirely sure you do either) but I think I understand it well enough to say that you don’t use the term in the same fashion that I do.

For me “free will” exists because that term means something different to me than what it means to you. If you wish to argue that free will as I use the term also does not exist, be my guest, but I think that would be a different discussion.

127

[QUOTE=AHunter3]
For me “free will” exists because that term means something different to me than what it means to you. If you wish to argue that free will as I use the term also does not exist, be my guest, but I think that would be a different discussion.
[/QUOTE]
Could you define your idea of free will?

128

[QUOTE=AHunter3]
In other words, this whole thread is about why ishma-kabibble can’t exist?
[/quote]

It’s more like why a square circle can’t exist. Free will is a contradiction in terms.

I’m using the actual definition, if that helps.

Ah, well, then square circles exist for me because I’m making up my own definition.

I’m arguing that actual free will is a logical contradiction in terms. I have no interest in made up definitions.

129

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Oh. Never mind! :slight_smile:

I agree that we do not have the ability to determine the wanting itself, regardless of what the perfect Buddhist might think about his ability to divorce himself from desire.

But so what?
[/quote]

I have no answer to “so what?” The implications of the observation that free will is a myth are for each individual to ponder. I’m not positing any "therefores,’ just making the observtion.

But like Apos says, this is a case where magic wouldn’t help. It’s a logical problem not a physical one. Even God can’t determine his own will. As a matter of fact, omniscience and ominoptence only complicate the problem. Can God do something other than what he already knows he will do?

130

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I have no answer to “so what?” The implications of the observation that free will is a myth are for each individual to ponder. I’m not positing any "therefores,’ just making the observtion.
[/quote]

But like I said, you’re defining “free will” differently than most people. No matter whether your definition is “right” or not, when you say those words, it doesn’t elicit what you think it does in most people. Most people use it mean that an individual can make a moral choice between two or more alternatives. Do I steal to survive or do I work for a living? Do I shoot the guy who took my parking place, or do I yell at him or do I just blow it off and find another one?

Magic needn’t be either omnipotent or omniscient-- and it especially needn’t be the latter. If I don’t want to learn Greek, but I can magically make myself want to learn Greek, then I’ve changed my “will” (per your defintion).

131

[QUOTE=John Mace]
But like I said, you’re defining “free will” differently than most people. No matter whether your definition is “right” or not, when you say those words, it doesn’t elicit what you think it does in most people. Most people use it mean that an individual can make a moral choice between two or more alternatives. Do I steal to survive or do I work for a living? Do I shoot the guy who took my parking place, or do I yell at him or do I just blow it off and find another one?
[/quote]

And I’m saying they can’t really make those decisions freely. They can only follow their predetermined will. To put it another way, there is no way NOT to follow your will. Trying not to follow your will requires the will to try not to. That ultimate fnal motivator which gets you off the dime always has to be determined by something external to itself (unless it’s random).

But there you go, making yourself want to requires the WILL to make yourself want to. You can’t escape from it. Trying will your own will is like trying to see your own eyes.

132

Where is Spinoza when you need him?

Yes, free will is an illusion … but it is a necessary illusion for us to exist as conscious/sentient beings: I have long recognized and accepted the illusury nature of free will but I cannot maintain my perception of an I without experiencing the illusion of a self freely making choices. Even the process of pondering the implications of the myth of free will requires me to avail myself of that illusion. “I” cannot exist without it. So Dio is right that you can be conscious without free will, but you cannot be conscious without experiencing the illusion of free will.

So since we must experience the sense of it, why care? Like John concisely: “So what?”

133

[QUOTE=DSeid]
Where is Spinoza when you need him?

Yes, free will is an illusion … but it is a necessary illusion for us to exist as conscious/sentient beings: I have long recognized and accepted the illusury nature of free will but I cannot maintain my perception of an I without experiencing the illusion of a self freely making choices. Even the process of pondering the implications of the myth of free will requires me to avail myself of that illusion. “I” cannot exist without it. So Dio is right that you can be conscious without free will, but you cannot be conscious without experiencing the illusion of free will.
[/quote]

That’s probably true.

It has theological implications for one thing, but the main reason I think it should be examined is that Free Will is a common answer to the Problem of Evil. As long as Free Will can be demonstrated to be (as you call it) a myth (albeit, a useful one) then the POE remains unrebutted.

In any case, I didn’t start this thread because I had a burning desire to rehash this debate but because I was aked to in another thread (by someone who it turns out agreed with me all along).

134

[QUOTE=John Mace]
A supernatural agent can explain anything. It’s literally waving a magic wand.
[/QUOTE]

Waving a magic wand isn’t the same thing as explaining something though, not in this case. We have here a puzzler: how do choices get made, and how do we reconcile a concept like responsibility with a concept like freedom from pre-determination? Saying “oh, a magical elf did it” doesn’t help explain anything, because it doesn’t tell us anything about how those puzzles get resolved (if they can get resolved).

If anyone thinks a supernatural agent can explain free will, then by all means, please enlighten us. But just because something is supernatural, and thus a lot more flexible than natural explanations, doesn’t mean that it can meet a burden of explanation simply by restating the problem and then saying that X does it. Okay, so what? It does it HOW?

Most of the time, the “supernatural” is just a fancy way of saying “I have no explanation at all for this, but I thought of a fancy name for my ignorance!”

A “soul” is a great example. People seem to think it does something or other really super-ultra special in explaining things about choices and feelings and the experience of consciousness that supposedly icky limited cold science cannot. But they never really get around to explaining how this soul thing answers any of the questions they scoff at natural science for not being able to answer. As far as I can, piling an incoherent jumble of words that aren’t well defined on top of a mystery doesn’t get us any closer to solving it.

[QUOTE=Sapo]
I do believe that a supernatural “soul” can account for Free Will on a deterministic universe but that is the subject of a different thread. This thread is mostly about the incongruence of a natural Free Will, I believe and I am really trying not to derail it into the supernatural :wink:
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see that it is a separate subject. If you assert that a supernatural anything can account for anything, by all means, do tell.

As I see it, terms like “natural” or “supernatural” are pretty useless in any sense. Just tell me exactly what it is this “soul” thing is doing, how that factors into free will, and exactly what role “free will” is playing in anything as opposed to something that doesn’t have this mysterious quality. I’m not going to be picky about whether or not something obeys the laws of nature, because I don’t think you can meet that burden no matter what laws you hold to or break regardless. Free Will is fundamentally incoherent no matter what entities or other concepts you propose.

135

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
And I’m saying they can’t really make those decisions freely. They can only follow their predetermined will. To put it another way, there is no way NOT to follow your will. Trying not to follow your will requires the will to try not to. That ultimate fnal motivator which gets you off the dime always has to be determined by something external to itself (unless it’s random).

[/QUOTE]

It is correct, that you can’t make those decisions “freely”. But the entity that is your “I” can still choose between different options, and decide on one of them. So even though the will is not free, I would say it is still true that “an individual can make a moral choice between two or more alternatives.”

Also, you seem to dismiss the possibility of randomness. Do you have a reason for this?

136

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
And I’m saying they can’t really make those decisions freely. They can only follow their predetermined will. To put it another way, there is no way NOT to follow your will. Trying not to follow your will requires the will to try not to. That ultimate fnal motivator which gets you off the dime always has to be determined by something external to itself (unless it’s random).
[/quote]

Now you’re defining “free will” the way most people do, and we’re back to the consciousness thing.

No, it only requires the ability to make yourself want to, which is where the magic wand comes in. Your “will” is just a motivation, which can be any number of things-- even things external to yourself. God tells me that I need to learn Greek so that I can better understand the NT. Therefore, I’ll wave my magic wand and make myself want to learn Greek.

137

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Your “will” is just a motivation, which can be any number of things-- even things external to yourself. God tells me that I need to learn Greek so that I can better understand the NT. Therefore, I’ll wave my magic wand and make myself want to learn Greek.
[/QUOTE]

But why would you bother waving your magic wand in the first place?

Daniel

138

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
But why would you bother waving your magic wand in the first place?

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

Why not? Perhaps it was a whim. Perhaps I flipped a coin. Perhaps I got bored. But, in the absence of the magic wand I wouldn’t have been able to change my will to learn Greek. That’s all that matters.

139

About the different definitios of Free Will. I don’t think anybody is arguing against the illusion of FW. There is a black box that makes humans make decisions in ways dogs normally don’t. That box is likely to remain black if we buy the notion of “if the brain were simple enough to be understood, it wouldn’t be smart enough to understand it”. Neurological science will continue to make inroads into the processes that shape our higher thoughts and the black box will get smaller but chances are that there will always be some black box left unopened.

That said, that box is only black to us. Just because we don’t have the tools to open it doesn’t mean that there is no clockwork in there.

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It has theological implications for one thing, but the main reason I think it should be examined is that Free Will is a common answer to the Problem of Evil. As long as Free Will can be demonstrated to be (as you call it) a myth (albeit, a useful one) then the POE remains unrebutted.

In any case, I didn’t start this thread because I had a burning desire to rehash this debate but because I was aked to in another thread (by someone who it turns out agreed with me all along).

[/QUOTE]

That someone is me and it is the theological implications that mostly interest me. I am particularly interested in the group of atheists who believe in an ultimate fudamental Free Will that allows them to make totally arbitrary decisions with no natural limitations (i.e. believe themselves to be moral beings). I am calling Bull on them because they are quick to reject the supernatural when it comes to applying it to a God but see no problem in embracing it when it comes to Free Will.

Just as we talk about a “God of the gaps” for when people invoke the supernatural to explain the unexplainable, I find Free Will to be a substitue invoked by people who find themselves too smart to believe in God but need something to hang on so that their lives do not seem pointless. An “atheist’s God of the gaps”. The intellectual I-can’t-believe-it’s-not-butter.

If there is no need for purpose in the creation of nature, why is there need for purpose in living it? If life is the product of a random process, why not consciousness?

140

[QUOTE=Apos]
Waving a magic wand isn’t the same thing as explaining something though…
[/QUOTE]

As for the supernatural explaining the inexplicable changes in the natural. Imagine a billiard shot. The supernatural is not a hand that pushes the ball out of its determined trajectory to make it go where you want it to go. The supernatural is the ability to change not only the shot itself (speed, angle, spin) but the size and shape of the table, the balls, their materials and every other factor that influences the shot BEFORE the shot is ever made to make the shot go where you want it to go.

I can’t go much farther without falling in the realms of religion, which I will gladly do if anyone is interested and it is not too much of a hijack. But I hope you get the gist of where I am going with the previous example.