Freedom of will, almost nonexistent?

[human1111]

What is freedom?

Freedom to do anything you'd like?
We can't do that. I mean, try to fly like a bird, or live 10,000 years, or even grow taller by 6 inches right now.

Freedom to fill your desires?
And whose desires are those? Who made you get those desires? Are you the one who makes the desires or merely receive them and THINK that they are your own?


Freedom of Will depends on cause-effect relationship between things.
If cause-effect (or action-reaction) exists, then there could be no freedom of will because your current action would always be a mechanical reaction of unchangeble past cause and your future action will depend on a past cause that you have no control of. Does any planet in a solar system has a choice where to fly? When you pull a trigger does the gun has any other choice than to react in a predictable manner?

Same with humans. Our current action is ALWAYS a reaction to some past stimuli. Our current reaction will be the cause of a future reaction for "infinity". Our body works like a mechanical system that can be predictable if you take all factors into consideration. Even personal characteristics/ tendencies are genetic as modern biology starts to show. There are genes (or biological causes) that make you more prone to depression, anti-social behaviour, drug addiction, etc.

Our bodily action is dependant on previous action. Our thoughts depend on fixed circumstances around us. What we think/feel and do has a basis in our fixed environment. Our 'intelligence' is merely a byproduct of the fixed world around us, and what separates us from automata of nature in that we can 'think' and realise that we are under bondage of causality. Absolutely nothing that you do or think is your free, uncaused action. It is merely a mechanic reaction to a past action which lays a foundation for the future reaction. For example your society imposes certain thought pattern on you, your friends, media, and everyone else shapes you in more way than you can realise.
If you were brought in very tough situation, then you would have to steal and kill in order to survive, and vice versa.

 

[Paladin]

Well, I see the Newtonian model is still alive and kicking

I am curious about how you see the difference between reaction and response to any stimuli, and are prepared to discuss the exceptions your model presents.
Also, is there a part of your premise devoted to "First Cause?" Because the action/reaction idea seems to beg the question what started the whole chain?
If it was God, then we must argue for the existence of evil.

Peace,

Mark

 

[human1111]

Well, I see the Newtonian model is still alive and kicking

I am curious about how you see the difference between reaction and response to any stimuli, and are prepared to discuss the exceptions your model presents.

In our world there aren't. I mean in macro scales, sub-light, average temperature, etc. If there are, please be free to post them.

Also, is there a part of your premise devoted to "First Cause?" Because the action/reaction idea seems to beg the question what started the whole chain?
If it was God, then we must argue for the existence of evil.
Peace,
Mark

First Cause:
When we say First Cause, we base it on our perception of time (which actually may not exist as we know it outside of our perceptions). So First Cause is relative to us and not nessesarily relative to something else. What I am trying to say is that we know what is relative to us, not the Absolute which we call the first cause. We really do not know much about so called First cause, we only name it that way. For example, before Big Bang (BB) there was no time, no space, etc. Question: when/where/how did Big Bang Occured, etc. Ok, I am confusing myself now.

About Evil, it is all relative to our current state of mind. For someone who doesn't know the end goal, starving of oneself or hard exercising may seem like a torture. Looking in the middle of the process does not nessesarily tell eveything. A fruit is bitter until it ripens, a painting is ugly and colourless until it is finished.



Back to newtonian model.

Facts to consider:
1. Every Action has an equal and opposite reaction
2. Conservation of energy
3. Bodies in motion tend to remain in motion unless acted by outside force.


Also when you throw a ball into the air, does the ball have ANY free will? No. In fact if you have all the data required you will be able to predict with 100% accuracy where the ball will end up. Countless of simple processes combine to create an organism with psychophysiological features that we then name an animal, a human, a bird or a fish. Science such as chemistry, physics, or Biology can predict what will happen to an induvidial or a group of processes. If we have a superpowerful supercomputer that can calculate all of these processes we will be able to predict exactly what will happen and when. Where is the freedom of will? We are slaves of causality. We under normal (sublight, macro) circumstances cannot ignore facts (1,2,3). Any action that you do on a physical, chemical, biological or social level is a reaction to a previous stimulus. You cannot make an action that was not pre-determined by previous causes as that would violate facts 1&2.A free choice would have to be a blank-state action that was not forced and was not a mechanical reaction to something and it would have to come from an outside force to change you (3). That would mean that something (your action which requires energy btw) could appear from nowhere and be uncaused. That is impossible.

Lets say you have dominoes stack up in a row designed in such a way that 1st domino tumbling over would cause 10th domino to fall down a second later in a chain reaction. Is there any free choice the 10th domino piece has? When you have pushed 1st domino in a way that would in a split second cause a chain reaction that would make 10th domino piece fall, didn’t you automatically create fate? Again in these examples keep in mind that ALL factors such as air pressure, gravity, force, distance, etc are considered and nothing is left to chance. Speaking of chance. In this word view there isn’t such thing. A chance, an unknown future is merely an absence of knowledge or capability to use it to determine a future event.


When the Big Bang has happened, the first cause has predestined our past, our future, the start and the end. Big Bang is just like a domino effect except it has a LONG and countless tree of chain reactions all steming from the Big Bang. Your future is based on your present which is based in your past. You can’t change the past and as such you can’t change the future.

 

[Paladin]

Ok, so let me see if I have this straight.

Randominity is the cause of intelligence
Intelligence really doesn't exist because it merely reacts and cannot respond
The mechanistic model of the universe still stands regardless of other theories like the atomic theory or quantum mechanics.
Since the chain of events ie effect, are fairly predictable in what we might refer to as dead matter, the human mind must be the same. In other words since the ball thrown in the air has no choice, neither do I.

Do I have this right?

Peace,
Mark

 

[human1111]

Ok, so let me see if I have this straight.

Randominity is the cause of intelligence\

I would actually go with desire if we are getting philosophical...

But think about this way, is sunset/sunrise RANDOM? What we call random is something that has not been research and formulated into a formula to make it predictable. Also how can randomness exist if there is no freedom of will (or a very limited one?).

Intelligence really doesn't exist because it merely reacts and cannot respond

What is the difference between reaction and responce?

The mechanistic model of the universe still stands regardless of other theories like the atomic theory or quantum mechanics.

I'VE never said that. Infact I have said "sublight, macro level" to avoid going into quantum mechanics. QM is a new thing and all its weirdness (particles being in same place at the same time, teleportation, uncertainty, etc) may simply be due to OUR limitations or limitation of our instruments of measurement. Also, even if QM is that 'weird' that does not mean that it is practically applicable to our world.

Since the chain of events ie effect, are fairly predictable in what we might refer to as dead matter, the human mind must be the same.
In other words since the ball thrown in the air has no choice, neither do I.

If your body wants to eat or drink, you have no choice but to eat or drink.
If something happens, you must respond. Your morals depend on where you grew up, etc.

 

[Paladin]

I would actually go with desire if we are getting philosophical...

Um.. we're in the philosophy forum. Nicht wahr?

 

[Cerealkiller]

"If your body wants to eat or drink, you have no choice but to eat or drink."

This is patently false as there have been numerous people who have intentionally starved themselves to death.


"Also, even if QM is that 'weird' that does not mean that it is practically applicable to our world."

How can quantum mechanics not be applicable to "our" world? Quantum mechanics is our world. It is the basis of everything we see around us. As such the things that are learned about quantum states are important and meaningful to the macro world we see. Quite simply, quantum theory has shown us that the universe does not consist of cause effect relationships. To a large degree this explodes the entire concept of humankind as being mere automata who respond to stimulus in consistently predictable ways.

Which raises another point, humans do no behave predictably. Even the most educated and best informed of human observers are very often wrong about what a group of humans, or an individual human, will do.

Of course all actions stems, at least in part, from previous action, but there is no evidence to suggest that all action comes entirely from previous events. It is quite possible that human intelligence, and our perception of our own consciousness are accurate. Perhaps we really do make free decisions. That is certainly how it seems.


Side note on quantum mechanics. If our brains are purely physical, with no soul to muck about with the process, quantum mechanics becomes even more relavent to any discussion of free will, because thought occurs on an incredibly micro level, and in fact, much of thought would occur subatomically.

 

[tadpole]

this is such a strange subject for me because my mind takes both sides. 1) due to an inconcievable amount of variables we cannot accurately predict how an individual or a group of individuals for that matter will behave. This is why weather cannot be predicted accurately and why we cannot all see the future. therfore, although "reality" may sometimes seem to be happening around us, seemingly in chaos it is only because we cannot comprehend the complexity of the equation. 2) i also entertain that most people are sleep walking through their lives. they believe they have no influence or control in the world and those beliefs in turn create that to be true. evolution is not easy, neither is breaking bad habits or changing your mind but this may be the difference between having free will or not - mere belief or non-belief.

"the prover proves what the thinker thinks"- Robert Anton Wilson

 

[Geist]

What is the difference between reaction and responce?

Reaction is what your body etc does when something happens for example when your cold your hairs stand and you start to shiver.

Responce is mental not phisiacal.

I'm wondering what kind of freedom you have in mind here freedom of speech or freedom of body?

If its freedom of body then none beacsue we all sucome to gravity don't we?

If its speech then not much in schools we are programed to say polite things that aren't always true etc.

Could you please elaborate?

 

[DrFree]

If cause-effect (or action-reaction) exists, then there could be no freedom of will because your current action would always be a mechanical reaction of unchangeble past cause and your future action will depend on a past cause that you have no control of.

Roderick Chisholm posed this argument in Sydney Hook's Determinism and freedom in the age of modern science; a philosophical symposium. Since my copy of that book is in a box somewhere in my garage, I'll summarize.

Chisholm argued that to the extent that our actions are strictly determined by the past, we're not free or responsible, i.e., the action is not under our control, unless we're responsible for the past. But then the argument gets reapplied to the past. On the other hand, if what happens is merely a matter of chance (probability, randomness) then again we are not in control, and hence not responsible or free.

For Chisholm, however, this paradox was the beginning of analysis, not the end. He was very reluctant to yield to this argument that he took to be in conflict with common sense. In much of his later work he investigated the question whether it is reasonable to try to split the horns of the dilemma (to the extent that an action is not strictly determined by the past, it is just a matter of chance). That investigation took place primarily in graduate seminars and privately circulated papers, so I can't offer references.

He was quite aware, of course, that quantum mechanics is irreducibly probabilistic. It is even more so than contemporary chaos theory. CT implies an epistemological probability: we can't know enough about real events to predict their outcome. For QM probability is a fundamental part of physical laws.

Moreover, both QM and CT imply situations in which probabilities bubble up to the human level. Especially in complex systems such as the brain, it is easy to find circumstances in which probabilities in the chemistry of a neuron would imply probabilities in what a person does in the observable world.

So the situation seems to be this: There are some things that are now impossible for me: I cannot become the current President of the US. But I can choose whether to finish this message or to CANCEL and go get another beer, or so I think. Is this an illusion?

Chisholm argued that there are a number actions that we cannot understand except as actions of people. Writing this letter is one; falling off a ladder (like I did last summer) was not (I was just another physical mass in a Newtonian universe).

The point of this is crucial: we have empirical knowledge about what people intend, hope, expect, etc. We can explain and predict what they do using information about. And our predictions and explanations of what they do using that information is more precise and accurate than any explanation or prediction we can make using information about their brains or bodies or even physical history. Thus our best theory of human action is one that treats people essentlally as autonomous agents. Chishom referred to this a agency theory.

Does this prove that we are free agents? No, but it shifts the burden of proof. Unless a theory comes forward that is better at explaining and predicting human behavior without reference to people as autonomous agents, we have no scientific basis for accepting the dilemma described above. There are some human actions that are neither completely determined nor random: they are the ones that people perform intentionally. If you choose to grab the dilemman by one of the horns, that's your free choice, but not one justified by science.