Questions for those who believe in free will
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Student
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 8:00 pm
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 31 times
Questions for those who believe in free will
Post #1I'm trying to understand the belief in free will. For those who believe in free will, do you believe that your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes or not? If you do, you're a determinist and do not believe in free choice, since you can't control the causes that took place before you were born. If you don't believe your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes, or don't believe that that causal chain extends to before your birth, then you believe that at some point before your action, an event occurred for no reason whatsoever (purely random). How could this possibly get you free will either? No combination of determinism nor indeterminism (randomness) gives you "free will" in the sense of authorship of and responsibility for your actions. How can you believe anyone is ultimately responsible for what they do?
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Questions for those who believe in free will
Post #81What does the change of prior causes have to do with a decision that is being made at the moment? The two are not tied together. A person that is addicted to alcohol can choose not to drink. A person who has to get to a meeting can choose to turn the wrong way if they wish to. Decisions are not determined by a prior action.If you don't believe your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes or don't believe that that causal chain extends to before your birth, then you believe that at some point before your action, an event occurred for no reason whatsoever (purely random).
Neither do events occur at random. If they did there would be no such thing as cause and effect. A person may want to classify the actions already mentioned as random events even though the person's observation is that a free choice was made. To say that this is a random event is nonsensical because it goes against what is observed.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Questions for those who believe in free will
Post #82How? How does a person choose? Is it an action that appears out of the blue or is there some reason behind it? If so, where does this reason come from? And why that reason rather than some other reason? There must be some kind of because behind it don't you think? And what is the source of that particular cause? And what is the source of that particular source? Thing is, everything arises because it's caused, and with the possible exception of some quantum mechanics events, no cause is uncaused. So what it all melts down to is that there's no such a thing as free will, a situation wherein choosing, deciding, or selecting occurs.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:26 pmWhat does the change of prior causes have to do with a decision that is being made at the moment? The two are not tied together. A person that is addicted to alcohol can choose not to drink. A person who has to get to a meeting can choose to turn the wrong way if they wish to. Decisions are not determined by a prior action.If you don't believe your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes or don't believe that that causal chain extends to before your birth, then you believe that at some point before your action, an event occurred for no reason whatsoever (purely random).
Well, some of those who study quantum mechanics disagree with you.Neither do events occur at random.
Why is that? What would be so different about a random event that it couldn't cause an effect?If they did there would be no such thing as cause and effect.
Such observations are, in actuality, illusions.A person may want to classify the actions already mentioned as random events even though the person's observation is that a free choice was made.
.
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5026
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 152 times
Re: Questions for those who believe in free will
Post #83Agent causation. The source is the agent's will. It's that reason(s) and not some other one(s) because the agent willed it so.Miles wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:18 pmHow? How does a person choose? Is it an action that appears out of the blue or is there some reason behind it? If so, where does this reason come from? And why that reason rather than some other reason? There must be some kind of because behind it don't you think? And what is the source of that particular cause? And what is the source of that particular source? Thing is, everything arises because it's caused, and with the possible exception of some quantum mechanics events, no cause is uncaused. So what it all melts down to is that there's no such a thing as free will, a situation wherein choosing, deciding, or selecting occurs.
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Questions for those who believe in free will
Post #84[Replying to Miles in post #83]
So are you trying to express the view that there is no such thing as rationality? That all "decisions" that we make are nothing more than random chemical reactions. That would then mean that your reasoning that you used to come to the above conclusion is without reason. The thoughts you are expressing above are nothing more than random chemical reactions.How? How does a person choose? Is it an action that appears out of the blue or is there some reason behind it? If so, where does this reason come from? And why that reason rather than some other reason? There must be some kind of because behind it don't you think? And what is the source of that particular cause? And what is the source of that particular source? Thing is, everything arises because it's caused, and with the possible exception of some quantum mechanics events, no cause is uncaused. So what it all melts down to is that there's no such a thing as free will, a situation wherein choosing, deciding, or selecting occurs.
Yes, they would agree with me. The most extreme view of quantum mechanics describes a multiverse in which every possible outcome actually happens. Quantum mechanics does not describe events happening randomly it describes events happening according to probability. With some events more probable than other events.Neither do events occur at random.
Well, some of those who study quantum mechanics disagree with you.
Because there could be no chain of cause and effect. By definition, a random event has no cause which means it was not caused by an effect. This would disconnect all effects from any cause. Every event would have to be random devoid of a cause.If they did there would be no such thing as cause and effect.
Why is that? What would be so different about a random event that it couldn't cause an effect?
This goes back to my first comment. If everything is an illusion, then there is no such thing as reason and cause and effect. If there is no such thing as reason and cause and effect that would mean that the argument you are making right now is nothing more than random synaptic firing and would have not basis in the physical world in which we live.A person may want to classify the actions already mentioned as random events even though the person's observation is that a free choice was made.
Such observations are, in actuality, illusions.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Questions for those who believe in free will
Post #85Fine. And just what determines how the agent will acts? What makes it decide to do A rather than B? Random chance?The Tanager wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:00 amThe source is the agent's will. It's that reason(s) and not some other one(s) because the agent willed it so.Miles wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:18 pmHow? How does a person choose? Is it an action that appears out of the blue or is there some reason behind it? If so, where does this reason come from? And why that reason rather than some other reason? There must be some kind of because behind it don't you think? And what is the source of that particular cause? And what is the source of that particular source? Thing is, everything arises because it's caused, and with the possible exception of some quantum mechanics events, no cause is uncaused. So what it all melts down to is that there's no such a thing as free will, a situation wherein choosing, deciding, or selecting occurs.
.
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5026
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 152 times
Re: Questions for those who believe in free will
Post #86Nothing determines how it will act; it acts freely. The agent decides to do A rather than B. Since the agent decides, it isn't random.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Questions for those who believe in free will
Post #87So why does the agent decide to do A rather than B? There must be some kind of "because" at work here, if not the event would be random.The Tanager wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:13 pmNothing determines how it will act; it acts freely. The agent decides to do A rather than B. Since the agent decides, it isn't random.
In short, what functions as the impetus that favors A over B?
.
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5026
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 152 times
Re: Questions for those who believe in free will
Post #88The agent decides to do A rather than B because she chooses to. She could eat a smoothie, cereal, eggs, oatmeal at home, or eat out for breakfast. She likes all of them. She believes there are good reasons to eat all of them. She decides from all of those appealing options and decides differently on different days. Sometimes she repeats the same thing the next day, sometimes she doesn't.
To which you might want to say that each time we could pinpoint what reason(s) were chosen each time and that those reasons, therefore, determined her action. But giving (a) reason(s) you chose to do something over another is not the same thing as saying some physical forces determined your actions. She had many appealing reasons, none of them forcing her to choose oatmeal over a smoothie or whatever. She simply chooses what she wants to eat from the available, sometimes equally appealing choices.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Questions for those who believe in free will
Post #89Obviously I'm not getting through to you.The Tanager wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:15 amThe agent decides to do A rather than B because she chooses to. She could eat a smoothie, cereal, eggs, oatmeal at home, or eat out for breakfast. She likes all of them. She believes there are good reasons to eat all of them. She decides from all of those appealing options and decides differently on different days. Sometimes she repeats the same thing the next day, sometimes she doesn't.
Have a nice day.
.
-
- Student
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:23 pm
- Been thanked: 20 times
Re: Questions for those who believe in free will
Post #90Hi Foks,
Here is what I consider to be both an interesting and balanced article on the whole subject taken from the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion
Although it is quite a long article, I would suggest it is well worth reading in its entirety.
My own take on the subject of free will and determinism is very much akin to that of the compatibilist. Choice is described simply as the act of choosing between two or more options, but that says nothing about the process that leads to the act of choosing. I cannot gainsay the logic that suggests that choices are either fully deterministic(the result of everything that led up to them) or they are random or that they involve some randomness. Whether consciousness is involved or not, does not change the logic. It also seems to me that, according to present evidence, decisions are made according to the neuronal activity of the brain.
However to have such an overwhelming sense of our own free will appears to be an extremely useful evolutionary characteristic which impinges for instance, on our sense of responsibility, achievement, shame, dignity etc. So, although the idea and awareness of determinism might well lead to a more tolerant and considered approach, (as the article makes clear towards the end), there seems to be an overarching need to accept that it was always possible to have chosen another decision, even though the logic suggests that, at any point, no other decision was possible(unless, of course, a random element is in play).
Here is what I consider to be both an interesting and balanced article on the whole subject taken from the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion
Although it is quite a long article, I would suggest it is well worth reading in its entirety.
My own take on the subject of free will and determinism is very much akin to that of the compatibilist. Choice is described simply as the act of choosing between two or more options, but that says nothing about the process that leads to the act of choosing. I cannot gainsay the logic that suggests that choices are either fully deterministic(the result of everything that led up to them) or they are random or that they involve some randomness. Whether consciousness is involved or not, does not change the logic. It also seems to me that, according to present evidence, decisions are made according to the neuronal activity of the brain.
However to have such an overwhelming sense of our own free will appears to be an extremely useful evolutionary characteristic which impinges for instance, on our sense of responsibility, achievement, shame, dignity etc. So, although the idea and awareness of determinism might well lead to a more tolerant and considered approach, (as the article makes clear towards the end), there seems to be an overarching need to accept that it was always possible to have chosen another decision, even though the logic suggests that, at any point, no other decision was possible(unless, of course, a random element is in play).