Questions for those who believe in free will

[Rational Atheist]

I'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?

[Miles]

There are only two ways actions take place; completely randomly, or caused. By "completely" randomly I mean utterly randomly, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused.

I can't disagree that everything I do has a cause. Nothing I do is random, and my decisions will be based on past events. But I'm not a dice. A dice does not have consciousness. I don't believe that randomness is necessary for "Free Will".

Everything I do has a cause, but if I have to choose between more than one thing, I will use my free will.

But that's just the issue, whether or not you have a free will, and I contend you do not.

I think "Free Will" would be easiest to understand when someone willingly, knowingly does something that is not in their best interest. Something that they know they will regret. Dice regret nothing.

Same goes for when they do something that is in their best interest. Trouble is, they have no control over their willing. What they will is at the mercy of all the controlling, determining effects that led up to the creation of the "willing event." And you're quite correct that dice regret nothing, nor should we humans, but we do because we're under the illusion that we control what we do and place a responsibility* on ourselves, as misplaced as such a responsibility is.

Am I correct in understanding that determinists don't believe in consciousness? Don't believe in learning?

Very incorrect on both points. We are quite conscious and many of us just love to learn. Seems we can't help it.

Is a determinist just a passenger.

In the sense that we cannot do otherwise, then yes, we are along for the ride. However, like other determinists, I'd say we all live the illusion. Always under the impression we actually have a say in our destiny, even if it's minute to minute affair. I suspect it may be a self preservation mechanism we determinists adopt.


* This goes beyond establishing who-did-it, and extends to the burden of possible blame or praise.


.

[Mrs.Badham]

[Replying to John Bauer in post #10]

It seems to me that our consciousness would then provide no benefit. I'm no evolutionary biologist, but it sounds unlikely that if we were just a bag in the wind we would evolve a consciousness at all. Trees didn't.

[Mrs.Badham]

[Replying to Miles in post #12]

But there can be no self preservation if you're a determinist. There can be no self at all.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #12]

But there can be no self preservation if you're a determinist. There can be no self at all.

Why not? Please explain your two claims.

1. There can be no self preservation if you're a determinist BECAUSE: __________________________________.

2. There can be no self at all BECAUSE: __________________________________.



.

[Purple Knight]

But there can be no self preservation if you're a determinist. There can be no self at all.

So I agree with this even though I'm a determinist. (First I agree with the bolded bit and then I think the first bit follows from it after a fashion.) What I think she's saying here is that since you don't make choices, there's really more or less no you to speak of.

I agree with this absolutely and consider my brain and body bits of flotsam that are just like any other parts of the universe and float about in it according to the laws of physics.

The self is a construct. It preserves itself because that action provides benefit to the genes carried therein, but we see that I am not me (in fact there is no me) when we imagine that a mindflayer has eaten my brain and replaced it. First, imagine the self as being in the driver's seat. But, since it only acts upon stimuli provided to it, we simply can simply imagine that the mindflayer's replacement brain provides different stimuli to the "self" - but then, it becomes apparent that there never was a self at all, since it is as easy to imagine a self outlasting its brain as there being any self driving the brain in the first place.

[Mrs.Badham]

[Replying to Miles in post #15]

There can be no self because: The “self” is the decision maker. If the decision is an illusion, and there was no decision to make, then the understanding of what the self is changes. What is a “self” without autonomy? It becomes nothing more than a body. Without the ability to make a decision, you loose whatever it is that makes you special.

There can be no self preservation because: preservation is an illusion. You cannot decide to preserve or not to preserve. Whatever it is you mean when you say “self preservation” will happen or not happen based on previous causes.


Without the ability to make a decision, I can’t imagine what the definition of the “self” would be.

[Mrs.Badham]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #16]

You said “the self is a construct”, and you said “it preserves itself “. That sounds contradictory to me. That sounds like the self has made a decision to preserve.

Unless you mean something else constructed it, but then, why construct a self that seems to need to preserve itself? Why bother constructing a self at all?

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #15]

There can be no self because: The “self” is the decision maker.

But what if there are no decisions to be made? In as much as deciding and choosing are illusions the self is well secured.

If the decision is an illusion, and there was no decision to make, then the understanding of what the self is changes. What is a “self” without autonomy?
It becomes nothing more than a body. Without the ability to make a decision, you loose whatever it is that makes you special.

Not at all. It remains interactive with its environment and other selves, among many other things. Each self is distinct from all other selves, and what makes it so is the way in which it is created by the unique collection of antecedent events leading up to its present form.

There can be no self preservation because: preservation is an illusion.

Why?

self-preservation noun

self-pres·​er·​va·​tion | \ ˌself-ˌpre-zər-ˈvā-shən
\
Definition of self-preservation
1 : preservation of oneself from destruction or harm
2 : a natural or instinctive tendency to act so as to preserve one's own existence

You cannot decide to preserve or not to preserve.

So what? Like everything else one does, it arises out of the continuing deterministic events that make up one's nature. I can just as well be deterministicly driven to preserve myself as I am deterministicly driven to pick up the orange instead of the apple.

Without the ability to make a decision, I can’t imagine what the definition of the “self” would be.

Try:

\ ˈself

plural selves\ ˈselvz
, Southern also ˈsevz \
Definition of self (Entry 1 of 5)
1a(1) : an individual's typical character or behavior: her true self was revealed
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

OR

Self noun
us
/self/ uk
/self/
self noun (PERSONALITY)
C1 [ C or U ] plural selves
the set of someone's characteristics, such as personality and ability, that are not physical and make that person different from other people:
Source: Cambridge Dictionary

And not a thing about decision making or a lack thereof.


.

[Mrs.Badham]

[Replying to Miles in post #15]

There can be no self because: The “self” is the decision maker.

But what if there are no decisions to be made? In as much as deciding and choosing are illusions the self is well secured.

If the decision is an illusion, and there was no decision to make, then the understanding of what the self is changes. What is a “self” without autonomy?
It becomes nothing more than a body. Without the ability to make a decision, you loose whatever it is that makes you special.

Not at all. It remains interactive with its environment and other selves, among many other things. Each self is distinct from all other selves, and what makes it so is the way in which it is created by the unique collection of antecedent events leading up to its present form.

There can be no self preservation because: preservation is an illusion.

Why?

self-preservation noun

self-pres·​er·​va·​tion | \ ˌself-ˌpre-zər-ˈvā-shən
\
Definition of self-preservation
1 : preservation of oneself from destruction or harm
2 : a natural or instinctive tendency to act so as to preserve one's own existence

You cannot decide to preserve or not to preserve.

So what? Like everything else one does, it arises out of the continuing deterministic events that make up one's nature. I can just as well be deterministicly driven to preserve myself as I am deterministicly driven to pick up the orange instead of the apple.

Without the ability to make a decision, I can’t imagine what the definition of the “self” would be.

Try:

\ ˈself

plural selves\ ˈselvz
, Southern also ˈsevz \
Definition of self (Entry 1 of 5)
1a(1) : an individual's typical character or behavior: her true self was revealed
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

OR

Self noun
us
/self/ uk
/self/
self noun (PERSONALITY)
C1 [ C or U ] plural selves
the set of someone's characteristics, such as personality and ability, that are not physical and make that person different from other people:
Source: Cambridge Dictionary

And not a thing about decision making or a lack thereof.


.

Self preservation would suggest that there is something you want to preserve. Recognize it’s importance, and feel you have the ability to do so. Self preservation says, “if I don’t do something about it, it will parish.” You have a will to preserve the self, and you will make decisions that accomplish that goal.

[Miles]

Self preservation would suggest that there is something you want to preserve. Recognize it’s importance, and feel you have the ability to do so. Self preservation says, “if I don’t do something about it, it will parish.” You have a will to preserve the self, and you will make decisions that accomplish that goal.

Yup. Exactly those things that a determinant mind might factor into its next moves.


.