Identifying Free Will

[William]

Fundamental to the Christian Belief Systems shared by a majority of those calling themselves "Christians"

Q: Is "Free Will" the same thing as "The Ego".

Re: Wikipedia
Free Will:

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.[1][2]

Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not are some of the longest running debates of philosophy and religion. Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes.

Re: Wikipedia
The Ego:

The ego (Latin for "I",[19] German: Ich)[20] acts according to the reality principle; i.e., it seeks to please the id's drive in realistic ways that, in the long term, bring benefit, rather than grief.[21] At the same time, Freud concedes that as the ego "attempts to mediate between id and reality, it is often obliged to cloak the [unconscious] commands of the id with its own preconscious rationalizations, to conceal the id's conflicts with reality, to profess...to be taking notice of reality even when the id has remained rigid and unyielding."[22] The reality principle that operates the ego is a regulating mechanism that enables the individual to delay gratifying immediate needs and function effectively in the real world. An example would be to resist the urge to grab other people's belongings, but instead to purchase those items.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #20]

What I assert is that the will, the capacity to act decisively on one's desires, does not do so freely, undirected by controlling influences, but is the product of all the deterministic influences that lead up to the point of acting. So one's desires are determined by all the cause/effect events leading up to the point of desiring. Everything we desire has a cause, and that cause is the result of the confluence of all the factors that go into making it up. Desires don't simply pop up out of the air. If they did they'd have to be utterly random in nature, and I don't think anyone is willing to say that's how their life is governed; by utterly random events. No, people are better inclined to say "I have reasons for doing X rather than Z." Rather than "I don't have any reason whatsoever for doing X, or Y, or Z, or . . . ."

How am I to agree with you regarding your identification of "Free Will" when you blind yourself to the idea of Ego.

I'm not going to be drawn into discussing the ego. If you can't "agree with me regarding my identification of "Free Will" when I blind myself to the idea of ego," so be it.

It's the product of all the events that have gone into creating my dislike of the subject.

Ego is fairly well established as a real thing.

Quite right. I'm just not willing to discuss it.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #20]

What I assert is that the will, the capacity to act decisively on one's desires, does not do so freely, undirected by controlling influences, but is the product of all the deterministic influences that lead up to the point of acting. So one's desires are determined by all the cause/effect events leading up to the point of desiring. Everything we desire has a cause, and that cause is the result of the confluence of all the factors that go into making it up. Desires don't simply pop up out of the air. If they did they'd have to be utterly random in nature, and I don't think anyone is willing to say that's how their life is governed; by utterly random events. No, people are better inclined to say "I have reasons for doing X rather than Z." Rather than "I don't have any reason whatsoever for doing X, or Y, or Z, or . . . ."

How am I to agree with you regarding your identification of "Free Will" when you blind yourself to the idea of Ego.

I'm not going to be drawn into discussing the ego. If you can't "agree with me regarding my identification of "Free Will" when I blind myself to the idea of ego," so be it.

[William]

My mind is quite aware of itself and the world around it.

[LINK]

Your mind - by your own admission - refuses to be aware [contemplate] of the idea of Ego. How can you claim that your mind is therefore aware of itself?

[William]

I'm honestly not convinced about the view that we can't have moral responsibility if we don't have free-will. Even if we don't have free-will, but we do have the ability to work within the deterministic system to choose what is good or bad. We have the ability to change our behavior by being able to manipulate and/or control our environment and nature to some extent. Psychologists try to modify behavior all of the time. We're also able to fully understand our actions, and not act on instincts.

Free-will, as some define it, is not needed to choose any of an infinite number of options that one can encounter. You just need to know how to use the deterministic system to choose that option, assuming that an option is not already what you'd normally want.

[LINK]

As some define 'it' ...

What is 'free' and what is 'will'?

[Purple Knight]

Q: Is "Free Will" the same thing as "The Ego".

No. The ego is just a bit of programming, an add-on to the id that makes it perform better at its basic directive which is: Obtain satisfaction of desires.

If we have basic directives (animal urges) that we can only follow, then we don't have free will.

I do, however, think we could have freedom of will without freedom of action. If you could have a will apart from what your basic directives are forcing your body to do and genuinely want to do otherwise, you'd have freedom of will even if that will couldn't move your body.

[William]

Please tell me, what is the functional difference between your definition and mine?

I dont know what you mean by "functional difference" but If free will was having different options, it would not be intrinsic. It would only come into existence when the options did. No options, no free will. If it is a capacity, then it exists entirely independent of the existence of options. Thus a man gagged and tied in a cellar, still has free will even when his situation affords him no choices. He could still choose if he had the freedom to. He can still choose, even if it is only hypothetically (ie he has the capacity to think..." If i were not tied up, I'd [choose to] kill whoever did this to me").


RELATED POSTS

Can one choose to do the impossible?
viewtopic.php?p=1044685#p1044685

What is the difference between free will and FREEDOM?
viewtopic.php?p=1044638#p1044638

Well, yeah.

If you fall out of a plane, you have only one option - you go down. You don't have free will with regards to which direction you go.

How do you propose that a person can freely choose if there is only one possible option available to them?

Hi Kylie
Even if one were in that situation, one still has the capacity to choose. Having the capacity to choose is not rendered defunct, simply because one has no alternative available to falling. [in the case of your example]

It may seem to the individual in such circumstance that they have no capacity to choose [to not fall because there is no option available to not fall] but they actually still do have the capacity to choose.

For example they could choose to scream all the way to the ground, or to sing praises glorifying that which gave them an opportunity to have lived a life.

They could choose to think of their final moments as an overall analogy for the freak-ride they have really always been on.

They could choose to observe the approaching ground as an analogy to a wall which they might simply pass through as they enter into the next phase experience of existing.

So - the capacity to choose is still available. Thus the will to do so is one thing [which might be called 'free' because it is not bound to the situation...in the case of your example, the capacity to chose is not bound to the approaching result] - and the actual choice made [through willful thought], is another.

Limited choice is not the same as no choice at all. No choice at all = no capacity for will to operate. I cannot think of a circumstance where such an example could be used as analogy for "No choice at all".

[William]

Q: Is "Free Will" the same thing as "The Ego".

No. The ego is just a bit of programming, an add-on to the id that makes it perform better at its basic directive which is: Obtain satisfaction of desires.

If we have basic directives (animal urges) that we can only follow, then we don't have free will.

I do, however, think we could have freedom of will without freedom of action. If you could have a will apart from what your basic directives are forcing your body to do and genuinely want to do otherwise, you'd have freedom of will even if that will couldn't move your body.

I am wondering more along the lines that without the Ego - what makes will 'free'.

Or, alternatively, is it the ego which takes the 'free' out of 'will'?

Considering the basic directive of this animal life which you described as "Obtain satisfaction of desires." that is fundamentally "will in action". It is evidence of a will in operation.

With that position of argument, it appears that Ego is a necessary product of the will in as far as the question "where did Ego derive?" as Ego becomes the inner vessel in which the will drives ahead with, and the outer landscape becomes - foremost, the human form - and everything else, the general overall landscape in which the will operates.

In the case of the will being within a vessel which couldn't move, the Ego the will develops will reflect that. The will still operates so what is the wills 'basic directive'?

I would say it would be something along the lines of "Where there is the capacity to choose"

What gives the will capacity to choose?

The landscape the will finds itself within?

What [if anything] created the will?

Perhaps again, it is the landscape. So the landscape creates the will which in turn creates the Ego-personality. [All of the afore-mentioned is claimed
by Christians, to have been created.]

If so, then the will [being the creation of the landscape] is bound to the properties of said landscape and cannot be argued as something to regard as being 'free'.

The best one could argue is that it is free within the boundaries the landscape gives as a basic directive. But to say so, would be to acknowledge that the landscape is designed to contain, and just like water in a bottle is not free to flow outside of the bottle, a will contained within said landscape is not free but is contained [bound within] the said landscape, and can only be referred to as 'free' in relation to that - just as the water is still water, the will is still will and cannot truthfully be said to actually be 'free' [other than free to the point that the landscape allows it to be.]

So, the Ego is designed to give the impression that the will is free to do as it wills. But if the will creates the Ego, then is it the will which designed the Ego to see it that way. And if the form [landscape] designed the will...one can see a lot of knots that should not be ignored...

Perhaps too, the Ego creates a personality for the will to identify with?

So religion is the Egos way of explaining its capacity to choose and in the case of religion which argues that free will is a gift from a Creator-Entity, and thus when one uses the capacity to choose to do evil, [to use the landscape to commit evil activity], one is abusing the gift. [therefore "evil" is identified].

The "evil' might then be regarded as "that which is enacted by the individual who is under the impression that he/she is " free to do as they will" which in turn can be regarded as "faulty reasoning" because the landscape shows us clearly that this is not entirely the case.

So we could look at the notion that it is possibly the act of the Ego under the influence of the idea that the will is "free to do as it wants", that said Ego-personality misuses the will.

The obvious fault in the above reasoning [when pointed out] is in the premise the Ego employs by identifying the will in that way. The truth is that the Ego thinks it is "free to do whatever it wants to do with will" - This is because the will is [naturally] bound to the landscape and therefore not at all free. The Ego pretends that the will is free in order to abuse the will and blame the will for being the reason the Ego-Personality abuses it.

Since The [assumed] Creator placed will [called 'free will' by those who argue such] into the design of the human form, and the form [landscape] in turn designed Ego-Personality which in turn became the catalyst through which will is then displayed into the general landscape [beyond and containing the human form] showing itself as evident [actual/real] and thus able to be claimed [by Christians] to have being a loving gift of The Creator to the Ego-Personality which forms...then...

William places another log on the campfire and sips at his brew...While the Christian next to him blows out his burning mashmallow and then says "Whew! That was close!"



Do you see where this is going?

?.!

[Kylie]

Please tell me, what is the functional difference between your definition and mine?

I dont know what you mean by "functional difference" but If free will was having different options, it would not be intrinsic. It would only come into existence when the options did. No options, no free will. If it is a capacity, then it exists entirely independent of the existence of options. Thus a man gagged and tied in a cellar, still has free will even when his situation affords him no choices. He could still choose if he had the freedom to. He can still choose, even if it is only hypothetically (ie he has the capacity to think..." If i were not tied up, I'd [choose to] kill whoever did this to me").


RELATED POSTS

Can one choose to do the impossible?
viewtopic.php?p=1044685#p1044685

What is the difference between free will and FREEDOM?
viewtopic.php?p=1044638#p1044638

Well, yeah.

If you fall out of a plane, you have only one option - you go down. You don't have free will with regards to which direction you go.

How do you propose that a person can freely choose if there is only one possible option available to them?

Hi Kylie
Even if one were in that situation, one still has the capacity to choose. Having the capacity to choose is not rendered defunct, simply because one has no alternative available to falling. [in the case of your example]

It may seem to the individual in such circumstance that they have no capacity to choose [to not fall because there is no option available to not fall] but they actually still do have the capacity to choose.

For example they could choose to scream all the way to the ground, or to sing praises glorifying that which gave them an opportunity to have lived a life.

They could choose to think of their final moments as an overall analogy for the freak-ride they have really always been on.

They could choose to observe the approaching ground as an analogy to a wall which they might simply pass through as they enter into the next phase experience of existing.

So - the capacity to choose is still available. Thus the will to do so is one thing [which might be called 'free' because it is not bound to the situation...in the case of your example, the capacity to chose is not bound to the approaching result] - and the actual choice made [through willful thought], is another.

Limited choice is not the same as no choice at all. No choice at all = no capacity for will to operate. I cannot think of a circumstance where such an example could be used as analogy for "No choice at all".

I see what you're saying, and I think the problem is one of principle versus practicality. With regards to the Opening post, is God capable of making a choice? If he knows the outcome of events, does he have the capacity to make a choice?

I mean, knowing the outcome does make a difference. If I watch Star Wars, I know that Luke is going to turn off his targeting computer. Luke doesn't have a choice, because the outcome of the events are set in stone. And whether it's by the script or whether it's by God knowing the future, it's still set in stone. Luke is incapable of making a choice in principle. It's not a case of "he could have made another choice if one was available," because there WAS another choice available - he could have kept his targeting computer on. No, Luke was bound to turn it off, and he will do that every single time. Luke may not know his future is set in stone, but I do, and the fact that it is set in stone means Luke has no free choice. And if God knows what the future is and he is always 100% correct, then the future is set in stone, even for him. And if that's true, then God can't have free will.

[Purple Knight]

Q: Is "Free Will" the same thing as "The Ego".

No. The ego is just a bit of programming, an add-on to the id that makes it perform better at its basic directive which is: Obtain satisfaction of desires.

If we have basic directives (animal urges) that we can only follow, then we don't have free will.

I do, however, think we could have freedom of will without freedom of action. If you could have a will apart from what your basic directives are forcing your body to do and genuinely want to do otherwise, you'd have freedom of will even if that will couldn't move your body.

I am wondering more along the lines that without the Ego - what makes will 'free'.

Or, alternatively, is it the ego which takes the 'free' out of 'will'?

Considering the basic directive of this animal life which you described as "Obtain satisfaction of desires." that is fundamentally "will in action". It is evidence of a will in operation.

Correct, but I don't consider that will to be free. We don't really have any choices about what we desire, and we simply act on those desires.

In the case of the will being within a vessel which couldn't move, the Ego the will develops will reflect that. The will still operates so what is the wills 'basic directive'?

JW was talking about the ability to want superpowers even if we can't have them. I find that to be a compelling argument, but we're nonetheless constrained by our wants. We may be paralyzed and still have the directive, "Go toward X" and we just can't. However, the experience of being unable to act on a directive would be, in my opinion, analogous to what the development of true free will would actually feel like.

I use the example of a girl who wants to be anorexic, but isn't. She has the experience of being out of control of her own body when it goes toward food again and again, even though she doesn't want to. Now, I think the "true self" here is false; simply a higher desire losing to a baser one. But it might not be. The experience of a true self that cannot move the body at all would be exactly what nascent free will would look like. If you could then get that true self to move the body instead of the desires/directives, you'd have free will. And I have to say I have hope for this girl. I want her to have the body she wants. And I think... that just maybe... as she suffers and struggles with this horrible experience of being unable to move her own body or stop it from moving, perhaps she has generated free will. If she has the experience of being slave to her desires, if she has the experience of some true self that is the slave, maybe that experience actually brought the true self into existence.

The "evil' might then be regarded as "that which is enacted by the individual who is under the impression that he/she is " free to do as they will" which in turn can be regarded as "faulty reasoning" because the landscape shows us clearly that this is not entirely the case.

So we could look at the notion that it is possibly the act of the Ego under the influence of the idea that the will is "free to do as it wants", that said Ego-personality misuses the will.

The obvious fault in the above reasoning [when pointed out] is in the premise the Ego employs by identifying the will in that way. The truth is that the Ego thinks it is "free to do whatever it wants to do with will" - This is because the will is [naturally] bound to the landscape and therefore not at all free. The Ego pretends that the will is free in order to abuse the will and blame the will for being the reason the Ego-Personality abuses it.

Since The [assumed] Creator placed will [called 'free will' by those who argue such] into the design of the human form, and the form [landscape] in turn designed Ego-Personality which in turn became the catalyst through which will is then displayed into the general landscape [beyond and containing the human form] showing itself as evident [actual/real] and thus able to be claimed [by Christians] to have being a loving gift of The Creator to the Ego-Personality which forms...then...

William places another log on the campfire and sips at his brew...While the Christian next to him blows out his burning mashmallow and then says "Whew! That was close!"

Do you see where this is going?

?.!

Yes I do. But they'd have to accept your reasoning that whatever little bit of brain meat you think is the decisionator really is only a product of whatever made it, meaning that it can't go beyond that, which I'm not sure they'd agree with.

[William]

Please tell me, what is the functional difference between your definition and mine?

I dont know what you mean by "functional difference" but If free will was having different options, it would not be intrinsic. It would only come into existence when the options did. No options, no free will. If it is a capacity, then it exists entirely independent of the existence of options. Thus a man gagged and tied in a cellar, still has free will even when his situation affords him no choices. He could still choose if he had the freedom to. He can still choose, even if it is only hypothetically (ie he has the capacity to think..." If i were not tied up, I'd [choose to] kill whoever did this to me").


RELATED POSTS

Can one choose to do the impossible?
viewtopic.php?p=1044685#p1044685

What is the difference between free will and FREEDOM?
viewtopic.php?p=1044638#p1044638

Well, yeah.

If you fall out of a plane, you have only one option - you go down. You don't have free will with regards to which direction you go.

How do you propose that a person can freely choose if there is only one possible option available to them?

Hi Kylie
Even if one were in that situation, one still has the capacity to choose. Having the capacity to choose is not rendered defunct, simply because one has no alternative available to falling. [in the case of your example]

It may seem to the individual in such circumstance that they have no capacity to choose [to not fall because there is no option available to not fall] but they actually still do have the capacity to choose.

For example they could choose to scream all the way to the ground, or to sing praises glorifying that which gave them an opportunity to have lived a life.

They could choose to think of their final moments as an overall analogy for the freak-ride they have really always been on.

They could choose to observe the approaching ground as an analogy to a wall which they might simply pass through as they enter into the next phase experience of existing.

So - the capacity to choose is still available. Thus the will to do so is one thing [which might be called 'free' because it is not bound to the situation...in the case of your example, the capacity to chose is not bound to the approaching result] - and the actual choice made [through willful thought], is another.

Limited choice is not the same as no choice at all. No choice at all = no capacity for will to operate. I cannot think of a circumstance where such an example could be used as analogy for "No choice at all".

I see what you're saying, and I think the problem is one of principle versus practicality. With regards to the Opening post, is God capable of making a choice? If he knows the outcome of events, does he have the capacity to make a choice?

I mean, knowing the outcome does make a difference. If I watch Star Wars, I know that Luke is going to turn off his targeting computer. Luke doesn't have a choice, because the outcome of the events are set in stone. And whether it's by the script or whether it's by God knowing the future, it's still set in stone. Luke is incapable of making a choice in principle. It's not a case of "he could have made another choice if one was available," because there WAS another choice available - he could have kept his targeting computer on. No, Luke was bound to turn it off, and he will do that every single time. Luke may not know his future is set in stone, but I do, and the fact that it is set in stone means Luke has no free choice. And if God knows what the future is and he is always 100% correct, then the future is set in stone, even for him. And if that's true, then God can't have free will.

Yes - I created this particular thread to focus on Identifying Free Will and is why I quoted you from the other thread, as I do not see that the idea of free will is a real thing.

So before we can even ask if "God" has free will, it first has to be sorted as to if free will is even a thing. As it stands, I tentatively agree with your assessment that an Omni-Omni entity could not have free will as Christians generally identify it as.

My reasoning is similar to your own, which your can read in the other thread - post#18