Misconception about free-will?

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's one way I used to think of free-will... I still think it has some truth to it but I'd like to get input from others. Perhaps many others who aren't familiar with philosophy and science might think along these lines, as well.

When I think of free-will, I tend to view it as a decision that I made based only on my thoughts/beliefs. If you say that my thoughts/beliefs are also determined, then I can just say that I am my thoughts/beliefs. So if thoughts/beliefs determine my action, then that is till the same as the individual (myself) determining actions. An example of a decision or behavior without free-will would be when my girlfriend gets upset with me in the car, and it's because it's hot and the AC is not working. Basically, only external influences don't count as free-will.


Is this the right idea of free-will and determinism? If not, how are my actions determined in the above description?

[Miles]

Here's one way I used to think of free-will... I still think it has some truth to it but I'd like to get input from others. Perhaps many others who aren't familiar with philosophy and science might think along these lines, as well.

When I think of free-will, I tend to view it as a decision that I made based only on my thoughts/beliefs. If you say that my thoughts/beliefs are also determined, then I can just say that I am my thoughts/beliefs.

Fine, but aren't you more than your thoughts and beliefs, like your toes, teeth, and brain perhaps, the place where neurons release brain chemicals, which generate electrical signals in neighboring neurons. The electrical signals then propagating like a wave to thousands of neurons, which leads to thought formation? A formation that is specific to the manner and construct of the firings? If the propagating electrical signals specifically result in thought A they certainly couldn't result in thought B without there being some difference in the signals, but there wasn't anything different so you had to think A. Ergo: no free will to think any differently.


.

[Inquirer]

Here's one way I used to think of free-will... I still think it has some truth to it but I'd like to get input from others. Perhaps many others who aren't familiar with philosophy and science might think along these lines, as well.

When I think of free-will, I tend to view it as a decision that I made based only on my thoughts/beliefs. If you say that my thoughts/beliefs are also determined, then I can just say that I am my thoughts/beliefs. So if thoughts/beliefs determine my action, then that is till the same as the individual (myself) determining actions. An example of a decision or behavior without free-will would be when my girlfriend gets upset with me in the car, and it's because it's hot and the AC is not working. Basically, only external influences don't count as free-will.


Is this the right idea of free-will and determinism? If not, how are my actions determined in the above description?

Free will pretty much means an absence of determinism, cause-effect. Science generally abhors this idea but quantum physics shows that reality might well be stochastic, but it all depends upon which interpretation of quantum physics, one favors.

To prove that some system has free will means to prove that it can get into a state that was uncaused and that seems impossible to prove, the uncertainty principle is the reason.

In Christianity, the Bible, the view emerges that God is free will, God is will and that will is the most fundamental aspect of reality not determinism. Determinism itself - if it does exist - is impossible to explain deterministically too, I mean what caused cause and effect to exist?

God's will causes but is not caused, will can create determinism but is not subject to it, we too have will it seems.

[Purple Knight]

Here's one way I used to think of free-will... I still think it has some truth to it but I'd like to get input from others. Perhaps many others who aren't familiar with philosophy and science might think along these lines, as well.

When I think of free-will, I tend to view it as a decision that I made based only on my thoughts/beliefs. If you say that my thoughts/beliefs are also determined, then I can just say that I am my thoughts/beliefs. So if thoughts/beliefs determine my action, then that is till the same as the individual (myself) determining actions. An example of a decision or behavior without free-will would be when my girlfriend gets upset with me in the car, and it's because it's hot and the AC is not working. Basically, only external influences don't count as free-will.


Is this the right idea of free-will and determinism? If not, how are my actions determined in the above description?

I don't see a flaw in that. It means you determine your actions but they're still set in stone by the laws of physics because you're still a physical machine, just a complex fleshy sort of machine. The statement I highlighted just means nobody is forcing you. It doesn't mean you're not a clacker ball, that strikes the next because of, and with proportion to, the force with which it was struck by the one before it. It means you're a lot of clacker balls. And there's still a meaningful difference between someone who is one clacker ball, who lashes out when overheated, and someone who is many clacker balls, because the person who is many clacker balls has a complex gate system and through that, has the ability to make rational choices.

[fredonly]

Is this the right idea of free-will and determinism? If not, how are my actions determined in the above description?

Your description is consistent with compatibilism - a concept of "free will" that's consistent with determinism. By contrast, "libertarian free will" (LFW) is the concept of free will that denies determinism. Here's a good article about this in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

It is logically impossible to prove which version of free will is true. On the other hand, the primary reason people deny determinism is because they want to believe there is LFW, typically for theological reasons.

[William]

Is this the right idea of free-will and determinism? If not, how are my actions determined in the above description?

Your description is consistent with compatibilism - a concept of "free will" that's consistent with determinism. By contrast, "libertarian free will" (LFW) is the concept of free will that denies determinism. Here's a good article about this in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

It is logically impossible to prove which version of free will is true. On the other hand, the primary reason people deny determinism is because they want to believe there is LFW, typically for theological reasons.

In light of that, what do you make of the following?

In Christianity, the Bible, the view emerges that God is free will, God is will and that will is the most fundamental aspect of reality not determinism. Determinism itself - if it does exist - is impossible to explain deterministically too, I mean what caused cause and effect to exist?

God's will causes but is not caused, will can create determinism but is not subject to it, we too have will it seems.

[fredonly]

It sounds like a unique, but unconvincing, "first cause" argument. The premise: free-willed intentionality (i.e. "God") exists uncaused, with the power and knowlwdge to produce a fully functioning physical universe that would lead to the appearance of intelligent life.

IMO, a much simpler premise is that the bedrock of reality has properties that necessitate its evolution- an evolution that is (in principle) predictable because it's manifests as laws of nature.

The bedrock of reality (whether it's "God" or a quantum field) necessarily exists uncaused and without explanation. But "God" entails something vastly more complex, and thus, implausible.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #7]

It sounds like a unique, but unconvincing, "first cause" argument. The premise: free-willed intentionality (i.e. "God") exists uncaused, with the power and knowlwdge to produce a fully functioning physical universe that would lead to the appearance of intelligent life.

Yes - I agree.
This idea stems from supernaturalism and is one of the numerous philosophies derived from that belief in a supernatural creator.
The inability to be able to explain why this supernatural being which caused the natural universe, would be uncaused leaves the door open for the problem of infinite regress.

IMO, a much simpler premise is that the bedrock of reality has properties that necessitate its evolution- an evolution that is (in principle) predictable because it's manifests as laws of nature.

That is more along the lines of Natural Philosophy. It is simpler because it rejects the unprovable layer of supernaturalism/a supernatural realm which caused this natural realm to exist.
Rather, the universe is in a constant state of change re its creation.

The bedrock of reality (whether it's "God" or a quantum field) necessarily exists uncaused and without explanation. But "God" entails something vastly more complex, and thus, implausible.

Or, perhaps a Universal Mind which organizes the matter/quantum field into functional forms which it can diversify into for the experience and whatever else such would provide it with.

(Natural Philosophy argues that mindfulness is actually a physical thing as minds have to be physical in order to influence physical things and that the interaction between unseen and seen things does not mean that the unseen things are either hallucinations or supernatural in order to explain the existence of mindfulness/minds as these can be explained naturally.)

[fredonly]

Or, perhaps a Universal Mind which organizes the matter/quantum field into functional forms which it can diversify into for the experience and whatever else such would provide it with.

A universal mind seems an extravagant conjecture, since minds are quite complex.

[William]

Or, perhaps a Universal Mind which organizes the matter/quantum field into functional forms which it can diversify into for the experience and whatever else such would provide it with.

A universal mind seems an extravagant conjecture, since minds are quite complex.

Please explain the philosophy you are coming from re your reply.