• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Free Will?

Migrated topic.
gibran2

gibran2

Rising Star
Senior Member
OG Pioneer
Senior member
I haven’t seen any threads that directly address this question. I think it’s an important question, because the answer serves as a foundation for many of the other discussions we have here.

Do we have free will? As usual, it depends on how you define terms. I’ll use a very general definition: “the freedom to choose”, not to be confused with “the ability or capacity to choose”. We obviously have the ability and capacity to choose. But do we have the freedom to choose?

Every time we make a choice, either we make the choice for a reason, or we make it for no reason – we choose randomly. Neither of these possibilities implies free will.

So, when presented with choices, we make choices. Although it may feel like the choices we make are free, the process of choosing is clearly not. The brain, subconscious mind, whatever, mechanistically processes the available data, mechanistically makes a choice, and then “delivers” that choice to the conscious mind.

There is no free will.

Our actions and thoughts are governed by neurobiological “rules” – not necessarily deterministic since there may be elements of randomness – and these rules leave no room for free will.

In fact, since anything that can choose must either choose for a reason or choose at random (choose for no reason), nothing has free will.
 
Free will is an abstraction (and illusion) that makes no sense. How could it ever be possible?

How could you make a choice and not have one of the following be true:

1) The choice was made for a reason.
2) The choice was made for no reason.

If made for a reason, then there’s ultimately a non-chosen non-random cause.
If made for no reason, then there’s ultimately a non-chosen random cause.
 
stevowitz said:
so hypothetically speaking

If a person made NO choices...

Pure observance...

what then?
Click to expand...
But a conscious person capable of observation would be making the choice to only observe. Choosing is unavoidable.

Pure observance, although it may be a desired state, is not a state of exercising free will.
 
You are making an argument for Determinism.

I would say we are always free to break away from our deterministic processes if we can see and acknowledge them. This being extremely difficult to do, but becomes easier as our level of self-awareness raises. Are you an atomaton, or do you have complete control of yourself? We all lie somewhere inbetween.

Ahhh, this is what my past experiences would have me do or say, but realizing that, in this moment I feel that it is not the correct decision for me, therefore I shall choose something else.
 
Saidin said:
You are making an argument for Determinism.

I would say we are always free to break away from our deterministic processes if we can see and acknowledge them. This being extremely difficult to do, but becomes easier as our level of self-awareness raises. Are you an atomaton, or do you have complete control of yourself? We all lie somewhere inbetween.

Ahhh, this is what my past experiences would have me do or say, but realizing that, in this moment I feel that it is not the correct decision for me, therefore I shall choose something else.
Click to expand...
No – this is not determinism at all. It doesn’t rule out determinism, but doesn’t require it to be valid. Either your choices have reasons (deterministic) or they don’t have reasons (non-deterministic – random).

You say “we are always free to break away from our deterministic processes if we can see and acknowledge them.” So what causes you to choose to break away?

How is your italicized example not deterministic?
 
Basically I agree with gibran here. There have been other free will threads, and I will say here what I said there. To me, BOTH, free will and non-free will make no sense. I say free will doesnt quite make sense for the same reasons that gibran said..and that non-free will (the arguement against it) doesnt really make much sense either, since it is somewaht counter-intuitive to have an opposition to something of which doesnt exist in the first place. So even the question "does free will exist" becomes irrelevnt, but of course you have to ask that question and then ponder it's implications long enough to even come to that conclusion. Things just are..and there only is. Nothing is fundamentally seperate from the process, therefore nothing moves truely individually.

There are only choices.. there is only will, everything gets a piece. Will is the compass that tells you where you want to go, but getting there is never free.. Entropy solved that one.
 
gibran2 said:
You say “we are always free to break away from our deterministic processes if we can see and acknowledge them.” So what causes you to choose to break away?

How is your italicized example not deterministic?
Click to expand...

Free will.

The example breaks the action/reaction paradigm.

I am curious, how can choice be random in an evolved consciousness? I am having difficulty conceptualizing this.
 
Saidin said:
gibran2 said:
You say “we are always free to break away from our deterministic processes if we can see and acknowledge them.” So what causes you to choose to break away?

How is your italicized example not deterministic?
Click to expand...

Free will.

The example breaks the action/reaction paradigm.

I am curious, how can choice be random in an evolved consciousness? I am having difficulty conceptualizing this.
Click to expand...


See, your definition of free will requires it to be limited within a context..a context of individuality that moves independantly from the whole..that context is basically a subset. But still..every action has an equal and opposite reaction..so we dont EVER move indepentantly when you look at the ultimate scale of things.
 
fractal enchantment said:
See, your definition of free will requires it to be limited within a context..a context of individuality that moves independantly from the whole..that context is basically a subset. But still..every action has an equal and opposite reaction..so we dont EVER move indepentantly when you look at the ultimate scale of things.
Click to expand...

So, everything is deterministic then?

I gave one example of free will, not a definition of it. I believe free will exists, and that which we think inhibits or determins it is our Ego, individual, cultural, societal. On the most fundamental and ultimate scale of things we do choose freely, unless that choice is taken or withheld from us.

Perhaps free will is operating at a level of being of which most of us are not aware?
 
Im not quite sure what you are saying..what I get from reading that is that you dont truely believe that all is one?..To me the cosmos is one seamless fluxuating thing..an ever connected system..so the only truely individualistic momentum is that of the process itself, in it's entirety. For me to think that I can act independently of the system as a whole is just an illusion..ego to me is what creates the illusion of free will, by the way I would define it.

Also, what I meant by your defintion of free will, is that for that example to be valid, we would have to have 2 different definitions of what passes as "free will".
 
To my mind, the analogy of a poker game is great in this context. You are dealt a certain hand of cards (genes, environment), but the player chooses how to play the cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism, the way you choose to play it is your free will.
 
Evening Glory said:
To my mind, the analogy of a poker game is great in this context. You are dealt a certain hand of cards (genes, environment), but the player chooses how to play the cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism, the way you choose to play it is your free will.
Click to expand...

Ok, but thats what I mean by the context..becasue the way you choose to play the cards is based on your neuro-chemical responces...each one of us are just parts of the larger environment. We are nature..but as individuals, we are only PARTS of nature. We are not the whole, we are not in the drivers seet as individuals.

Your analogy works, but it works within its own limits, you know? You can always break down our actaions into smaller neurological responces, chemical signalling etc..and then breakthat down..extend it out into external environmental factors etc..we are part of the system, but the individual is not THE system..only a part of it.
 
I'll try to explain it a little better.

The argument is a reductionist one, but I don’t see a way around it. Every choice we make has it’s source in our brains/bodies. Our bodies (including our brains) are physical objects that exist in a physical world.

Everything in the physical world is compelled to conform to the laws of physics. Our brains are not an exception.

Physical laws are either deterministic or, at the quantum level, non-deterministic (random – described probabilistically).

When you make a choice, what’s happening at the level of the neuron? At the level of the atom? Are the atoms in your brain doing anything other than conforming to the laws of physics? Are the neurons?

Ignoring randomness for a moment, every choice you make has a reason. Every reason has simpler and simpler reasons in a long and very complicated chain of cause and effect. At the base of this long chain is atoms and subatomic particles simply doing what they are compelled to do. No free will.

And we can’t escape this by claiming that our actions are driven by our “spirit” or a “higher consciousness”. If a higher consciousness makes choices, then those choices are made for a reason – they have a cause. So once again, we have a chain of cause and effect – different causes and different effects, but no free will. If we define God as something that makes choices, then even God has no free will.

Every choice either has a cause (deterministic) or it doesn’t (random, non-deterministic). Whether the choices are being made by a computer algorithm, a pair of dice, a neuron, a whole human being, or a higher consciousness, there is no free will involved.
 
I thought of a good example of what Im talking about reguarding our thoughts and actions in relation to neuro-chemistry and why we are not really in controll in the way that "free will" implies. Smoke 200mg of DMT and try to not trip...it's not possible. You cant controll it. You can maybe navigate the trip somewhat, but that again is based on other neurochemistry..

Im not saying there is no soul or anything beyond the physical body..but even that to me, is just part of the bigger system that is the cosmos..
 
I also think that free will is an ego trap..and without ego the notion of free will would not be necessary becasue freewill implies a level of seperation.

...but, ideas such as this are beyond where we are contextaully speaking..in this society, I most certainly am an individual.

Im done with this thread. Ive said all I can say on the issue of "free will"..

Oh wait..one more thing..nothing that lacks contadiction is ever too interesting..if there is no paradox in what you are saying, you might need to say a bit more:d
 
whether i chose to do it or not, i've been reading this thread, and thinking about free will, and after all that thinking i can't figure out if i intended to read this thread and think about free will, or if it just happened to be that way. just wanted you all to know. or at least, if i did not possess the faculty to intend to post anything, at least the probability of my typing this post letting you know what i've been up to apparently tended to 1 over the course of this afternoon.
 
fractal enchantment said:
Im not quite sure what you are saying..what I get from reading that is that you dont truely believe that all is one?..To me the cosmos is one seamless fluxuating thing..an ever connected system..so the only truely individualistic momentum is that of the process itself, in it's entirety. For me to think that I can act independently of the system as a whole is just an illusion..ego to me is what creates the illusion of free will, by the way I would define it.

Also, what I meant by your defintion of free will, is that for that example to be valid, we would have to have 2 different definitions of what passes as "free will".
Click to expand...

Oh, I truly believe all is One and agree that th4e cosmos is one seamless fluxuating system. The individualistic momentum is the process itself, and like a fractal or hologram, you change the tiniest piece of it and the whole picure changes. If Oneness is the nature of things, what's the point of playing the game if every move/play/possibility/scenario/experience/outcome is known beforehand?

Existence is one enormous ever changing system made up by the free will choices of its participants. Just because we are individuated parts of a whole, does not mean we lack autonomy. All is fluid and everchanging, and your acts are independent because you are both the system, and of the system.
 
I think that the illusion of free will might be the result of agreement between different brain regions.

A subconscious brain area makes a (non-free) choice, says to a more conscious part of the brain, “Hey, here’s what you’re going to do” and the more conscious part says “Yeah, that’s what I’m going to do alright. Not only am I going to do it, but I want to do it.”

Our most conscious parts are unaware of the whole conversation and only hear the last “I want to do it” part.
 
Back
Top Bottom