Proof for Free Will
So I'm trying to write a small book and was trying to prove the existence of Free Will within a single paragraph. This is what I have so far and am looking for peoples' feedback on whether it all makes sense, is easy enough to understand, and makes a compelling argument for Free Will.
"Imagine that there are two distinct worlds that share the same physical laws but are different in that consciousness can emerge from one but not the other. Now imagine two systems, one from each world, that are physically identical to each other but are different in that one is conscious while the other is not. As you can see, it is possible to imagine this scenario because supposing the existence or non-existence of consciousness is of no concern in maintaining physical laws. This means that while the two systems are different from each other, the difference between the two must not be physical in nature: the difference between the two systems being consciousness. As consciousness is not physical in nature, it is not entirely bound to physical elements and, so, freed from having to be deterministic. This establishes the existence of our Free Will because our decisions are affected by non-deterministic factors through our transcendental consciousness."
I'm also interested in what other people consider to be the currently best proof for Free Will so let me know which one is your favorite.
Edit: I appreciate all the feedback guys, I'm learning a lot. So there's another variation for my "proof" that I wrote a while ago and I'd like your thoughts on that as well.
"In a purely physical world, sentient beings should not exist because there isn't any reason for physical systems to become cognizant. The world should be devoid of awareness filled only with mindless biological machines that ultimately do not experience anything. Yet consciousness does exist in this world, with evidence coming from our own lives, and so the transcendental must exist in order to give cause for this miracle. As the transcendental exist if consciousness exists, consciousness must be transcendental by nature. Now since the nature of consciousness is transcendental, consciousness is not entirely bound to physical elements which frees consciousness from having to be deterministic. As our consciousness interacts with the decision-making process, our decisions are affected by non-deterministic factors thus establishing the existence of our Free Will."
"Imagine that there are two distinct worlds that share the same physical laws but are different in that consciousness can emerge from one but not the other. Now imagine two systems, one from each world, that are physically identical to each other but are different in that one is conscious while the other is not. As you can see, it is possible to imagine this scenario because supposing the existence or non-existence of consciousness is of no concern in maintaining physical laws. This means that while the two systems are different from each other, the difference between the two must not be physical in nature: the difference between the two systems being consciousness. As consciousness is not physical in nature, it is not entirely bound to physical elements and, so, freed from having to be deterministic. This establishes the existence of our Free Will because our decisions are affected by non-deterministic factors through our transcendental consciousness."
I'm also interested in what other people consider to be the currently best proof for Free Will so let me know which one is your favorite.
Edit: I appreciate all the feedback guys, I'm learning a lot. So there's another variation for my "proof" that I wrote a while ago and I'd like your thoughts on that as well.
"In a purely physical world, sentient beings should not exist because there isn't any reason for physical systems to become cognizant. The world should be devoid of awareness filled only with mindless biological machines that ultimately do not experience anything. Yet consciousness does exist in this world, with evidence coming from our own lives, and so the transcendental must exist in order to give cause for this miracle. As the transcendental exist if consciousness exists, consciousness must be transcendental by nature. Now since the nature of consciousness is transcendental, consciousness is not entirely bound to physical elements which frees consciousness from having to be deterministic. As our consciousness interacts with the decision-making process, our decisions are affected by non-deterministic factors thus establishing the existence of our Free Will."
Comments (42)
Only a brain can write a great paragraph like yours. The will is free because it feels transcended ( "from a simple principle") but that doesn't entail that it is transcendent
The will is free when you have in your consciousness lack of uncertainty. You act because you want to, not wanting expectations neither fearness.
Probably some people who acts in this way never noticed they have free will.
It seems clear that consciousness can't come from determined matter. It also seems clear that consciousness comes from what amounts to the matter of the brain.
Consider a cup. The cup is not just matter formed in a shape. The emtypness is essential. The same goes for evil. It is not just a privation of good, but a positive substance we can feel. Emptiness, formlessness, nothingness, and darkness us how we picture randomness, and I would say the pictures you posited in your first post did not contain the necessity that consciousness not be a part of physical reality.
Use of the word "systems" makes the instruction, to imagine two systems - non specific enough to allow you to race past with your conclusion while the reader is thinking - "what on earth does he mean by two systems"? It leaves a bad taste. Perhaps "people" would be a better term.
I can imagine many things; possible and impossible. I can imagine things that are possible in one sense; say, scientifically and technologically, but not in others, for example, politically and economically.
As possible-ness is no limit upon imagination; while the argument works to force the conclusion, the reader is left looking over their shoulder wondering what on earth did I just agree to?
I stop, go back, and look again - and find I do not agree that two physically identical people may exhibit the singular difference that one is conscious and the other is not. They must either both be conscious or not, despite what I am able to imagine. Indeed, reason dictates that if they are identical down to the firing of neurons, they are both conscious and both thinking the same thing!
Cool.
Now all you gotta do, is show that imagination has the power of apodeictic certainty, which is the fundamental criterion of proof.
A compelling argument is not necessarily a proof, as you probably know. Perhaps you might want to decide which one has the better chance of success.
Because you asked.....I hold there is no proof of free will. There is only logical affirmation, and that only under certain conditions.
Well, you lost all physicalists right here (and a good deal of others who wouldn't even describe themselves as physicalists).
Quoting Yun Jae Jung
That's another way of putting your initial assumption. So you have concluded exactly what you assumed at the start. How is that a proof?
You first off have to assume that this is possible. Which is already dualistic (splitting minds and bodies as different types of things).
Quoting Yun Jae Jung
No it doesn’t. You haven’t proven that consciousness affects our decisions. You might want to look into epiphenomenalism because it is what this dualistic thinking usually leads to.
Yep......many inferences possible. Do you have a personal favorite?
That's less a book than it is a sheet of paper. I think people who buy your book will be disappointed to open your book and see only a page. They'll feel ripped off.
Anyway, some problems with your theory:
Why would it be impossible to be conscious and lack free will?
If the opposite of determined is random, then how does that provide for free will?
Quoting tim wood
But is that an inference, or a presupposition? I agree as to the latter, but if an inference, it needs its own ground, either empirical or logical.
How could we tell if consciousness “emerges” in one world but not the other? Would everyone in one world be awake, in the other asleep?
A four year old does have free will, although like us, as you imply, they might if ever only take it out for certain occasions (holidays). The German idealists call randomness and free both spontaneous, but classical matter and in fact all substance (material or not) cannot be warped into a free will properly. Only randomness can be so transformed
Ok. If we imagine (like the OP) a few billiard balls which move by determimistical laws, I don't see how it could be AI. To think is noncomputable, so only a random subject can be, eh, subjected to the emergence of consciousness
I think randomness wasn't understood in previous eras. Modern probability theory, stats, and all that opened our minds to it. When Aquinas speaks of randomness, he clearly didn't know what it was. The OP puts the will in something non-physical which by definition is what we call the spiritual. I believe matter itself is spiritual and therefore there is none of this dualism in my system
Not if you adhere to at least a very modest type of physicalism: supervenience physicalism.
Quoting Yun Jae Jung
I don't understand what you mean by physical laws breaking down the emergence of consciousness. And I don't see how imagining what some people can imagine proves whatever it is that you are trying to prove (some non-naturalist conception of consciousness, which you seem to equate with free will). I get that you are trying to do something similar to Chalmers' argument for phenomenal consciousness, but I confess that I never bought his argument either.
Basically that, yes, insofar as circumstance is a demonstration of us in a casual capacity, as opposed to Mama Nature being the causality. Arising out of practical reason insofar as the objects willed....your “it” in “I will it”, are our own determinations.
This is a thought-experiment that presupposes an actual empirical event. If the empirical event does not happen, the theory does not hold.
Therefore to show this as a proof-strength theory, you must go out and find the empirical scenario you present.
-------------------
This proof has no a priori component. You can't say that "this is necessarily true", as your proof depends on a physical scenario, that can be imagined, but can be denied as well, despite the fact that anyone with sound mind can imagine it.
To give you a scenario that may shed more light on what I'm saying: In the 1001 Arabian Nights, some tales talk about flying carpets. Anyone can imagine a flying carpet. But is that proof enough that there are flying carpets? No, it is not a proof. So imagining a world which you present is nice and neat, but it is not guaranteed that it does or can exist, much less is it guaranteed that it must exist. The onus is on you to find such a world, in physical space, as presented in the scenario, if you want general acceptance of your theory.
I think he clearly meant something spiritual instead of a process by his exclusion of the physical. He can clarify is he wants
Will is instinct? Reason isn’t used for instinct. And instinct isn’t refined or made appropriate. If reason is used for the will, will cannot be instinct.
A human can both think and feel, the one being never like the other. I vote the faculty of will comes first with respect to that which is a feeling, the will being the source for determining what satisfies it, which is for us called a desire. While the cognitive faculty of thought, on the other hand, remains associated with that which may arise as experience, the objects belonging to that, arising only from Nature herself.
You are assuming your conclusion in these paragraphs.
Free will is something we allow to come to the forefront only on occasion, it seems
Well you have a lot of people's opinions about your comments now
I think this. Will is born fully formed....half a will is quite useless, after all....and armored, but chinked. Even a toddler makes moral choices, albeit without knowing what he’s doing, but usually predicated on self-conceit rather than self-respect. The chinks in the armor are filled in with practical reason, once the wearer has established his own moral disposition, which come only with experience.
Quoting tim wood
Oh, absolutely. However, without holding to a deontological moral philosophy, the exposition of how this is so, and why it should be so, is to fall on deaf ears.
Initiate splice, on my mark........