A question about free will
To have free will is to have the ability to make choices which are not influenced by factors unknown to us. That's to say we're fully in control of our lives.
Free will is defined in terms of the ability to choose freely.
Said differently, no choice no free will.
[I]Choice, the ability to make one[/i] is the cornerstone into any investigation of free will.
What is choice?
I undersand it's a road crossing. There is more than one path to take and, if we have free will, we can choose, unaffected by any factors, to travel down any one of those paths.
In short, free will is existentially dependent on a decision tree. I used a computer term (''decision tree'') intentionally because it is important to what I think is wrong with either the definition of free will or, more vitally, to our ability to solve this riddle.
[I]Decision trees[/i] are basically algorithms which are step-by-step processes that guide a computer through multiple choice scenarios. What is important to note is that decision trees can be coded/programmed enforced by an another which means the ability to make choices, the key component of our definition of free will, can arise from outside and unknown to us.
To emphasize it is possible to program a computer with the ability to make choices BUT the computer would NOT have free will.
In other words, the operational definition of free will, as an ability to make choices suffers a critical failure.
Remind yourself of the fact that the ability to make choices is the term that is essential to the definition of free will and free is just a qualifying adjective. If the ability to make choices, as defining free will, is programmable (without our knowledge), then the definition of free will is, to take it lightly, problematic.
So, at a very basic level, the idea of free will is flawed for the reason I outlined above.
Your thoughts...
Free will is defined in terms of the ability to choose freely.
Said differently, no choice no free will.
[I]Choice, the ability to make one[/i] is the cornerstone into any investigation of free will.
What is choice?
I undersand it's a road crossing. There is more than one path to take and, if we have free will, we can choose, unaffected by any factors, to travel down any one of those paths.
In short, free will is existentially dependent on a decision tree. I used a computer term (''decision tree'') intentionally because it is important to what I think is wrong with either the definition of free will or, more vitally, to our ability to solve this riddle.
[I]Decision trees[/i] are basically algorithms which are step-by-step processes that guide a computer through multiple choice scenarios. What is important to note is that decision trees can be coded/programmed enforced by an another which means the ability to make choices, the key component of our definition of free will, can arise from outside and unknown to us.
To emphasize it is possible to program a computer with the ability to make choices BUT the computer would NOT have free will.
In other words, the operational definition of free will, as an ability to make choices suffers a critical failure.
Remind yourself of the fact that the ability to make choices is the term that is essential to the definition of free will and free is just a qualifying adjective. If the ability to make choices, as defining free will, is programmable (without our knowledge), then the definition of free will is, to take it lightly, problematic.
So, at a very basic level, the idea of free will is flawed for the reason I outlined above.
Your thoughts...
Comments (50)
I remember as a child, I told my older brother that it was impossible to choose to do something that is not what you most want to do at that moment. He tried to prove me wrong by slapping his head and said "See, I didn't want to slap my head by I did it.", and I explained that he wanted to prove me wrong so that is what he most wanted to do at that moment.
With this, it would seem that a computer program could have a function, Desirability(X) that returns a measure of desirability of a choice, X. It could be written like this: IF X == "eating a freshly baked chocolate chip cookie" THEN return 1000000, ELSE IF X == "eating moldy green bread" THEN return -2000. Then it could have a higher level function, FreeWill(Y) where Y is a set of choices, that simply walks through all the elements within Y and returns the one that returns the highest value of Desirability().
We can expand on this with more complexity, with many more choices. Perhaps it has internal state that it uses in the desirability function. For example, if it is very hungry, then the desirability of eating the chocolate chip cookie goes way up, while eating the moldy green bread might go up just a little bit.
Wouldn't this computer program look like it is making free will choices?
Expressive answer, dedicated to Chinese language learners:
"To have free will is to have the ability to make choices which are not influenced by factors unknown to us. That's to say we're fully in control of our lives."
This is too excessive for me. However, it is also questionable. I call free will deciding to go to an Antonioni film, rather than a Bergman film, since I enjoy Antonioni more. However, based on the truth that I missed the Antonioni film, I still feel, somewhat free, in that I choose to see the Bergman film, though, with less enthusiasm to be sure! In this, my past is part of the decision making. Now, why would knowing about something in my past, rather than if they were not known, make them more free? That part of your definition seems bizarre.
For instance, say I want to read Chinese texts, concerning Chuang Tzu's anecdotes about Confucius. What good does it do to tell me that I know my not having learned Chinese prevents this? How could I know every last thing that ever happened in the universe that led to me not having that positive freedom!!!? You are excessive. Instead, if I ask, what is it I call freedom, I start looking from the truth.
Man is limited, knowledge is vast as hell!
That is popular yet not suitable for an elaborate discussion about the subject.
I'll argue it is more accurate to think of that, which sets purposes. This is important insofar as this is different from choosing means.
A decision tree is indeed a good illustration for formal freedom of decision. But even if there is only one decision it is easy to see and say that you can want to do so or not.
Kant's categorial imperative for example really is meant to concretize itself in the form of purposes no rational being could not want. This is when it's free will, as it is free and rooted in pure reason, is at the same time it's duty. He never says you could not act in a way that, with a lillte more thought on it, would have turned out to achieve a diametral outcome. The other way around there may be a hypothetical situation where your will, as it is at the same time your duty, does not leave any choices.
Yes, in Kant's sense, unconstrained choice-worthiness is freedom. I.e., human bliss. The beautiful, therefor, is the free. For beauty is as such desirable and nothing more is to be known of it, but that it is what one favors as such. It is practical glamour par excellence. Exalt and rejoice, dwelling place of the internet, great is freedom in your midst! For I speak with genuinely comely felicity. On the other hand, perhaps intelligence is most choice-worthy, or strength? Or, was it rather health? Is to be healthy, to be free, since one would always choose health? Or, is being in bliss true knowledge?
And yet, knowledge of blind nature, and its freedoms, do not care for bliss at all. Liberty is then power to effect what is.
Dignity arises from the subject's reflection of itself. Freedom has always been bought at the price of estrangement.
Not sure what this has to do with philosophy. Sounds like naive personal reflections...
Don't you think Kant considers non-estrangement as more free? The true and proper shoemaker is free only because he works according to the laws of shoemaking spontaneously. Kant calls spontaneous knowledge of the good freedom.
When people dance, do they make "decisions"?, not when they are free. Or, the less the more they are free. To know every "factor" sounds the the privation of freedom.
I doesn't seem to make sense to say freedom and deliberation are the same, as your notion of freedom implies. If I know, then I am certain of the outcome, and therefor not free.
The fact that we continue to ask questions that have effectively been answered, suggests (to me at least) that the answer already tendered by Shopenhauer (we do not have free will) is entirely correct.
If indeed we had a choice we would not continue to ask the same question, and in this case philosophy and reason would rule the world.
M
Not sure how anything involving a decision tree, based on blind causal outcomes, could be other than arbitrary. Unless the knowing was extended to mean wisdom, i.e., knowing that some state of affairs was wholly choice-worthy for its own sake, the knowing is fundamentally arbitrary.
That seems upside down. Since, if one asks about free will from experience, it means choices we make all day long, freely. Ergo, it names an undeniable feature of daily life.
In respect of free will, we are ultimately asking from whence thought comes.
Schopenhauer writes:
"Now if we ask whether the will itself is free, we are asking whether it is in conformity with itself; and this of course is self evident, but it also tells us nothing. As a result of the empirical concept of freedom we have: I am free if I can do what I will, and the freedom is decided by this 'what I will'. But now since we are asking about the freedom of willing itself, this question should accordingly be expressed as follows: 'Can you also will what you will?' This appears as if the willing depended on yet another willing lying behind it. And supposing that this question were answered in the affirmative , there would soon arise the second question: Can you also will what you will to will?' And thus it would be pushed back to an infinity..."
The will is antecedant to both the thought and the subsequent deed, and therefore cannot logically be deemed free.
When are we going to get over it?
Perhaps we cannot get over it because we have no choice but to follow our will's regardless of logic and reason.
The supreme freedom may lie the realization that freedom is a delusion.
M
This is an error. Judging what is by the standard of the law of thought, called consistency, or non-contradiction. A performative contradiction results! As you see, I freely will to controvert this topic.
Now, there is something one calls freedom. What is it? Or, shall we say, free will?
Schopenhauer wills that we call into question the human being, is there a human being? Yes, Ronell says, when will the overman come, the getting over? Ergo, she wills to make a ramshackle house of this inquiry.
There is something we call free will, what is it? I don't see what "getting over it" could mean beside from no longer freely willing to question what is. However, that is unlikely, for humans are, by their essence, questioning, ergo, free, beings.
I don't agree with this notion of regress. In truth, one looks into the future, say, looking at what will happen when I send the post, and one wills out of this vision. So there is no regress, it is the living going beyond of past and future, of the ground of what has been as it now stands here, and what will be, as it guides what is to be willed that is willed in the willing of will. Although, true, Nietzsche did not see it this way. For, he was, I fear, far too into that genuine Rausch!
If opting for something you do not deem reasonable you're not acting rationally.
Holy shit- what is all this mumbo-jumbo?
"This is an error. Judging what is by the standard of the law of thought, called consistency, or non-contradiction. A performative contradiction results! As you see, I freely will to controvert this topic."
What is this "law of thought" that you refer to, is it a law of your own making?
"As you see I freely will to controvert this topic"
No: As I see it, you lack the freedom to do anything other than that which you do.
"Schopenhauer wills that we call into question the human being, is there a human being? Yes, Ronell says, when will the overman come, the getting over? Ergo, she wills to make a ramshackle house of this inquiry."
What does any of this mean? Are you drunk? Speak or write in plain english and make your point if you have one.
"There is something we call free will, what is it? I don't see what "getting over it" could mean beside from no longer freely willing to question what is. However, that is unlikely, for humans are, by their essence, questioning, ergo, free, beings."
"by their essence questioning ergo free beings"
That is not a philosophical statement it is perhaps a 'spiritual' one. Spirituality or 'essences'... entirely illogical and have no place in Philosophical dialogue as a reasoning tool. Again one questions the influence of a narcotic behind this assertion.
"I don't agree with this notion of regress. In truth, one looks into the future, say, looking at what will happen when I send the post, and one wills out of this vision. So there is no regress, it is the living going beyond of past and future, of the ground of what has been as it now stands here, and what will be, as it guides what is to be willed that is willed in the willing of will. Although, true, Nietzsche did not see it this way. For, he was, I fear, far too into that genuine Rausch!"
Absolute mumbo jumbo... you have offered nothing here, no counter-reasoning and no basis for counter reasoning.. just makey-uppy silly stuff. If you disagree with something the fact that you disagree in itself provides no evidence as to the logic or reasoning upon which you found your disagreement. It simply basis your disagreement upon a rather inflated notion of that which constitutes your notion of what an "I" is. It is philosophy and not you or "I" that are important here.
Neitzsche would no doubt find your fear upon his behalf, to be quite ridiculous!
I can't go on....tis too painful
Moderator where art thou?
We are here for philosophy, not for the worship of the "I"
M
Well stated Brian. Voltaire would be proud.
"if you wish to converse with me: define your terms "
What is 'will' in the context of having 'free will'.
'Will' if we are to locate it, must be THE fundamental basis of thought, its origin or initiator. The fact that it (will) must precede the formation of the notional construct "I" in order to effect the construction of the "I" itself, exposes the uncomfortable reality that it (the will) exists prior to the personal construct that is the "I".
If wecan state for example 'all human behaviour is motivated by instinct', and this statement is true (I believe it is true). Then we might equate human will with instinct or innate primordial imperative.
Therefore when we 'ask what is will?'' one might reply that it might be equated with the deepest instinctual imperatives, which are the basis of all desires and the motivation of all behaviours.
I cannot offer a definition for 'freedom' in this context as I do not believe there is such a thing as 'free-instinct'. Instincts are innate imperatives that may have deriviations themselves but these must lie outside of the individual or species within the overall construct of nature itself.
I agree with Schopenhauer that our supposedly free acts are ultimately determined by factors that determine our desires, needs and intentions, and we cannot control these factors because we are not even conscious of them.
Now, the question is why some people still refuse to acknowledge this. Maybe that's because there is a resistance in people to widen their views, and in this case you must widen your view in order to include those factors that are behind our desires, needs or intentions. There is probably an evolutionary pressure not to open your mind too much because focusing on the big picture makes you lose sight of the details, in this case the practical everyday details, which paralyzes you and decreases your chances of survival and reproduction.
Of course, having your mind too closed has its disadvantages too, so one needs to be flexible in widening and narrowing one's perspective depending on the situation.
I guess the evolutionary pressure in modern societies has more to do with the need to think twice - hard - before doing something foolish. It only gets as good as it gets but this should better be "good enough".
Domination is conceptually absolute.
I define 'Will' as the Influence generated by a Being towards an Activity. I also consider 'Will' to be synonymous with 'Impulse' or 'Cause' though our use of them in daily occurrences may imply the latter are of lesser degrees.
I state that 'Freedom' is the ultimate attribute of LIFE. To me, the word 'freedom' is synonymous with 'absolute'. It is the adjective which best describes LIFE. Scientists state that: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." Thus, they imply 'Energy is Omni-Scient/Potent/Present', which is the same definition given for 'GOD' by those who claim such faith. It is the definition I give to LIFE.
From all that, I would posit that 'Will' is a tool/mechanism which LIFE employs. It may be that in the hierarchy/order of things, 'Will' is second only to LIFE. Since LIFE is essentially 'Free' (without constrains), I believe the term 'Free-Will' to be the human way of stating the realisation of that profound truth as well as an attempt to put it into practice by working it through our awareness first.
@Marcus de Brun
"Matter does not think, yet water does not flow into arbitrary directions.
If opting for something you do not deem reasonable you're not acting rationally."
Reason may not be reasonable. Supposing, by analogy, that our psychological grounds for holding an opinion are inescapable. One makes defective judgments constantly, however, only against the measure of new judgments, supposed to be more true, or true simpliciter.
Dear person who forgets that Mies van der Rohe’s design of Alois Riehl’s house in Neubabelsberg was simple, though, rather charming. Quite unlike yourself! while, likely, you have conceived a perpetual endowment within your body, in the form of hate for Sophie Jung, because she looks like a junger Chus Martinez (at least in one roaring photo), this is only due to your neighing essence, which, according to Pascal, is la pensée. However, this essence is useless, though everything in the world is useful in its own way.
"What is this "law of thought" that you refer to, is it a law of your own making?"
Sometimes this is called a part of prima philosophia. Or, the basic rules of classical logic as the fundamental ground of classical philosophic discussion. However, it is a raising to awareness of the ordinary claim that if someone at one time says, the earth stands still, and in the next breath, it moves!, they say the-thing-that-is-not, i.e., they lie according to the view that contradiction and lie are the same.
“No: As I see it, you lack the freedom to do anything other than that which you do.”
I call something freedom. For instance, sending this post.
“What does any of this mean? Are you drunk? Speak or write in plain english and make your point if you have one.”
The genius of lazy logos is leaden in the depths of your body and soul.
“That is not a philosophical statement it is perhaps a 'spiritual' one.”
Sophia means as much wisdom as knowledge for the Greeks, dear simple one. There is no “spiritual” in ancient Greece. Or, what would it be? Surely not cultic practices and muthos? Neither is there belief nor religion. Remember, Socrates, who most take to be a philosopher, defined the human essence as investigation, saying, whoever does not investigate lives no human life. Ergo, we would have to ask, is investigation questioning?
Horkheimer, Adorno: Dialectic of Enlightenment
"What is choice?
I undersand it's a road crossing. There is more than one path to take and, if we have free will, we can choose, unaffected by any factors, to travel down any one of those paths."
It is problematic to say free will choices are "unaffected by any factors." Choices are the product of factors ( e.g. beliefs, objectives, desires, whims, perverseness...). What you're missing is that there is an agent who is responsible for the ultimate choice.
A computer program is not responsible for the outcome of following a decision tree. A human is responsible because the decision is based on factors of his own choosing - even if he chose to follow a scripted decision tree. i.e. we own our choices.
Yet the everyday conception is satisfied with something being a "computer failure".
That’s what I’m trying to show. Choice making can be programmed as in a computer. That voids the ability to make choices as a method to ascertain the existence of free will. I mean let’s take free=red and flower=will/ability to make choices. So free will = red flower. Since will/ability to make choices can be programmed deterministically it follows that the flower is no longer a useful means of distinguishing free will from no free will. In other words the flower is not worthy so no point in discussing whether it is red (free) or not.
Quoting InternetStranger
We can only free ourselves of the influences we are aware of know. In short we must know what’s affecting our decisions before we can say we’re acting on our own free will or not. Quoting Heiko
This is another problem with the idea of free will. Rationality is a guideline for thinking and as such constrains our choices. To act in a rational way is to limit one’s choices. In short to be rational is not to be free.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
But answers may change form as time passes and new knowledge is gained.
The question of free will is not settled in my view. Schopenhauer had his views but even the greatest make errors.
I agree entirely. Free will is incredibly flawed in both a realistic and religious sense (Not to sound condescending).
Free will is the idea that we have the power to make our own decisions of which cannot be influenced by anything but our own infliction. But logically speaking, we have no choices at all. In linguistic terms, even the word 'choice' is incredibly flawed. The definition of 'choice' is an act of choosing between two or more possibilities. Breaking this down logically, doesn't this suggest that we have already been given said possibilities otherwise there would be no choice to make. Having the possibilities there just shows that our choice has either been influenced or already made for us. It's like your parents asking you what you want for your birthday but limiting your choices down to a space toy. That is your decision being influenced because you haven't had the full control over the situation and therefore, you do not have free will over any situation where you must make a decision because they are preemptively made for you.
In terms of religion, the idea of free will is paradoxical and is somewhat illogical. To those religious believers that believe in the afterlife, being heaven and hell, how can you justify free will? If God is all-loving and benevolent, then he would most definitely not take away your precious gift of free will in the afterlife, would he? If he does then he is stripping you of your own decisions, therefore, stripping himself of his omnibenevolence. So, God should let you keep your free will whether you go to heaven or hell. Now, let's say you get into heaven. How do you justify bad thoughts or bad actions? Because we have the free will to do them in heaven so is it still heaven if bad exists? Also, the same for hell. People would still have the desire to do good things in hell, so is does hell exist if good exists within it? I am fully aware that my analogy only applies to the afterlife but the applications to real life are incredibly strong. Free will cannot exist in the world because decisions are already made for us before we even do them. There are psychological studies proving that our brain makes a decision 5-10 seconds before we consciously realize, hence, who is making the choice?
Formally the number of potential choices increases when thinking about which things one should not do in any case. Nor is an "objective" decision tree an adequate model for the experience of everyday decision-making neither can be a process guided by reason be deemed to come to arbitrary decisions.
Quoting GreyScorpio
Is this that important? Won't the quality of the biases produced that way depend largely on how you approach things on a daily basis? Sometimes on weekends I wake up just at the time when the alarm-clock would ring on weekdays. May be an analogy.
This is incredibly important because it is and empirical falsifiable truth that we can depend on. The fact that our brain already knows what we are going to do before we are even conscious of the decision that we make, shows entirely that we are not in control of our decision. Of course this is important. In terms of daily approaches, it shouldn't make a difference.
Will has to be free because otherwise it would not be "will" but an effect. It's nature is purely ideal. No one can decide if you do something out of free will, but you. It easy to make up situations and say that you somehow must have wanted to do something. - He who wants the purpose must also want the means. - This is a contradiction.
Everything either has it's price or it's dignity. (Kant)
Only dignity makes something unconditionally valuable, a value in itself. Free will is free because it does not focus on lower purposes, but on such values-in-itself, making it at the same time your duty as well as the duty of all human beings as a whole.
The thought process is a factor, but as I said, it is an unconscious occurrence. Hence, you may think that you haven't yet made the decision, but it already has been made for you. Furthermore, is it not possible that the possibilities that you have been given in the game of chess (moves that you can make) were already put in hand, which would therefore imply that our choices have been limited. From this point you have to ask yourself. Are we really free?
The very definition of 'Will' is the faculty by which a person makes a decision. However, a decision can be free OR forced. Not every will is free. Decisions are limited as it is, we don't yet understand the concept of free I believe. If you really consider it. Do we even know what free is?
Computers do not have an imagination, and no infinite void that they draw choices from. Their choices are determined by the informational structure inwhich they are operating.
In the transcendent sense "choice" is not a binary decision it is the application of will to manifest potential; and choice is a cognitive process and not merely an observed outcome.
Will aims at purposes, not means. It is different from the action itself as well as the choosing of means.
I do not really want to get up and walk to the fridge, I merely want something to drink. Not even that: I do not want to feel thirsty. I want absolute and total satifaction, felicitousness, wellness and sure a few other things else I can not imagine right now.
See, if you ask me if I really want to do the things I'm doing the answer is generally "no". I only want the true, good and beautiful.
Quoting GreyScorpio
You mean by my-self, right? I wonder why this should be a problem?
Quoting GreyScorpio
Are we? Of what? Of yourself? Of others? Of fear, dread and sorrow?
Free to make our own choices, evidently.
were banned from this particular topic we might "have" some hope of at least aspiring towards the truth of the matter.
It is the worship of the "I" and the primal lust towards the 'having' that mires the will into a paralysis of self serving misunderstanding.
Let them go (if you dare) and see what happens?
M