One of my favorite quotes - _"I have to admit, as a philosopher you'd be crazy to believe anything of ultimate significance on the basis of a philosophical argument."_ [Peter Van Inwagen]

@andyisdead

Жыл бұрын

Is a leap of faith necessary then?

@B.S...

Жыл бұрын

@@andyisdead What's necessary is experience and it begins with purgation.

In the "Sally" case, once a decision is made (via free will or otherwise), you cannot know if the other option could have been chosen. Now, the first decision may be changed to choose the second option, but you can never know if that was "freely" chosen. Here is "that mistake" he seeks: He did not characterize indeterminism correctly. It does not mean that there is no control. Indeterminism is not randomness. It means the future is not predetermined by antecedent causes. Nature is not strongly determined. There are laws of physics of course, but there are also other non-deterministic processes at work. What of evolution and "random" mutations? What of radioactive decay? What of non-linear, dynamical chaotic systems? What of emergence where unique behaviors and properties emerge from different lower-level behaviors and properties, where one cannot predict the emerging behaviors and properties from the lower-level behaviors and properties? All these things happen in nature. What of quantum effects in subatomic particles in the brain? Neurons, glia, and other cells contain smaller components such as microtubules, mitochondria, (and others), and they in turn consist of atoms, and they consist of electrons, protons, and neutrons. The protons and neutrons consist of quarks. There are neutrinos and Higgs particles. I say "particles," but the better word is "field." It is not known to what extent quantum effects have on brain activity. Perhaps it's negligible, but perhaps not. My view on "free will" is that we do have free will (the capacity to choose (decide) among options) within constraints. First define what "me" is, what "you" is. They are brain circuits that evolved and matured beginning with genetics, and via education, experience, and environment, plus subliminal biases (say due to advertising). At any "instant", we are the end effects of what our lives have been to that point, given our decisions and any forces and events beyond our control. Evolution of the brain/body complex, that is, the entire biological system that makes up "us," provided for innate decision-making for survival. Our past, along with "good or bad" genetics and "good" or "bad" mental health, or physical brain issues (e.g., any lesion we many not be aware of) affect our "free will" or ability to freely make decisions. You may not be affected much at all by these, and I may be affected a great deal; it varies from person to person. Finally, our so-called "self" or perception of self, our "free will" (decision-making capacity), sensory and motor apparatuses, memory, basic life-sustaining processes, etcetera, are all neural circuits. In my view, the so-called "free will" experiments (e.g, Libet, et al) are in their infancy and most are faulty - they do not indicate that our "brain" is acting autonomously when making decisions without "us" consciously being aware of it. "We" do initiate conscious decisions. There is a very slight latency within the CNS and PNS, but it's not discernable to us. When we decide to move our arm, that is conscious free will decision-making. Certain parts of our cortex may "light up" slightly prior to the actual movement, but that is not evidence that we did not freely decide to move our arm. And that applies to all conscious decisions. To be sure, our brain/body systems are doing millions of things of which we are not conscious, and that involves "decision-making" of sorts. Our biology monitors our temperature, our blood pressure, and all of our physiological processes to keep us alive and keep us balanced - that is, achieve homeostasis. Nature is not fully deterministic and humans have free will within constraints.

The steps taken in search for an absolute answer are the building blocks of an ultimate paradox. Fortunately, knowledge is accumulated through this process.

Both determinate and indeterminate play are role IMO with synchronicity We are in the tunnel of determinism, inside which indeterminate choices occur and synchronicity affects the final decision

@melchormagdamo3556

3 ай бұрын

Over a century of Quantum experiments have proven that the "tunnel of determinism" has a cone shape with the past being the narrow side of the cone while the future is expanding due to quantum indeterminacy. Bigots of materialistic determinism are under the illusion that the trajectory of cause and effect is a simple straight line from past to future. Quantum Science has proven that there can be a "curvature" in the trajectory of the line from cause to effect. How else can you explain that "curvature"? The best explanation is Goal Striving Consciousness aka Free Will is causing a Curvature in the Trajectory of Determinism.

Sounds like the Abbott and Costello routine!

Just brilliance here

Maybe we co-exist in a paradigm co-created by the decisions we have each make? Perhaps, if each of us had chosen differently we would have moved with the alternate paradigm.

The fault is in the assumption that temporal stability equals determinism. Just because a choice is the only choice the person would ever take does not mean he didn't have a choice. He had a choice and he chose, not according to predestination, but because it was presented and he chose what he, according to his available knowledge, and level of self-control, what he thought to be the best choice. Once made, it is temporally set in stone. (Writing does not exist until it is written.) If he relies upon a coin toss, all it takes is a nanosecond difference in timing and any number of factors could change the outcome: a muscle twitch, his arm moves that much further for the toss, a fluctuation in the earth's magnetic field, a solar flare bathing everything in particles. But randomness does not determine free will. What does? The word "willpower" (What I earlier referred to as "self-control"). Willpower is a limited resource. It has to be managed and exercised. If a person has a sufficient reserve of willpower, they can force themselves to act in a way contrary to their natural inclination. Their flesh says "This feels good," so they act without thinking." Their spirit says, "This is wrong," so they act according to upbringing or training," and their brain says, "This is the correct way over here, though I have never done it before," but to go against instinct, they have to exercise the limited resource of willpower. If their willpower is not energized enough, then how they act will be according to how they would always have acted if willpower didn't exist. But now willpower does exist, and with enough energy reserve, they can act in a way contrary to instinct, contrary to all the little atoms and quantum fluctuations, contrary to the flow of chemicals attempting to impose a choice on them, contrary even to the threat of death and contrary to the standard pathways built up in their brain up to that point. Willpower is the source and means of free will.

Thomas Aquinas defined what we call "free will" as free judgment. As he (and Aristotle) saw it, all created beings necessarily seek the good. Even plants seek their own good. What humans have, though, is the ability to judge between "goods". Then, once a judgment is made in regard to the good, the will seeks that good.

I think, it would be not so difficult or too hard to make a choice between 'free will' and 'determinism' if one can bring the two into a DISCIPLINED framework. This problem won't be there then, for sure, I'd hope!

Odd how Prof Inwagen asks, "Who's to blame?" but doesn't ask, "Who goes against all biological drives and peer pressure to freely choose what is deemed 'good' in itself and good in the greater sense?" THAT person is shown to have free will -- against all physical and negative reasons to not do good. Being aware that every moment has a choice...and every choice has a consequence...is the key.

There is not a single neuron that we consciously control and it is not necessary for us to have free will as long as our brain responds to our intentions. We think, we feel, we will and there are corresponding states in the brain, but to conclude that this demonstrate determinism is not a correct deduction. A correlation is not a causal link. If you ask a scientist what he sees in a book, he will tell you that a book is composed of paper, cardboard, glue and ink. That’s all a book is to a scientist because that’s all he can measure with his instruments. But there is more to a book than it's composition. Obviously, a book also contain information and information is immaterial. You have to know how to decode that information in order to access it. What makes electrons move in a computer? The chain of cause and effect going back to the big bang, or the immediate meaning contain in the software? I would suggest that it is the software that makes the relevant electrons move. And the software is intelligent information. I think it's the same thing in the brain. Some activities are deterministic in nature like the vision system for example, it's an automatic process, but other activities are due to intelligent information interacting with the brain. And intelligent information doesn’t necessarily obeys deterministic laws, in particular when this intelligent information gives rise to a conscious state. And it's also not clear that this intelligent information reside only in the brain. Matter is active through determinism but that's not the creative force driving conscious beings. Intelligent conscious information is the force driving the creative process and it's independant of the material world. Matter and information are two worlds that are interconnected but that function independantly of each other. The material world obeys deterministic laws and the information world obeys intelligence laws, in particular when conscious intelligent information is involved. Altough information needs a certain order in matter, it's the material world that is a slave to information and not the other way around. Matter can not "will" information into existence because matter has no "will" by itself. An object can not decide to move by itself. If information is created through matter, it can only happen because of randomness and natural selection. But information can rise from other information and, in particular, it can be created voluntarily through the action of conscious information. Conscious information can "will" information into existence through an objective by keeping the focus on that objective. Energy is necessary to create mouvement. Intelligent information can limit and direct the use of that energy to the realisation of a particular objective. The scopes of these interventions are limited in time and must be repeated at the cost of energy. That focus on an objective at the cost of energy, but also in order to save energy, is one aspect of what we could call the "will". The shut down of other inputs can not be total otherwise we would not be able through parallel processing to find another angle to a problem that could reveal itself to be a better option as we go. This creative process can happen in a limited way through AI but it's restrained to what another conscious information would have allowed. To get a universal AI (a universal problem solving information) you need consciousness. And that's a mystery. Because it's a mystery, some will gamble that it can be done through sophisticated programming but others, like me, think that it takes something more than transistors and softwares, or neurones and chemicals. Something that is not subject to space and time the way we perceive it. But however it is created, once it’s there consciousness allows to decoupled the effect from the cause. If A is a cause and B an effect, than there is no link between B and A other than an understanding in consciousness that B is a possible following for A. But A could also be followed by C, D, or E. It depends on our capacity to compute different options to a situation which depends on many factors we have constructed over time, like our rationality, memories, believes, values, etc, but also on many random factors like the angle of reflection and different random perceptions. It could also come from other sources like the unconsciouss or from somewhere else like a suggestion from someone, etc. Once an objective is defined, a tree of options appears based on the forces described and one is selected through a rational or at random. But even when it’s a random choice, the result is not random because it comes from a subset of options that have been computed in response to an objective. Therefore it's not caused nor random, but it's understood because every option is perceived subjectively in consciousness. And when the selection is through a rational, you have to understand that many aspects of that rational comes from random factors like the angle of reflection and different random perceptions like mentionned above. We get data from reality through a cone of perceptions that can be displace at will or randomly. So, at every instant we could choose differently altough rationally (if no errors is involved) because of random factors. Yet, we don’t think randomly because we advance rationally through objectives. The fact that a thing implies another thing doesn’t mean that it is forced. Understanding that I can go left or right doesn't make me move. It only allows me to follow one of many potential lines of reasonning, including many potential errors. This suggest this and that, that could be link to this or that, that seems to relate to this, if we accept that, etc. Reasonning is not a deterministic thing. It's a process of trial and error involving different things like randomness, logic, rationality, the research of similitude, etc. The alternance of randomness and rationality is in no way a deterministic process. And if it allows the extraction of meaning and its perception, than it’s infused with volition. Conscious intelligent information control matter which create new informations that will be integrated in the information system that will again make matter move in novel ways. Information is created where there was none before. And this free process based on randomness, rationality and perception will continue according to the truth perceived (what is consider to be the right thing to do in a particular circonstance) through rational analyses including all the errors that we are so prone to do. Because we can perceive the meaning, we are not slave to our "code". We can extract our own meaning, determine how to respond to it and rewrite our own "code". This is why we can adapt to any situation, progressively. Although a lot of randomness is involved in exploring the different possibilities, the general direction is not random because it follows a conscious objective. No action is free from prior cause but the prior cause can come from an understanding which can act on matter through intelligent information which is immaterial but is perceived in consciousness. I prefer to call that a motivation to emphase the fact that it is not forced and ineluctable like the relation between a cause and its effect. Actions are products of states of the brain but states of the brain are products of the conscious intelligent information that can extract the meaning and react to it in many ways. We are a conscious cause to ourself and therefore we have free will. There's a lot of randomness involved, there’s a lot of determinism involved but most importantly there’s a lot of free will also involved in constructing who we are. We can reach any point of the conceptual field at will, as long as we can perceive it. And this perception is changing and expanding with knowledge and understanding of the world and who we are. If we can perceive it, we can pursue it. And when we get there, new frontiers appears constantly. Any dream is potentially possible but we have to find a meaning strong enough for us and then organised our thoughts, and consequently our emotions, in a way that can allows us to make it happen. And that’s a process that involves a lot of rationality but also a lot of errors and randomness. We don't all start at the same place and what we find around us is often subject to randomness. That’s why, although we are all consciouss and have free will, some will succeed and some will fail. We have free will but we don't control everything. That’s the game of life. But we can always take a bad situation and work at making it better. If we don't, I'm sorry but the determinism of the universe will not do it for us.

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

"... not necessary for us to have free will as long as our brain responds to our intentions." But what are _intentions_ ? Isn't this a synonym for free will?

@alainlangdon

3 жыл бұрын

@@ferdinandkraft857 Your goal, purpose, or aim is your intention. It's something you mean to do, whether you pull it off or not. It's the general objective link to the understanding of a situation. All other objectives are more specifics and are under that general objective. So, you're right, it's already a form of choice. It's a hierarchy of choice, of wich the intention is the background canvas. And it's link to the meaning extraction and the capacity of consciousness to perceive that as a global unite. It do not invalidate the argument for free will. And we could add that at the top of the hierarchy of choice is the intention to live and participate to the challenge of life.

@williamburts5495

3 жыл бұрын

@@ferdinandkraft857 To me, free will transcends intention because intentions are rooted in desire but free will is like an energetic principle that allows us to act out our desires.

@williamburts5495

3 жыл бұрын

@@alainlangdon Intentions are rooted in desire but free will is like an energetic principle that allows us to act out our desires therefore it is different from intention. At least to me.

@alainlangdon

3 жыл бұрын

@@williamburts5495 No..., intention have nothing to do with desire. Intention is link to the meaning extraction. You can desire many things but if you understand that it would be inappropriate to act on a desire in a certain situation, your intentions won't go in that direction. It's all about what you understand of a situation. And what you understand depends on the capacities of your soul, your brain, what you have learned and the efforts you decide to put into your reflections, and different random factors.

Rather than argue entirely with abstract logic, why not look at free will through biology, physics and the logic of daily life . Why would evolution give us curiosity and the apparent ability to choose if choice did not have a purpose? If we could not choose, why would evolution have us waste energy on the conscious ability to be aware of our actions, to remember, reflect, and adjust behavior? Why would we have consciousness at all if everything is predetermined? Why would groups spend so much time discussing options and making group decisions if the outcome was a forgone conclusion? Why would we have elections? Physics points to odd mysteries we can't understand and are unlikely to ever completely know because we are finite beings. Indeterminism, determinism and compatibilism are three great mysteries but they don't prevent us from making choices about our ability to choose. Hume noted that we can understand effects but not causes. As a practical matter in daily life, not believing in the ability to choose is a choice against free will, and believing we can choose is an exercise of free will. Research shows that non-belief in personal agency reduces personal effectiveness. The concept of free will is certainly bounded, but not believing in the ability to choose is a situation where free will eliminates ability of free will. Since I"m starting to ramble on now with tautologies, I will choose to leave you here.

Interesting to have a control group of experienced Vipassana meditator's to see if it makes any difference in these cognitive/precognitive experiments. Also, what of the subconscious mind, could it not be responsible for making the choice prior to the conscious mind knowing about it?

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

You can't test free will because you can't access an "alternative reality" where the subject would have taken a different choice.

@profile_01

3 жыл бұрын

@@ferdinandkraft857 Very good point. I have considered that and perhaps freewill is scientifically nontestable.

Free will is limited by our capabilities, idiosyncrasies, preferences and our worthiness.

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

That's not what these people are saying. They think that the very laws of nature rigidly and unvaryingly create the next moment of time based on whatever existed in the previous moment of time with mathematical precision. So no need for any of those pesky human qualities in our clockwork universe.

Though it seemed this case was settled (in favor of the possibility of free will), Peter Van Inwagen still had the chance to chose to be determined otherwise. After 40 years of hard work he obviously does so. One Solution to the problem: Could it be, that an existing ontic (quantum) chance influence in a "relative" free will could be lowered by simply staying longer at (e.g. repeat multiple times) the decision making process and in this way statistically lower the weight of ontic chance aginst the (hypothetical) absolut free will? This way it would be theoretically possible to asymptotically aproach an abolute free will. Also a collective of (hopefully wise) free willing people could add their "statistical computational power" in approaching an "absolute free collective" will in a given time. So, in reallity there is no absolute free will - but there is (some) liberty and absolute free will can be theoretically and asymptotically approached,. BTW: I also think, that the decision making process is of course not limited to humans. A dragonfly chasing a fly and a fly evading the dragonfly both excert decision making processes and (to a degree) free will. Their will (and the following actions) will change the course or the (whole) universe. Both of them are (indeed) more godly than Peter Van Inwagen (officially) thinks of himself. ;-) Heiko Brechtel

Is the Universe at last so straightforward?

Why, I ought to... Never mind!

I don't know why this question is so baffling. Free will is clearly compatible with determinism, where the will is free to express its desires. I suppose the real hang up is where does the will originate, and if it originated externally then it feels I am trapped by initial external constraints, and it seems I am therefore not totally free. The answer then is clear, the will does not originate externally - and because something cannot come from nothing - it follows that the will is self-created. The same is true of all reality, of consciousness and everything else that rests on it by the same logic - something cannot come from nothing, and something cannot exist without an explanation, it therefore follows that anything with a true origin must be self-caused. And that is the origin and explanation for free will - and if self-caused, then it is the definition of free.

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

There seems to be a couple of different flavors of determinists, but the main idea they always fall back on is that you could not have done differently. They love this idea since it is simple and impossible to disprove.

@atrivialthought

3 жыл бұрын

Is free will compatible with determinism? Seems like a cop out, because, yes, it does FEEL like we are freely making choices and of the natural desire to assign moral responsibility to actions. But if it's determined, where's the freedom? If it's determined, YES, that is a problem for moral responsibility, but nonetheless that doesn't mean that free will exists. The problem is how people are defining 'free will'.

@fellows9

3 жыл бұрын

@@caricue Yes, and that’s even correct - you cannot do differently than what you wanted. Your will is free to do as it wants. But why would anybody want to be free from their own will, to do other than what they want - that doesn’t make sense. Hard determinists and libertarian free will proponents both seek freedom from will, but that’s nonsensical from the beginning in my mind.

@fellows9

3 жыл бұрын

@@atrivialthought The freedom is if it is determined by you, by your will. If it is determined by external forces, then you are not free, but if your will is the determining cause, then it is your will that is free to make the determination.

@atrivialthought

3 жыл бұрын

@@fellows9 So if I get hit by a boulder, and it makes me fall down a hill, no free will. If I jump out of the way to avoid the boulder that will crush me (due to my knowledge of what will happen to me if I get hit by a boulder & I'm not suicidal), and by doing so I fall down a hill, that's free will? Nah, I don't think so. Both are determined actions. The second just isn't automatic.

How can he find the free when searching the determinable or indeterminable, can he search the things free of his determinations ?

@rotorblade9508

3 жыл бұрын

Of course that’s the idea. Can such a thing exist?

@brandursimonsen4427

3 жыл бұрын

​@@rotorblade9508 Height does not exist on maps. Maps have free height as you will. That is not a problem since height is you existing as height determination in the determined maps. An in-determined height or a determined height removes your freedom to exist. Free exists as much as you.

The mistake is that you skip over the obvious facts: you go from deterministic to only chance; you just ignore choice, you ignore will and then ask where it went.

@atrivialthought

3 жыл бұрын

If it isn't deterministic, it is indeterministic. So this choice you mention is either deterministic, or indeterministic. Both leave no room for 'free' will.

@mediocrates3416

3 жыл бұрын

@@atrivialthought But, thoughts follow a logical progression: purely indeterministic events wouldn't do that. There is a stability of things; that stability injects a deterministic aspect over the indeterministic. We can play snooker; were things purely indeterministic there would be casualties.

@mediocrates3416

3 жыл бұрын

@@atrivialthought Apparently, we ride a cusp.

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@@atrivialthought This seems to be the same thing that is tripping up Peter in the video. What if it isn't either of these options? Indeterminate is just random, and obviously our choices aren't exclusively random, even if some are. Determinate as it is being use here is basically the same as Fate, which is a religious concept. Of course, to make it sound better they replace "the will of the gods" with the "differential equations of quantum mechanics". It ends up the same concept since you have no input toward the future. Neither of these concepts describe reality.

@mediocrates3416

3 жыл бұрын

@@caricue Niether describes all; both describe parts.

of course we have free will...we have no choice in the matter

Agent causation! That’s all I have to say.

“Man has free choice, or otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards and punishments would be in vain.” - Thomas Aquinas

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe they are in vain...

@LauraPerez-kr8bn

3 жыл бұрын

@@ferdinandkraft857 it depends. Sometimes the pull is too strong. But normally people care about consequences.

@sigigle

3 жыл бұрын

All those things would not be in vain if their purpose was purely practical, in other words encouraging desired behaviors, discouraging undesired ones, etc.

@ob4161

3 жыл бұрын

It's actually a powerful argument for the reality of free choice. If you formalise it like this: P1: If Man did not have free choice, then counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards and punishments wouldn't make sense (very plausible premise, seems obvious). P2: Counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards and punishments _do_ make sense (also obvious). C: Therefore, man has free choice (follows logically from P1 to P2).

I see a problem with his famous consequence argument. He claims the past cannot be changed which is true, and somehow ignores the present, and then makes a claim about the past determines the future. Why is the present tense not included?

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

They think that the state of the universe in each moment absolutely determine everything in the next moment, so they don't care whether it is past, present or future. So in a sense they don't actually believe in the present, just an unbroken chain of cause and effect since the big bang. Then they say free will is incoherent.

@BobSmith-bl1ro

3 жыл бұрын

@@caricue that sounds like B theory of time (tenseless), but I think denial of the present is on the absurd side.

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@NikTheFix The point was that there is such a thing as the present, and this is when you get to make choices, which are part of the functioning of the universe. I can't imagine what elephant you feel is so confounding. I guess since you categorically ruled out free will by fiat, you then get to worry about the very monster you are trying to create. This doesn't seem like a fruitful line of reasoning.

Is free will connected to hate. How are standards are judged b4 god

I've thought about this deeply for years, here's my opinion. I think we lack any real free will in the present moment, but we can change the future. So for example, in the present moment you have no control over your immediate decision to eat or not eat that junk food...BUT you CAN decide to not eat that junk food next week. Then when that situation arises, you feel like you're exerting free will but really the choice had been made far in the past as a hypothetical scenario.

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

If you can decide for the future, you can decide for the present.

@rotorblade9508

3 жыл бұрын

You can decide now based on your commitment in the past, but this is not the problem. It’s not whether you can overcome your instincts or not. It’s about whether free will exist or not. There are various definitions. If we think ofmind being the result of a process of our brain is it possible that the thought itself influences matter? If free will doesn’t exist then matter influeces our thoughts and we think we choose independently of what the processes of the brain do but it doesn’t seem possible to me so “no” for free will

@ktx49

3 жыл бұрын

@@ferdinandkraft857 I disagree. The more I think about my moment to moment actions, the less inclined I am to believe in free will. Our short term choices in the present, really do seem to be the result of previous stimuli. However I think we can affect the build-up & reactions to those stimuli in the future(although I don't have an exact timescale).

@ktx49

3 жыл бұрын

@@rotorblade9508 good points...this is precisely why I think I might be on to something with my definition of freewill. Matter controls the immediate actions of the mind...but the mind can indirectly control future actions of the matter. Feedback loop with both bottom-up & top- down causation. So I guess technically I don't believe in any form of freewill, at least using the standard definition. The mechanism is our ability to change FUTURE responses to external stimuli. But not actually exert any freewill. Hope this makes better sense?

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

@@ktx49 The _choice_ on whether (and how) to "affect the build-up and reactions..." or not is a choice you must do in the present. And according to your own hypothesis, that choice is not free. Therefore, even if your present state continuously changes, it is not changing because _you_ decided to change; it is blindly following its deterministic algorithm.

There must be a theory that is neither Deterministic nor Indeterministic. A theory of Will. (The problem is that it is not mathematical, at least not with current math.)

If World is not completly deterministic - where lies the limit? Just because we dont understand something, it does not mean it does not exist, how You are gonna prove that in the undeterministic part, there are no laws?

if the crime is determined then so is the punishment

A Revelatory viewpoint... All volition is relative. In the originating sense, only the Father-I AM possesses finality of volition; in the absolute sense, only the Father, the Son, and the Spirit exhibit the prerogatives of volition unconditioned by time and unlimited by space. Mortal man is endowed with free will, the power of choice, and though such choosing is not absolute, nevertheless, it is relatively final on the finite level and concerning the destiny of the choosing personality. Volition on any level short of the absolute encounters limitations which are constitutive in the very personality exercising the power of choice. Man cannot choose beyond the range of that which is choosable. He cannot, for instance, choose to be other than a human being except that he can elect to become more than a man; he can choose to embark upon the voyage of universe ascension, but this is because the human choice and the divine will happen to be coincident upon this point. And what a son desires and the Father wills will certainly come to pass. In the mortal life, paths of differential conduct are continually opening and closing, and during the times when choice is possible the human personality is constantly deciding between these many courses of action. Temporal volition is linked to time, and it must await the passing of time to find opportunity for expression. Spiritual volition has begun to taste liberation from the fetters of time, having achieved partial escape from time sequence, and that is because spiritual volition is self-identifying with the will of God.

say no to political government

By far the weakest argument yet. Just the fact that she had the choice to make implies her decision was derived using her free will. Assuming she had exactly the same passion for law and music.

@colinjava8447

3 жыл бұрын

It wasn't based on free will, it was based on the laws of physics and the state of the universe. The complexity of the system behind the choice is beyond imagination, in that there are so many factors that go into it. Her own personality and willingness to take a risk is a factor, but these things have been shaped by her genetics and her upbringing. If she was more care free and took risks more she might pick the music even if the law might be a more stable choice to make in a financial sense. Every event that has shaped her personality and behaviour and tendencies is still a result of the laws of physics, so there's no free will, not even in a decision like that.

@partydean17

3 жыл бұрын

Everything we've observed seems to be cause and effect. Quantum predictions being the only hold out for free will but even then its still the causal brain moving through randomly shuffled info. So unless there is some extra dimensional part of us that is producing what we perceive as quantum mechanics then there is still zero free will.

@paulwillisorg

3 жыл бұрын

@@partydean17 Life is uses "non classical" physics. Google "quantum biology" and dig in. Quit apply classical physics to what is really a non-classical physics problem.

I’m guessing that Professor Peter limits his answers to materialistic answers? In that case, free will seems to me to necessarily be an illusion. But why should we limit ourselves to a materialistic answer? Consider: if God has free will, and God is a spirit, and we are derivative from God in the sense that we are also spiritual, but with the addition of material bodies, then it seems to me that we can have free will from our spiritual derivation, while our material brains which the spiritual interacts with can indeed be deterministic. Invoking God may seem undesirable, however when multiple lines of evidence seem to fit better with there being a God, then the case seems a lot more reasonable. E.g., an eternal God would solve the problems of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, the origin of ultimate meaning in our lives, the reality of object of moral values, and finally would also explain the resurrection of Jesus and the birth and spread of the church.

@rojinhas3763

2 жыл бұрын

I see you

The fundamental question is moot: the answer to the functional question, the functional challenge, is practice. ... Look; people are responsible for their actions: i'm feeling a motive for rehashing this question: we are responsible; do right; don't hang out with assholes, don't work for assholes, don't follow asshole orders. The brain is a feeling machine; *feel* it; empathise, help. The purpose of agency is to fill need.

@K-Diesel

3 жыл бұрын

People are not responsible for their upbringings which leave the possibility of detrimental learned behaviors..

@ezbody

3 жыл бұрын

Don't hang out with assholes unless you are one of them.

@mediocrates3416

3 жыл бұрын

@@K-Diesel To be sure!

@mediocrates3416

3 жыл бұрын

@@K-Diesel That doesn't mean that there isn't a mountain of colonialism and misogyny grounded on Roman fascism; it just means some people will have difficulty seeing it.

i’ve seen other ppl say he has dug his own grave here, and i agree. if u say that the possible outcomes are not in your hands or in the hands of an agent, but in the hands of chance/randomness (when he said “you don’t have any control about which future she goes into” and “it’s just a matter of indeterministic chance. you’d just have to wait and see”), then yes, freewill does not exist. you need CHOICE and AGENCY for freewill. We are agents who posses “agent causation”, as defenders of libertarian freewill call it. freewill is when you CHOOSE to do something rather than something else, that which you also COULD HAVE CHOSEN TO DO. Peter is a materialist, and if the whole world is material, then there really is no room for freewill. if this is true, the possibilities we see before us are all up to chance/randomness. an atom could not have chosen to do differently bc material physical things just don’t make choices. if all is material, then freewill just cannot exist. HOWEVER, freewill is as obvious to me as responsibly, and if there exists immaterial, non-physical, SPIRITUAL substances like souls, and these substances are free to do whatever and choose what they do, then the problem is solved. freewill is possible only if there is a soul. we are souls in and attached to this physical material body, and we control what this body does. we choose what we do among viable and truly possible options of action. Freewill to me is obvious, and this is only explained through my existence as a soul in a physical body. And with freewill, we are given responsibility for our voluntary actions. Materialism or physicalism is really the problem here, and that materialism/physicalism is that which is incompatible with freewill. However, since freewill is obvious just like freewill, I hope this has shown you why materialism and physicalism must be false. Praise God.

@defenestratedalien1448

Жыл бұрын

Congrats, you solved the problem by appealing to a bigger mystery, postulating a soul which you have not substantiated, just to hold on to free will. What are the mechanisms in which this "soul" operates

What would happen to the world if all philosophers were to suddenly vanish over night?

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

Everyone is a philosopher, to a certain degree.

@julianmann6172

3 жыл бұрын

@@ferdinandkraft857 Good point Ferdinand, but does philosophy justify it's academic budget? One of the greatest Rabbis in history, the Vilna Gaon, who was also a great Astronomer and mathematician known under the name Kramer in mathematics, held that philosophy was redundant. All we need are belief in G-D and to study useful subjects such as science and maths.

@ferdinandkraft857

3 жыл бұрын

@@julianmann6172 Philosophy is important to bring into light new questions. But once philosophy starts giving answers, it's no longer philosophy but religion.

@julianmann6172

3 жыл бұрын

@@ferdinandkraft857 Precisely, but Religion predates philosophy certainly as far as the Jewish religion is concerned, so we certainly have no need for philosophy at all. Philosophy is just for atheists or those that entertain serious doubts about the faith they were brought up in. Philosophers are just trying to get around the issue of G-D as creator and that each person in this world is judged on their actions in this world, so they receive reward and punishment both in this life and the next.

@handzar6402

2 жыл бұрын

@@julianmann6172 At the very least, philosophers are here to point out what is bad philosophy, which is of no use to anyone.

X-Files Free Will Earthling human beings (love) think that "free will" means freedom to appreciate this paradise planet lifeboat and the miraculous works of fine art called "life" that inhabit it. And not be imprisoned and enslaved by hostile alien vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate). But the hostile alien vampires (greed) think that "free will" means freedom to suck the joy out of life and devour the planet like a ravenous cancer. And freedom to imprison and enslave humans. Vampires (greed) are blind and cannot see the ignorance of transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war). The capitalist counting corpses are also blind and cannot see the ignorance of destroying the planet. Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children. Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now. Lead into gold Tears into roses Weapons into ploughshares

My problem with free will is how to free myself from it.

@wilsonkorisawa7026

3 жыл бұрын

Join the army.

@colinjava8447

3 жыл бұрын

Just try and ignore it, then you'll feel like you have free will like everyone does before they start thinking deeper about it.

@ezbody

3 жыл бұрын

@@wilsonkorisawa7026 Too old for that. :)

@ezbody

3 жыл бұрын

@@colinjava8447 When it comes to free will, there is no "everyone"; each person has their unique hangups and handicaps. And that kinda confirms that there is no free will. Personally, I deal with an executive function disorder, that makes my will go haywire, and everyone around me accusing me of all kinds of evils, like laziness or neglecting my children. Let's say, for example, I am walking in the woods and I see a hundred dollar bill laying on the ground; even though I may really need the money, I just keep on walking, and like 30 minutes later it downs on me "man, I should have picked it up". What makes it worse is that it doesn't happen every single time, it's kind of random. It's like my will has it's own little tank of fuel, much smaller than what other people have, and I keep running out of fuel at unpredictable times. That makes it very clear to me, that there is no such thing as free will, everyone is restricted in some way or another.

@colinjava8447

3 жыл бұрын

@@ezbody Seems like the brain tumour example Sam Harris uses, but you must feel like you have free will sometimes though.

It seems like Dr van Inwagen is stuck in a hole that he dug for himself. Why are determinism or indeterminism the only options? If neither of them work, why not try a different "ism". I think the real problem is that he confuses reliable causation with determinism.

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@-GinPi Gamma That's cool, but how does free will fit into this schema?

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@-GinPi Gamma No, not the current civilization paradigm. You said, "either is fundamentally flawed in that reality is emergent as a whole each moment", so how does free will figure into your concept of emergent reality?

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@-GinPi Gamma Does that make sense to YOU?

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@-GinPi Gamma Well, welcome to Earth. I hope they perfect the old Universal Translator someday so we can communicate with your species. Cheers.

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@NikTheFix Can you not hear the words coming out of my mouth? Cause and effect is not the same as determined. Your belief in determinism is a religious belief akin to Fate. Instead of the will of the gods controlling man's destiny from above, you would have physics controlling mans destiny from below.

He argued convincingly until 5:36 And then added nothing is more obvious than the fact that some things are some people's fault. Therefore there's a mistake 😐🤔 Yes, it *seems* true. We know it *intuitively* . But this is not enough reason to give free will an equal position in this question. There's at least *some* empirical evidence in favour of determinism or indeterminism. But for free will... Sorry... Just intuitions.

@jt9300

2 жыл бұрын

@Malik no they are not. And yes, I do at least doubt pretty much every assumption that is merely based on intuition.

If I were in his class I would raise my hand and respectfully ask, with all sincerity, my question but the limits of this forum don't afford me that those I'll complain instead. It is impossible that Dr Van Inwagen doesn't know the substantial objections to Chomsky's assumptions. If our lack of understanding is born out of our biological limitations why do we trust positive affirmations as well? Any limitation that would preceed the tautological nature of the laws of logic would undermine all of them. I would expect he has a good answer to that but for now I'm not seeing that idea as carrying much weight.

This is such a weak argument; it all hinges on the assumption that there must be free will because people want to blame other people for actions. He says that nothing seems more obviously right than that people are responsible for things, but that's just to say that he wants to blame them as something other than just another force of nature. Do you blame lightning for a wildfire? Humans are just isolated compositions of physical matter and energy processes, like anything else in the universe, unless someone wants to make an argument for a different kind of ontology. But given that, why wouldn't you treat a human like you would any other force of nature? You can still say that you would prefer a world in which said force of nature wasn't allowed to take action, because of the results of their actions. But that's just akin to saying that you would rather live in a world where lightning doesn't strike and cause wildfires in your area. You can do things to work towards mitigating various forces of nature if you so have that inclination, by forces of nature. This all seems to be based on the perception that we have some kind of free will, but that's just begging the question on an appearance for the position itself. Such a weak argument.

Free will means you are free to use your will and that"s why they call it free will.

If the criminal can't be blamed for the crime because he has no free will, then I can't be blamed for punishing him either.

I think Peter Van Inwagon is right to say free will seems to be impossible. But I'd say it seems to be impossible because it fairly obviously is impossible. Selecting from options is about working out which is best. That's how it seems, that's what choice is. No reason to think we could have selected any of the other options in the actual circumstances with exactly the same past. Does it really seem like that? Peter picks an example in which there is no obvious best option but isn't that just muddying the waters? A lot of choices aren't like that, often one option is clearly better and there is no hint of being able to select any of the others in the actual circumstances. My choice to vote Labour in the last general election is one of countless examples. And what more can we want from choice than to be able to pick one of the options out as the best? How on earth would it help for it to be possible for anyone of the options to end up as the selected one? In that case don't waste time working out which is the best, just roll a die! What matters is getting past this nonsense and seeing how moral responsibility rightly changes when we do.

I don’t see anything that confirms free will exists. It may exists but I don’t see it possible neither with determinism nor with a non-deterministic world. Then if free will doesn’t exist we can’t blame people for their actions so it must be a problem? No, it’s seems to me people that want free will to exist even though they can’t be sure about it is because they want to blame others for their mistakes. If there is no free will you can’t judge anyone. What’s the problem. It’s nobody’s fault the Universe is like that and it may actually be better that nobody is responsible because you won’t have logic reasons to hate anyone, only the instinct exists, but unfortunately you need to take action to stop those that hurt others

My free will made a big mistake and ive lost 13 minutes of my life. Give them baaaaackkkk

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

Are you channeling a historic figure? Give me back my legions!

@francesco5581

3 жыл бұрын

@@caricue shhh we have no free will we are all artichokes. Caesar was an Italian violet artichoke

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@@francesco5581 Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning amico mio.

Allah...the Almighty Creator of the universe declares in His final Revelation - alQuran - that every human being has a total free will in one life of earth, Q(2:256); لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] alDeen." The western education and philosophy misconstrued the true and broader meaning of "alDeen" which should be inclusive of each and every aspect of human affairs in their life when they translated to "religion". AlDeen is the way of one life in relation to God (belief and worship), humanity (as own self, family member, member of a society, nation and international community) and environment (air, land, sea/water, animals, plants, flora and fauna) with regard to the deeds of one heart(belief and intention), mouth (eating/drinking and speeches) and limbs (actions). Allah created human being with purpose to serve Him....to deliver His love and mercy to His creations on earth in His determined way(alDeenu al Islam) but everyone is gifted a complete freedom to choose or to reject it with eternal consequences - rewards or punishment. It is a sort of test to human life after he had created them, given them life and whole earth for their enjoyments in this worldly life. These do not deny that Allah had determined all mechanical/mechanistic actions works of matter, limbs , organs and etc .... should works in His ways; Surah As-Saaffat, Verse 96: وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَكُمْ وَمَا تَعْمَلُونَ And Allah has created you and what you actions." (As example how do you digest you food in eating!... This is an oversimplified ... because human activities and actions may affect things as we can evidently see human carelessness and over exploitations of the earth resulting in changing of the earth weather). WaAllahu a'lam./Allah knows best.

Arguments for the Reality of Free Will: (1) - The Sense Argument: P1: If man did not choose freely, then deliberating, reasoning, punishing, rewarding, and so on would not make sense (a plausible premise - most would certainly agree with it). P2: Deliberating, punishing, rewarding do in fact make sense (obviously true). C: So, man chooses freely (follows logically). (2) - The Argument from Finite Goods: P1: Only what is infinitely desirable in every respect can necessitate/determine our wills. P2: Nothing in our experience is infinitely desirable in every respect (everything is at least undesirable in _some_ respects). C: So, nothing in our experience can determine/necessitate our wills. (3) Huemer's Proof: P1: We should refrain from believing falsehoods (to deny this premise would be incoherent, obviously). P2: Whatever should be done can be done. P3: If determinism were true, the only thing that can be done is what will be done. P4: I believe in libertarian free will. C1: We can refrain from believing falsehoods (from P1, P2). C2: If determinism is true, then we will refrain from believing falsehoods (from P3, C1). C3: If determinism is true, libertarian free will is true (from C2, P4). C4: So, libertarian free will is true (from C3).

Modern philosophers love to tell people: "I don't understand what you mean, which must mean that you are wrong." Laziness, perhaps.

Philosophy will not find the loose thread, neuroscience will and probably already has.

@handzar6402

2 жыл бұрын

Oh yea, where? Point me in that direction...or are you just mouthing off like usual?

@JimJWalker

2 жыл бұрын

@@handzar6402 It is not my job to educate you. But Dr. Robert Sapolsky from Stanford ended this debate years ago.

@handzar6402

2 жыл бұрын

@@JimJWalker Sapolsky? That sophist? Ok, then.

@JimJWalker

2 жыл бұрын

@@handzar6402 Sophist? Oh you mean, is an American neuroendocrinology researcher and author. He is currently a professor of biology, and professor of neurology and neurological sciences and, by courtesy, neurosurgery, at Stanford University. If you want more just PayPal me. DM me for the address and you I can educate you about biological determinism.

@handzar6402

2 жыл бұрын

@@JimJWalker I know who he is. I've heard his arguments and they're not particularly good. He's still a sophist, the same way people like Daniel Dennett and Alexander Rosenberg are.