Free Will

Continued from the Star Wars Versus Forum's "The Battle Bar #2"...

killermovies.kom/forums/showthread.php?threadid=405188&pagenumber=558

Originally posted by Serge
*Forget what I was saying earlier please*

Free Will: The ability or discretion to choose
thefreedictionary.kom/free+will

[b][Tell me if this does not fit the particular definition you are using or the particular definition that is generally in question]

As I understand it you guys' (Red and Autokrat (and Nephthys and Andrew Ryan?)) argument essentially states that because the choices that we make are ultimately predetermined (given the existence of an omniscient being who knows what choices we will make before we make them, or the simple fact that what's going to happen will definitely happen, including the choices that we make, regardless of whether or not a given being knows of it), and that it's only possible for us (within our control) to make those single choices, that we ultimately have no "ability or discretion to choose"... right?

The way I see it: The choices that we make are determined not only by our "ability or discretion to choose" but the manner in which the external environment influences our "ability or discretion to choose".

As humans, it's entirely possible that we can possess "The ability or discretion to choose" but still ultimately only ever be able to make a single choice (*) not because we don't possess "ability or discretion to choose" but because the external environment, of which we have no control over, will always influence our "ability or discretion to choose" in a manner that propels us to make that choice, and that choice alone (and only possibly that choice). That doesn't mean that we don't have "The ability or discretion to choose" but rather that we don't have control over what influences our "ability or discretion to choose" into making the choice that it does... I think.

* - this might appear to be a contradiction but it's not as in the context in which I'm using the terms "The ability or discretion to choose" ultimately refers to our ability in the thinking process to make decisions, whereas the single choice that we can "only ever be able to make" refers to the choice that the external environment forces our "ability or discretion to choose" to make [/B]

Originally posted by Serge
What I'm saying is essentially that, we as humans possess "The ability or discretion to choose" but that the external environment (which we have no control over) influences our "ability or discretion to choose" into making the only choice that we can possibly make.

Originally posted by Serge
"the only choice that we can possibly make"

There being just one choice not because we don't possess "The ability or discretion to choose" but because our "ability or discretion to choose" will always react to the external environment in the same manner.

Discuss...

If there is only one possible outcome there's no choice involved. For there to be choice there'd have to be some sort of, as of yet not understood, or metaphysical thing that could go either way. At least that's how it is if you define free will and choice as opposed to determinism. I am sure you could define choice in different ways, perhaps the way you did, but to what end would you do that?

There's also a few discussions on free will here already, I am sure, maybe you should have done a search.

So basically you're saying that we can choose, but the environment hedges us in and basically determines our choices? It seems like semantic nonsense to me.

Free will is apparently the concept that human choice is not determined by pre-existing factors, but yet it attempts to explain freedom in limited, relative terms. No one ever argues that a human being themselves is "free of being caused". Obviously we were all born, cultivated, raised, and then unleashed on the unsuspecting world. Our genetic material, our primordial instincts, urges, goals, desires, and society each work to shape our personality. The point I strongly reject when it comes to the assumption of Free Will is that somehow humans develop choices in a void. This is as irrational as it is silly.

All personalities are caused by a multitude of factors, many subtle others jarringly obvious, but they are all caused. No one comes out of the womb, untouched, and develops choice to be free of all variables. How one can argue "choice is free" when there is no evidence to support it reeks of anthropocentric romanticism, clinging to the idea that "man is free".

I'm drawing a distinction between "The ability or discretion to choose" and "The ability or discretion to control how our "ability or discretion to choose" will interact with factors beyond the control of our "ability or discretion to choose", i.e. the external environment".

Understand?

Originally posted by Serge
I'm drawing a distinction between "The ability or discretion to choose" and "The ability or discretion to control how our "ability or discretion to choose" will interact with factors beyond the control of our "ability or discretion to choose"", i.e. the external environment.

Understand?

But you are just once removing the problem. You say there's choice, but it is a predetermined cog in the universe. That's not a choice though. What you are saying is basically that there is something that we perceive as choice. Which is probably true, but inconsequential to the philosophical discussion of whether choice exists.

"The ability or discretion to choose" still exists even if it will only ever be able to react with the external environment in one given way.

Originally posted by Serge
"The ability or discretion to choose" still exists even if it will only ever be able to react with the external environment in one given way.

No because for the word choose to be applicable to that it would have to have more than one possible outcome that actually could be chosen. In your scenario the illusion of the ability or discretion to choose would exist.

Originally posted by Serge
"The ability or discretion to choose" still exists even if it will only ever be able to react with the external environment in one given way.

There's no contradiction Red. An individual can possess the "ability to choose" without possessing the ability to "apply that "ability to choose"" in a manner disimilar to that dictated by the external environment and the "discretion to choose".

Originally posted by Serge
There's no contradiction Red. An individual can possess the "ability to choose" without possessing the ability to "apply that "ability to choose"" in a manner disimilar to that dictated by the external environment and the "discretion to choose".

Fair enough, but that would be arbitrarily decided, how would you test for that? How would that scenario be different from the inability to choose.

Originally posted by Serge
There's no contradiction Red. An individual can possess the "ability to choose" without possessing the ability to "apply that "ability to choose"" in a manner disimilar to that dictated by the external environment and the "discretion to choose".

A man running down a hallway with no doors on either side and a magical wall of spikes right behind him that forces him to move ever forward. He could in theory chose to make a turn or open a door, but there are no ways to turn and no doors to open.

How is his will in any way free?

Most ideas of free will are incoherent. The one in the opening post is no different, because the quotes recognize the necessity of determinism but seem desperate to cling to some sense of free will as they define it.

The only cogent definition of free will I've ever heard removes the "determined or not" question entirely. If it is you making the decision, it is a decision of your own free will. If you are forced to make a decision against your will (coercion, deceit, sacrifice, etc.) it is not free but coerced in some manner. "Free will" then becomes more akin to what we might consider "personal freedom" in a societal or political sense, and is removed from illogical religious shoehorning of various concepts that don't match reality.

Also, Serge, just where does the "external environment" begin and end? Are we not part of universe, made of the same stuff as the rest of creation?

By "external environment" I meant anything and everything that exists outside of an individual's "ability or discretion to choose."

Most ideas of free will are incoherent. The one in the opening post is no different, because the quotes recognize the necessity of determinism but seem desperate to cling to some sense of free will as they define it.

Could you explain and expand on this in clear, precise, direct terms?

Originally posted by Serge
I'm drawing a distinction between "The ability or discretion to choose" and "The ability or discretion to control how our "ability or discretion to choose" will interact with factors beyond the control of our "ability or discretion to choose", i.e. the external environment".

Understand?

This is a silly thing to bring up as the starting point for a discussion. It's apparent by the definitions and use of the terms that having an open choice and being left with no choice at all are not the same thing. I do not have to open a thread to make that clear; a link to Wikipedia will do just fine.

If you brought this up under the assumption that free will is as Digi noted, free of limited decisions, then I suppose you're on to something. Having a variety of choices allowed does not preclude the idea that you will definitely only choose one of them because of a multitude of factors which lead up to this point.

Originally posted by Andrew Ryan
This is a silly thing to bring up as the starting point for a discussion. It's apparent by the definitions and use of the terms that having an open choice and being left with no choice at all are not the same thing. I do not have to open a thread to make that clear; a link to Wikipedia will do just fine.

If you brought this up under the assumption that free will is as Digi noted, free of limited decisions, then I suppose you're on to something. Having a variety of choices allowed does not preclude the idea that you will definitely only choose one of them because of a multitude of factors which lead up to this point.

sOCK PUPPETING is immoral.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
sOCK PUPPETING is immoral.

I'm no more a sock puppet than you are my mother. And if you are my mother, I'll have a lot to discuss with my therapist.

There, I've basically given you something to talk about.

Originally posted by Andrew Ryan
I'm no more a sock puppet than you are my mother. And if you are my mother, I'll have a lot to discuss with my therapist.

There, I've basically given you something to talk about.

Having a variety of choices allowed does not preclude the idea that you will definitely only choose one of them because of a multitude of factors which lead up to this point.

Determinism doesn't mesh with free will.

Ya know, i think about this alot, but in the end, i really dont like to lol. Its not that it's too complicated, or anything, its just, if we act as if we have free will, then theres no problem, but if we question free will, there is a problem.

Originally posted by Serge
Could you explain and expand on this in clear, precise, direct terms?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Determinism doesn't mesh with free will.

That's about as precise as I can make it. Free will in a non-deterministic meaning of the word, makes no logical sense whatsoever. It only works as a concept for those who either willingly suspend logic, or haven't thought it through enough to realize it's inconsistent with logic.

Decisions are determined. The universe is causal. The only non-religious defense of free will I've ever heard is speculation about what we "don't know" about the universe, which itself is a ridiculous argument. Given a hand-picked set of hypotheticals, any theory could be true. It doesn't mean that it's something that should be believed in, however.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, Serge, just where does the "external environment" begin and end? Are we not part of universe, made of the same stuff as the rest of creation?

I think your answer to this really just skirts my question. Our "ability and discretion to choose" is determined by causal forces, just as external factors are determined by causal forces. It's determined, in other words. I really just think you're creating a needless distinction where none exists.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Except that "having a variety of choices" is not the same as having free will. For instance. If there is an array of different types of toothpaste(s) that I could buy then I have a variety of choices. However, according to determinism, the particular brand I will buy is already certain, given the various factors of the present (personality, advertisements conditioning my brain, and on a more fundamental level the arrangement of atoms in my brain).

Determinism doesn't mesh with free will.

That was my point. I said, in fewer words, that choice does not eliminate determining factors. Hence, determinism is still true.