Is free-will an illusion?

@Enzo,

Lack of knowledge is not an argument...the fact that I can't predict very well in complex systems is not final proof of indeterminacy onto itself...still as I said before even if it was the case that we live in an undetermined reality the issue of free will would equally be settled once there would be no way of connecting the willing with a causer of will, a subject responsible for it...

...as you probably are aware by now only the compatiblist approach honestly try's to sort this issue by admitting full determinism but arguing the choice is still yours even if you couldn't chose otherwise...of course we all know that is not what most of us meant when claiming to have free will...still their solution is a workaround but at least they don't hide the problem as other perspectives do...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I am convinced that the true issue here is that while some of us are honestly trying to address the problem no matter what the outcome and consequences, some others try to fit the problem in their political views and condition the outcome, they are biased from the very beginning...

0 Replies

@Enzo,

Quote:

Myself writing this, I find it quite ironic because I've examined special relativity closely enough to know that it seems unavoidably to imply just that: that we live in a block universe of predestined outcomes. It's the only way to ensure that diverse frame views do not end up contradicting causality. The problem comes in when you try to test that simple implication with scientific methods by setting up some sort of an observable experiment.

Are you trying to undermine the value of experiments because special relativity is confusing. Special relativity is the least experimentally confirmed theory that we have. The postulate of the constancy of the speed of light says we (on the "Earth frame") should find the speed of light in vacuum to be c no matter the velocity of the source of that light. If you boil it down we probably have only really tested .001% of the cases possible. Since it requires a known amount of vacuum and light emmitting source moving at a constant speed (from zero to the speed of light relative to an observation frame). Both postulates of special relativity are based on two amazing assumptions that are not backed by enough experimentation. I believe the postulate of the principle of relativity but the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light (with respect to some relatively fast moving source) is far from confirmed.

Quote:

For example, if a dice is thrown and bounces off enough walls, the small irregularities of those walls will ensure that any initial prediction of its path will fail, no matter how carefully that initial model is done. Considering that every molecule in a gas or liquid is a lot like that dice, yes, even if it started out quantum entangled, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that there is an awful lot of intractable unpredictability in the universe at large.

We are far more certain from experimentation that if you throw dice at a wall the dice will bounce back. Far more certain of these types of events than anything to do with SR except possibly that we measure the speed of light on earth from an earth bound source like a light bulb or particles in the atmosphere to be the constant c.

I would go so far as to say you could throw a dice at hard flat (non-sticky)surface until it was no longer recognizable as a dice an it would still bounce back. In fact has anyone ever seen a case when it did not? As long as the dice was still a dice and the surface was still flat. (No wind too.)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

even if it was the case that we live in an undetermined reality the issue of free will would equally be settled once there would be no way of connecting the willing with a causer of will, a subject responsible for it...

Presumably this means that if the world isn't determined, then agents do not cause actions in accordance with their intentions, or something similar. If so, the contention is false.
1) determinism is independent of notions of "cause", for at least the following reasons:
a) causes are explanatory and thus ontologically neutral, but determinism is a metaphysical thesis which entails ontological commitments
b) causality concerns pairs of events or states of interest which are local and are considered in isolation, but determinism concerns global states of the world in which no thing is isolated
c) causality generally requires ordered pairs such that the cause precedes, in time, the effect, but determinism requires a reversible world such that it is unimportant in which order time progresses
d) causal relations are not clearly or consistently defined, but the relations in a determined world are clearly defined, they are mathematical relations, not causal relations
2) determinism is the claim that given the state of the world at any time, the state of the world at all other times is exactly specified by the given state in conjunction with laws of nature which are the same in all times and places. It is not the claim that there is at least one non-random event or at least one caused event, so the falsity of determinism does not imply universal randomness or lack of causality, in any sense of these terms which might threaten the reality of free will.

3 Replies

@tomr,

I'm not trying to undermine the value of experiments or anything, but acknowledging our limits. By that I mean the difference between concepts and processes. We can understand a concept, but can we understand the processes.
And of course the dice will bounce, but can you calculate exactly the path that the dice will take after it bounces around a few walls and then exactly predict where it will land, and what side it will land before you throw the dice. That's where my point is at. Look at randomness. People talk about random numbers, random events, etc. But what are you applying the concept of when you are talking about something random.Are they really and truly some event that is random? I believe not, I believe there is a process that results in an event, additionally, most of the time we can't predict such an event because we are limited in many ways to understand and grasp the process. What we call random is simply a process that is so complex that we could never hope to work out the pattern.

We ourselves are somewhat like machines, embodying countless process that churns out outputs in response to all the inputs at a point in time. If we had complete knowledge of our process, inputs, and current state of being, at time t, then our next move foregoing the time t becomes easily predictable. But what is the nature of the machine that could perform this prediction? It is one that is equivalent to ourselves. So this simply says that given our current state and inputs, we could theoretically predict our output. Yet we feel we have made a choice. So what? We have made a choice, and the mental process we went through in making that choice is completely predictable, given we have a complete knowledge of our current state and inputs, and given a machine that is equivalent to ourselves - basically our exact replica of oneself. Yet people becomes bothered when they confuse 'predictable' with 'predetermined'. However, without truly testing and experimentally verifying this idea of processes (macro scale and micro scale) of ourselves and the whole universe, all we can do is talk about it with abstract philosophy with suppositions construed with logic, without actual physical proof. That's where I'm getting at: actual physical experiments are almost impossible to test our logically constructed suppositions. The future may yet to change that, but not at the current moment.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

Not a single one is any other claim then the claim of lack of knowledge on how precisely causal relations operate...lack of knowledge is not an argument !
The blah blah blah on distinguishing one from the other is bottom line a sophisticated smoke screen...either causal relations are tight and strict or there are no causal relations period...any intelligent person can understand why...so so causation is an aberration not worth a second look...
...but you just provided a perfect example on why I deeply dislike your style of debate, you should go do politics or something of the sort, in philosophy your intentions are purely disruptive and dishonest...

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

the constant paradoxe they keep sayin to justify their claims is the only answer

how could free will b a given thing ?

they dont care about this for them all is given then actually they love determinism as a fact and that is why they cant but keep meanin to preach it
so they can enjoy their weird freedom they got as true with peace

the point of free will is difficult to say bc we are mortals and among infinite things that we dont have the least control upon

but it is obvious that free will concern humans different condition then animals

by the fact that humans in being constant they realize themselves existence so that realization is individually free

1 Reply

@Enzo,

Quote:

...Yet people becomes bothered when they confuse 'predictable' with 'predetermined'. However, without truly testing and experimentally verifying this idea of processes (macro scale and micro scale) of ourselves and the whole universe, all we can do is talk about it with abstract philosophy with suppositions construed with logic, without actual physical proof. That's where I'm getting at: actual physical experiments are almost impossible to test our logically constructed suppositions. The future may yet to change that, but not at the current moment.

Everything you are saying seems reasonable to me. I do not know why I went off about SR. I guess I thought you were using it as an example to show why things can't be determined. But now I think I miss read your post.

0 Replies

@Enzo,

Enzo wrote:

If we had complete knowledge of our process, inputs, and current state of being, at time t, then our next move foregoing the time t becomes easily predictable.

If our actions are predictable, even if only in principle, then some third party could make the relevant calculation and state to me that at some future time I will perform some given action, for any future time. But what is to stop me from saying that I will perform some other action at the specified time and performing the action stated by myself?
That fact that the "predictions" can only be reliably made by the agent themself shows that these are not predictions in any normal sense of that word, they are statements of intention. Notice that if it were true that we live in a determined world, then they would be "predictions" in the conventional sense. This is how the coin tossing argument shows that the probability of this world being determined is vanishingly small. It's because we can consistently make accurate "predictions".

1 Reply

@imans,

imans wrote:

the constant paradoxe they keep sayin to justify their claims is the only answer

how could free will b a given thing ?

Well, an agent has free will on any occasion on which that agent makes and enacts a conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives. A well known argument against this runs as follows:
1) if the world is determined there are no realisable alternatives
2) if the world is not determined then there are no causally effective events/everything is random
3) if there are no realisable alternatives then there is no free will
4) if there are no causally effective events/everything is random, then there is no free will
5) as there is no free will in either case, there is no free will.
This argument fails by equivocating either over the notions of cause and determinism or over different notions of randomness. In a determined world there is no mathematical randomness, but the randomness which threatens free will is a different randomness, it's about lack of control, a randomness of intent.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

yes present conscious freedom exist objectively only by actin truly superior so addin smthg, upon what u add then u r free to mean it or enjoy it or add other things as u want since those adds from the start belongs to u and are nothing to everything as they are while present existin things relatively to u

so the main issue is two different points one negatively and the other positively objective

the negative objective point of that issue, is the perspective of the way as an offer while pretendin then that right is a given thing too by a creator or what another add
that is why they keep mentionnin love as the base of all things like if what or who add love to see u profitin from his adds which is completely false since the fact is the reverse
but who add and would come to clearly say it while provin an absolute add?? impossible
who is conscious enough to admit facts ? devils and gods wont let it b

the positive objective point of the issue here, is like what u said about random intentions

when freedom ways is principally through true superior adds then the only possible free way to exist is to b already truly free so to act as being a freedom right all the ways
then subjectively u must b true since it is the exclusive point reference u got to all ur constant instants, ur present free conscious facts

then subjectively u must move freely and not mean to want to exist even if u have to survive or defend urself against others wills
it is truly too tough bc gods are jaleous of existence superiority in truth and devils of course have a very prospereous life bc of the impossibility to exist abuses

0 Replies

Perhaps to avoid a certain typology of maneuvering one should re frame the question so that a straight answer can be provided if there is an intention of providing a clear enough answer...Can or cannot an agent determine what his willing will be ? Either he can determine it or he can't, either the intention is something that the agent controls and therefore determines every time ad infinitum or if the willing is not deterministically caused by the agent, then the authorship, the property of willing, is noticeably compromised...there's simply no honest way around that as a billion statistical coincidences wouldn't make an inch of an argument to establish the right to claim authorship on will...again, lack of knowledge on the process cannot be an argument either way !

The only thing determinists claim is that an argument for free will is contradictory as it also would require a determined reality and not that determinism is true for sure ! (We indulge in admitting we BELIEVE in determinism not that we are sure of it, we believe it simply because it seams the most plausible explanation.)

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

Quote:

This argument fails by equivocating either over the notions of cause and determinism or over different notions of randomness. In a determined world there is no mathematical randomness, but the randomness which threatens free will is a different randomness, it's about lack of control, a randomness of intent.

There' s a big difference between equivocating and accepting, as the problem rather is that we do not accept an argument build on ignorance, which is what you are doing when when claiming that free will exists because causation, which as you well said is just a explanatory mean, is enough to claim authorship on will...either there is a determined link of causality between agent and will or the argument is build on speculation upon other forms of causation which do not provide a mechanically clear linkage between events...I do not play Walt Disney indeed...

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

Quote:

If our actions are predictable, even if only in principle, then some third party could make the relevant calculation and state to me that at some future time I will perform some given action, for any future time. But what is to stop me from saying that I will perform some other action at the specified time and performing the action stated by myself?

If determinism is the case, we require all relevant information to make a prediction. By telling you a prediction, you can then by some function do something based on that information (as could a machine). Because that prediction is now required information to determine what your future actions will be, the "prediction" is no longer valid as it was not based on all the relevant information that would determine your future actions (Relevant Information = Relevant Infomation Before Prediction + Prediction).

Your example is clearly a mind trick you have played on yourself to convince yourself you have freewill.

2 Replies

@tomr,

Excellent, could not state it better myself !

0 Replies

The OP asks if free-will is an illusion. Without getting into the problem of definitions of "illusion", let me simply assert my favorite illusion, namely that all thought--including mathematical thought-- is the construction of illusion, preferrably useful illusion. I tend--in my project of generating my philosophical illusions--to favor a kind of "radical empiricism" (William James?): I am far more comfortable with immediate experience, even before I have attached meaning to it (hence my love of music and non-representational abstract art). I realize that this bias is more mystical than it is intellectual--but what the hell. I am sitting here looking at my computer screen, typing thoughts at they appear to consciousness and enjoying the sensations in my stomach of the digesting oatmeal and dried fruit I just ate. Those sensations are radically real; they occur as they do on their own without my conscious direction and intention. The way I just now gave them communicable meaning is what I think of as artificially added value (the way I "cooked" my "raw" sensations for your consumption). But in so doing I rendered my digestive sensations, and even the sensations of my meaning-generating thoughts, meaningful but in a sense less real, in so far as they took on a kind of second order, artificial, reality.
Notice now how I am walking precariously on the precipice of reality and illusion. Better stop before I fall.

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

hello test

1234

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

hello test

1234

Third hit of the Kinks rejected title was?

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

A2k doesn't let you delete a posting, you have leave something

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

That's totally incorrect. The software on A2K is set so that you have approximately 10 minutes to delete a posting.

0 Replies

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know