Is free-will an illusion?

@tomr,

I was saying that we never actually SEE causes (and effects). The velocities and masses before the collision may "determine" the velocities afterwards, but this is a determination-by-principle. You are thinking the cause not seeing it. What we actually see is the cue ball move to the object ball and stop when they touch, then you see the object ball move away at the same speed. Causation is not part of a radical empiricism; it's a conceptual scheme for explaining what one does see, but causation is not actually seen. That's why I reject determinism as an apriori (metaphysical) description of the Cosmos. It only works as an ad hoc aposteriori theory for what we see.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

The basic q before the house is whether an identical set of conditions produce an identical result

That is, if at this instant time could be turned back five minutes, five minutes later would everything be the same as it is now

If the answer is yes then the determinists apparently are right, very depressing conclusion wouldn't you agree

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

We might not understand what makes the interaction between the billard balls happen at the most fundamental level. But we can say that whatever is going on it is determined. Just consider the infinite possible paths the billard balls might take after the collision if their motion was not consistent with causation. But we can predict that motion with very good accuracy and have been doing so for several hundred years now. So we know the cause of future motion is based on the scenario of the collision.

If instead all series of events are like a continuous story that advances along without causes, what is producing the story? And why is the same story repeated endlessly for our example of the billard balls and countless other predictable scenarios? If such stories exist for all physical objects for the entire time they exist, where is the information about their future positions stored, because such a story would be endless? And finally if all the physical objects in the universe have stories that seamlessly advance these objects to new states in time, how is a story governing the actions of objects any different than a deterministic model of the interactions?

0 Replies

my reaction only now in gettin ur means here of what i never care about look like saying this

the billard example i can use it for myself in confirmin truth

the ball dont go in the sense of the force, the ball always clearly try by the reverse to go someplace else, so freedom ever there is clearly perceived objectively

now the determinism is also perceived, subjectively force get an objective result
n objectively the obvious is always limited to absolute so since force is always relative then only a relative absolute would always b real

but also it says how determinism is not the truth

objectively the subject free reaction exist and it is real with what it was before the move alone,

true objective cant b by force in that point truth dont force

then it explains why force is always relative so much easier to identify and perceive then the reaction, so it is the determinism u mean so yes in relative terms always exist unfortunately

but truth also exist as present true objective sense and reactions to relative objective facts and forces

when truth dont force then objective exist even if there is nothing and noone or no force is willin,

truth is constant superiority absolute fact and relative sense so objective is certain where the fact and relative are real in sharin same true superior point

so the present free sense exist without being touched by force or b a relative reaction

my guess is to say that force is due to objective existence sense force source

it is the relative determinism nature bein objective existence certainty end

but how that existence would b relatively wha present would b truly real this is always unknown

like for now in all terms existence is meant as a creation or invention or willin or enjoyin never that any could b existin really

that is how even the concept u r using out of determinism mean is wrong

yes existence is determined to become one day existing really bc now it is nt that so it justify that determinsim so any strong will meanin really smthg long terms it is supported by determinsim of existence as sharin same objective at some points

but u r being exclusively a liar when u deny the present u know being free existing for that relative determinism objective terms of existence sense that is not existin
for else present or others abuse u will claim that existence is not yet so u dont see anything existin

this kind of hypocrisy and more clear lies are the sign of some surprises comin

there is an opposite difference between the urge to exist and the will to abuse the fact of existence sense force for infinite always nonexistence

truth is superiority so since that thing evil exist then there is true superiority which rised free from this and this is the existence that gonna b called right in meanin truth rights as present objective existence first

the sense of first will become the superiority and relative or reality comes after

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

The basic q before the house is whether an identical set of conditions produce an identical result

"Identical" is similar to "circle". They don't exist as anything but abstract concept. Any real applications are merely approximations.
Something can be identical to something else for all practical purposes, but if you add more criteria, sooner or later you will find differences.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

The basic q before the house is whether an identical set of conditions produce an identical result

That is, if at this instant time could be turned back five minutes, five minutes later would everything be the same as it is now

If the answer is yes then the determinists apparently are right, very depressing conclusion wouldn't you agree

If time is wound back, then there is no "now" for things to turn out the same as, or different from. To claim that there is, is to smuggle a truth into the future. In short, the thought experiment begs the question in favour of determinism and asks can we do both A and not-A, instead of asking can we do either A or not-A. So, even if there were a non-question-begging way to organise this thought experiment, that an agent makes the same choice is not inconsistent with free will and doesn't support determinism. After all, I will always choose the banana, not the pineapple, but that's no reason to think I lack free will.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

All very correct except that equally you have no way of knowing what can someone do in a specific situation at a given time except consider that something is potentially possible but not necessarily actually possible, as something being possible says nothing on the actual circumstantial possibility's on your own choosing...so either way if you don't believe in causation you might as well drop any interest in a logical conversation altogether...why else ask for reasons for A or B when you question causation ? If you don't question it you might just as well put free will down the drain once and for all, there is no middle grounds here...

...and yes ultimately as anything else I am granting causation is a matter of belief as I know all to well what you will say next regarding statistical probability's using infinity against any number I present you with sequential relations between events...equally for all we know we might well not even be alive and be part of a dream but in such case we never meant anymore with the concept of life then we do on our awaken dream...and that is the true point of interest to consider here !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

All very correct except that equally you have no way of knowing what can someone do in a specific situation at a given time except consider that something is potentially possible but not necessarily actually possible. . .

1) I have no reason to suppose that there are undetectable forces which prevent me from doing things which I have demonstrated that I can do
2) it is an essential principle of experimental science that researchers can repeat experimental procedures, so, one either abandons this principle, and with it science, or it is a trivial matter to demonstrate free will
3) there are simple arguments to show that the probability of the world being determined is either vanishingly small, or the probability of our perceptions mapping to an external world is vanishingly small. Assuming that any successful argument must, at some level, appeal to a correspondence truth, the corollary is that there is no rationally acceptable argument for determinism.
Accordingly, I reject the contention that we live in a determined world and I accept that free will is demonstrable.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

if you don't believe in causation

I don't know what that means. There is no satisfactory theory of cause in either science or philosophy, the term is vague and ambiguous. The only common feature in the usages of "cause" is that it refers to specified elements of explanations. Obviously there are explanations, so equally obviously there are causes.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

1) I have no reason to suppose that there are undetectable forces which prevent me from doing things which I have demonstrated that I can do
2) it is an essential principle of experimental science that researchers can repeat experimental procedures, so, one either abandons this principle, and with it science, or it is a trivial matter to demonstrate free will
3) there are simple arguments to show that the probability of the world being determined is either vanishingly small, or the probability of our perceptions mapping to an external world is vanishingly small. Assuming that any successful argument must, at some level, appeal to a correspondence truth, the corollary is that there is no rationally acceptable argument for determinism.
Accordingly, I reject the contention that we live in a determined world and I accept that free will is demonstrable.

1) The forces that are in question are completely detectable. The force of pressure or heat on your skin. The electric forces between neurons in your brain. The force of visible light on the cells in your retina. Each force has a particular magnitude that is measurable to some degree of accuracy. And the number of forces that affect you at any point in time are far greater than anyone can comprehend (on the order of 10^27 atoms in the human body each experiencing a force).

2) What possible demonstration could you perform to show to others that free will exists. A scientific experiment would involve detecting properties or phenomena from a common source that other observers beside yourself could verify. If you claim to have free will no one else can test and verify that assertation by scientific means.

3) No good arguments exist to show that the probability of the world being determined is infinitesimal.

4) The only conceivable means of making a choice is by a relationship that is determined from initial causes. I can demonstate such a conception: I need only produce one of infinite mathematical expressions to show that such relationships do exist and we can percieve that they exist. For example: {If x<2 then f(x)=18x^2, If x>2 then f(x)=(x-2)^(1/2), If x=0 then f(x)= 4} or {If input=blue then output=banana, If input=green then output=pineapple}.

5) However no demonstation can be produced to show that free will exists. If you know you have free will, you should be able to demonstrate that you understand what free will is or else how could you know what it is you have. What is it that you are doing that is different from the algorithms for deterministic selection that I gave above? Is this your algorithm: {At time t=1 MyWant=banana, At t=2 MyWant=banana, At t=3 MyWant=banana, At t=4 MyWant=pineapple}? Notice that this list does not give us any information about how the selection occurred. So it does not show an understanding of the method of free will. And because its means cannot be demonstated, we do not understand what free will is and so should not assume its existence.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Your hypothetical "five minute" thought experiment, illustrates my point about the purely conceptual nature of causation and determinism.

1 Reply

@tomr,

tomr wrote:

1) The forces that are in question are completely detectable.

No they aren't. I can type 10 and I can type 01, if I state that I will type one of the above pair in my next post, you cannot successfully state which one that will be, no matter how many forces you detect. Because if you state which one I will type, I will type the other. Nobody seriously doubts that I can do this, so there are no detectable forces which will prevent me doing so.

tomr wrote:

2) What possible demonstration could you perform to show to others that free will exists.

1) define free will
2) define three essential principles of science
3) demonstrate at least two actions
4) from the above construct an option set
5) define choice and conscious choice
6) demonstrate a choice
7) enact the choice.

tomr wrote:

3) No good arguments exist to show that the probability of the world being determined is infinitesimal.

You're mistaken, not only do such arguments exist but I'm pretty much certain that I've posted one on this site.

tomr wrote:

4) The only conceivable means of making a choice is by a relationship that is determined from initial causes.

Nonsense. If the world is not determined then any phenomenon can be tied to a choice so that it is not determined by initial conditions. You are either begging the question or proposing a trivial notion of pseudo-determinism.

tomr wrote:

5) Notice that this list does not give us any information about how the selection occurred. So it does not show an understanding of the method of free will. And because its means cannot be demonstated, we do not understand what free will is and so should not assume its existence.

1) you, like every other healthy human adult, unavoidably assume the reality of free will.
2) you don't understand how gravity works, or what it is, do you hold that to be a reason not to assume the existence of gravity?
3) before there was a theory of nuclear fusion there was no understanding of the working of the sun, do you think the existence of the sun was in doubt before an explanatory theory was created?
Whether a phenomenon has been explained, will be or even can be explained is irrelevant to whether or not it exists. Obviously phenomena precede explanations, not the other way around.
You appear to be engaging in special pleading to doubt or deny the reality of free will. As you yourself unavoidably assume the reality of free will and successfully and consistently act on that assumption hundreds of times a day, your stance is irrational.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

Obviously anything you said so far does not make a case for free will but rather that if you accept that there is causation by arguing that you are the cause of your actions you equally must accept that there are external forces that condition the terms of whatever you come to will, a matter of coherence.
So either you drop causation in which case you don't have an argument at all or if you accept it, you must explain beyond reasonable doubt why and how are we different from any other physical process in the Universe...what is at stake here does not concern what I will but to know if what I will is free in any meaningful sense of the word, which evidently it is not !

Free will is a simplistic statement commonly used by everybody which merely states that one is left to do as he pleases without external opposition or coercion and does not attempt to explain the reasons or the causes of such willing beyond or acknowledgment of it being such and such thus its an act of awareness not of choice...from your point of view an alcoholic can reasonably argue that is choosing of drinking everyday is a free choice, and the same could be argued with water when we all know that it is not the case...

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

, but if you add more criteria, sooner or later you will find differences.

Sorry Cyr if I wasn't clear, I fear

Of course we can't test the concept because we can never reproduce exactly all the "criteria" or conditions. If we could however, and if we got the same results each time, then determinism would prevail

Not that I believe it would; I speculate that it will eventually be demonstrated that the apparent impasse between free will and determinism is a simple semantic issue

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Even if you want to make a distinction between the urge and the decision making you would still have to prove that the decision making, when denying the urge you had, is not itself the outcome of another urge or further yet, bluntly, that all rational thought it is not conditioned by emotional and biological needs which again would be utter nonsense once reason requires reasons, what else ? although apparently that would be exactly what is required to make an argument in favor of free will...

...To make it all to clear, on the contrary even would be "pure" rationalizations are the product of observing whatever correlations work in our reality, in our Universe, such that even granting those for the argument sake still they are subjected to whatever works in a given frame of time, or whatever is observed as being functionally correlated...I cannot will but whatever works...the day you will pink elephants and Flying Spaghetti Monster or the likes, and they show up, I gladly concede at your claim...

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

Quote:

If time is wound back, then there is no "now" for things to turn out the same as, or different from.

Of course not. But I propose an (imaginary) experiment whereby all causative factors are reproduced in more nearly exact fashion. When the result isn't reproduced of course we'd seek the odd factor and correct it, then repeat until we were pretty sure, until it is serially verified to our satisfaction whether the result is going to be the same each time

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Your hypothetical "five minute" thought experiment

In practical application my experiment might take many years, for each time it's repeated the odd factor would have to be discovered and corrected

Quote:

purely conceptual nature of causation and determinism.

I can't agree, in accordance with the general principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else. If it pretty conclusively demonstrated the same result every time, then causation and determinism will have been pretty conclusively validated

..though I don't think it would be; based on the premise that the number of causative factors is essentially infinite

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

..though I don't think it would be; based on the premise that the number of causative factors is essentially infinite

I think you mean, theoretically, the number of possible correlated different events and not causative factors, once we don't have any knowledge on the finite or infinite duration of our own Universe nor on the number of events that will emerge in it...to my satisfaction in a finite set of events a correlation of 100% between any 2 or more events suffices as functional prof of causation...

1 Reply

In conclusion the argument for free will was never about total freedom but rather a small common sense based argument against coercion which is more a matter of semantics then a matter on its own right...either one takes causation as granted and accepts its rational consequences upon the concept of free will or when pleading for special chain of causation on which interruption can be made by a conscience one needs to carefully demonstrate where is such freedom of choice coming from...
Again the matter of choice is the matter of knowing to the best we can what are our priority's and needs, that is, which are the reasons that will constrain our course of action in a more satisfactory way such that we can fulfill such needs as we are programed to do...we are always slaves of our needs, as from whom we are, and since we can't choose who we are, but at best only getting to know it, it is all to evident we are and act what we must !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I think you mean, theoretically, the number of possible correlated different events and not causative factors

Isn't every correlated event a causative factor Fil and even in a finite Universe aren't the number of such combinations infinite

Quote:

to my satisfaction in a finite set of events a correlation of 100% between any 2 or more events suffices as functional prof of causation...

Not sure what you mean by this since such a correlation is of course impossible

Quote:

is more a matter of semantics then a matter on its own right..

Indeed as I had asserted, the entire free-will/determinism hoo ha might eventually be shown a semantic issue

Quote:

special chain of causation on which interruption can be made by a conscience

Unlikely as you imply if for no other reason that nothing is entirely anything while….

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

No they aren't...In a finite set of events the number of correlations between events is equally finite determined by X factual correlations that did occur...of course you would need to witness the entire life of a given Universe to make such claim and thus not being a part of it, in which case, in opposition, as dying along with your universe you could never witness it and make such claim...uncertainty is not just a condition of being human but the very condition of rational inquiry once is precisely because you cannot be totally certain although you can find good reasons that you have a need to think...awareness requires uncertainty regarding the future.

The point being the problem concerning free will is not about matters of fact but rather about our problem with knowledge and the required uncertainty as the very ground and reason of conscience and its seeking for answers...

Completion is dying !

2 Replies

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know