Is free-will an illusion?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Correction:

Indeed its is conceptually possible to conceive in a finite set of time an infinite set of events given ensemble events can happen and the finite or infinite size or the nature of space as being continuous or quantized it is not established...the frame I presented assumed a full finite nature to space and time naturally.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

No they aren't…

Do you mean aren't infinite

Quote:

In a finite set of events the number of correlations between events is equally finite

I suppose you mean in a Universe where everything, including time, happens in tiny increment

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=3&cp=34&gs_id=3q&xhr=t&q=physics+proceeds+in+discrete+jumps&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=physics+proceeds+in+discrete+jumps&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=409f18101d883e51&bpcl=35277026&biw=1419&bih=821

Quote:

Indeed its is conceptually possible to conceive in a finite set of time an infinite set of events

…and an infinite number of possible causes for each

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

1 - Yes the correlations are not infinite given the frame of reference I assumed.

2 - Again yes, as they say time and space in "packets"...

3 - You cannot speak of "causes", a very muddy word I admit, unless you can determine there are no other possible events to correlate with any given chosen event...therefore infinity or infinite possible diverse correlations exclude causation as form of justification.

Only a 100% correlation between 2 or more events in all the space time they can happen on which necessity or sufficiency can be established is good enough as proof of causation...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Who knows an infinite set of things can correlate the happening of fire but to firmly establish any is cause of fire I would need to know in all the space and all the time such correlation would happen 100%. An infinite set either of space or time and thus of possible if possible diverse events does not provide the certainty causation seams to require...
Going further there are those and probably rightfully so that ask not just for sufficiency but for necessity, once arguably, apparently similar events, may in fact be unique...for instance an electric fire it is not the same as a normal fire although the pattern and process have a lot in common.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

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

Scientists routinely perform the process that you're talking about, if they didn't there would be no replication of results. The fact is, with living organisms, repeating conditions is no guarantee that there will be repeated behaviour. But this doesn't mean that you haven't reproduced the relevant conditions, it could equally well mean that you have observed freely willed behaviour.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

. . . 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

As stated in my earlier post; there is no satisfactory notion of "cause" in either philosophy or science. So what you've written above is just waffle. You will need to specify what you mean by "causation". Also, you will need to explain the reasoning behind your various assertions, for example, I haven't contended that "you are the cause of your actions" or "we different from any other physical process in the Universe".

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

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 !

On the contrary, it evidently is, and this is something which has been spelled out in tedious great detail on this site.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

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.

Whether there is an explanation or not, is irrelevant to whether or not there is free will. Freely willed actions are intended voluntary actions, they don't come about as a matter of chance, neither are they determined. This means that any interesting explanation of free will cannot depend on a model which is deterministic, probabilistic or a combination of these two. As all how-question explanations in science, as far as I'm aware, appeal to deterministic algorithms which transform states of interest over time and generate predictions in terms of probability, I conclude that there is no explanation for free will in the present human explanatory arsenal. So tell me, what manner of explanation, are you looking for?

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

The largely accepted base concept of will depends on acceptance of causation that is, that you are in control of your actions, that there is a relation between what you intend and what you can do. Granting that, equally there is no good reason to assume whatever is the cause of your will is constrained to your own internal conditions or that your own internal conditions are not dependent on external factors beyond your control...that is special pleading and requires great deal of explaining which so far you have yet not provided thus merely claiming your will is free because you will it can only have the simpleminded context regarding direct coercion I talked about in my previous posts...

I also believe I clarified sufficiently that there is no ultimate certainty regarding Causation but rather ask instead if there is any good reason to question it beyond an exercise in mathematics of infinity or an odd digression about statistics...as far as I am concern causation is a strong correlation between 2 or more events that we can observe and upon which we can establish a dynamic comprehensible linkage.

Obviously it is paramount to clarify whether there is an explanation beyond you mere willing to know whether or not you are doing it with any freedom, there is a great difference between witnessing a process consciously and being fully responsible for it...it is awkward that you miss the point after it being explained to you, but hell, I am pretty sure its not your fault.

1 Reply

@MoralPhilosopher23,

If I may offer my thoughts on the subject, it honestly depends on a persons theistic perspective. If you believe in an omnipotent omnipresent deity then your answer is no, free will does not exist. Everything you do is known before you act on it, although you have the illusion of free will because YOU don't know what your going to choose nor do you know the outcome. Your deity on the other hand does so its all predetermined. Unless your a non-theist or you believe your deity does not know everything before it happens then yes free will exists. Sorry if my grammar sucks I don't have spellcheck on my phone.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The largely accepted base concept of will depends on acceptance of causation that is, that you are in control of your actions, that there is a relation between what you intend and what you can do. Granting that, equally there is no good reason to assume whatever is the cause of your will is constrained to your own internal conditions or that your own internal conditions are not dependent on external factors beyond your control

causation is a strong correlation between 2 or more events that we can observe and upon which we can establish a dynamic comprehensible linkage.

You're not making yourself any clearer.
You appear to have two attempts to define "causation":
1) causation that is, that you are in control of your actions, that there is a relation between what you intend and what you can do
2) causation is a strong correlation between 2 or more events that we can observe and upon which we can establish a dynamic comprehensible linkage.
The two state different things and neither is a clear statement of anything useful.

An agent has free will on any occasion on which that agent makes and enacts a conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives.
This requires that there be at least the following:
1) a conscious agent
2) a finite set of at least two realisable options
3) a means by which the agent can evaluate and compare the options.
A "choice" is the construction of a set with exactly one member and which is a proper subset of an option set.
A choice is conscious if the agent has imagined future expectations for each option, compared those options and holds one as preferred before enactment.

Tell me, where in this is "causation" supposedly a problem? how is it a problem? and how is that problem entailed by the definitions?

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
The largely accepted base concept of will depends on acceptance of causation that is, that you are in control of your actions, that there is a relation between what you intend and what you can do. Granting that, equally there is no good reason to assume whatever is the cause of your will is constrained to your own internal conditions or that your own internal conditions are not dependent on external factors beyond your control

causation is a strong correlation between 2 or more events that we can observe and upon which we can establish a dynamic comprehensible linkage.
You're not making yourself any clearer.
You appear to have two attempts to define "causation":
1) causation that is, that you are in control of your actions, that there is a relation between what you intend and what you can do
2) causation is a strong correlation between 2 or more events that we can observe and upon which we can establish a dynamic comprehensible linkage.
The two state different things and neither is a clear statement of anything useful.

An agent has free will on any occasion on which that agent makes and enacts a conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives.
This requires that there be at least the following:
1) a conscious agent
2) a finite set of at least two realisable options
3) a means by which the agent can evaluate and compare the options.
A "choice" is the construction of a set with exactly one member and which is a proper subset of an option set.
A choice is conscious if the agent has imagined future expectations for each option, compared those options and holds one as preferred before enactment.

Tell me, where in this is "causation" supposedly a problem? how is it a problem? and how is that problem entailed by the definitions?

A choice is dependent on your interest which again is dependent on your needs which again were not chosen by you...since you are not the cause of yourself whatever you will is not free...that simple !

...and no there is only one attempt to provide a definition of what causation is which is the last, the first is an example on how causation is related with the concept of will...will requires reasons those reasons are not exhausted in yourself therefore your will is not free should suffice for an argument...

...regarding your last question when you speak of "your will" you are referring to property and establishing a link between willing existing and a willer that wills !
Given you acknowledge a relation of cause and effect between the one who wills and the willing why should you not accept the one who wills is in no control nor is he the ultimate cause or reason for whatever he is willing once he is not is own cause ??? The argument is old...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
An agent has free will on any occasion on which that agent makes and enacts a conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives.
This requires that there be at least the following:
1) a conscious agent
2) a finite set of at least two realisable options
3) a means by which the agent can evaluate and compare the options.
A "choice" is the construction of a set with exactly one member and which is a proper subset of an option set.
A choice is conscious if the agent has imagined future expectations for each option, compared those options and holds one as preferred before enactment.

Tell me, where in this is "causation" supposedly a problem? how is it a problem? and how is that problem entailed by the definitions?
A choice is dependent on your interest which again is dependent on your needs which again were not chosen by you...since you are not the cause of yourself whatever you will is not free...that simple !

Obviously the agent doesn't need to choose their own needs, preferences, interests, etc, as those are part of the evaluation system. It is no more an objection to free will, to point out that the agent doesn't choose their desires, than it is to point out that they don't choose to be the agent that they are or choose the members of the option set. These are all requirements for free will, so their existence cannot possibly be an objection to free will. In short, you have not offered an objection to free will. But in any case, your objection has nothing to do with "causation", so I really have no idea of what you're trying to say.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Re read above since you seam stubborn or maybe tired...you gonna have to try a hell lot more to convince the audience that much I grant you...

Let me help you :

Quote:

...regarding your last question when you speak of "your will" you are referring to property and establishing a link between willing existing and a willer that wills !
Given you acknowledge a relation of cause and effect between the one who wills and the willing why should you not accept the one who wills is in no control nor is he the ultimate cause or reason for whatever he is willing once he is not is own cause ??? The argument is old...

1 Reply

@MoralPhilosopher23,

I believe it's a bit of both, because we have no choice in who our parents are, where they live, and what their backgrounds are. For those who are born in developed countries have one foot up with the potential to live a pretty comfortable life if one makes the effort to work towards his/her goals. A government of the country has much influence, as well as the individual's biology and environment. It's not an illusion; it's just that we don't have control of some of the important aspects of our life. Good health is important.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Re read above since you seam stubborn or maybe tired...you gonna have to try a hell lot more to convince the audience that much I grant you...

Let me help you :

Quote:
...regarding your last question when you speak of "your will" you are referring to property and establishing a link between willing existing and a willer that wills !
Given you acknowledge a relation of cause and effect between the one who wills and the willing why should you not accept the one who wills is in no control nor is he the ultimate cause or reason for whatever he is willing once he is not is own cause ??? The argument is old...

1) if you want stuff to be read, don't edit it in while your interlocutor is replying.
2) that which you edited it is illucid crap, specifically: I have not acknowledged "a relation of cause and effect between the one who wills and the willing" because you have yet to render this meaningful.
3) you have not addressed the blindingly obvious flaw in your "objection", specifically, that you appear to think that free will is impossible because one of the conditions required for free will is met.

Perhaps you should state what you mean by "free will", as I suspect you mean something silly and of no interest to philosophers.

0 Replies

I will have any control over my life when I, and I alone, am the cause of whatever happens in it...as long as "I" whatever that refers to (yet another hard problem), am not the only and ultimate cause of whatever I will I have absolutely not a jot of control over anything...middle ground here is worse then taking a clear position !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I will have any control over my life when I, and I alone, am the cause of whatever happens in it...as long as "I" whatever that refers to (yet another hard problem), am not the only and ultimate cause of whatever I will I have absolutely not a jot of control over anything...middle ground here is worse then taking a clear position !

Presumably this is what you mean by "free will", and judging from your earlier post "I, and I alone, am the cause of whatever happens in [my life]" means that you only have control, and thus free will, if you choose and "cause" who your are. But as you would need to be you in order to choose and "cause" who you are, this is obviously impossible, and, as I suspected, your straw man of free will is one of no interest to philosophers.
Including the other board, I've been reading your poorly thought-out nonsense about free will for three years, don't you think you've wasted enough time? Wouldn't you like to progress on to finding out what the discussion amongst philosophers is actually about, and maybe try taking part in it?

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Yes precisely since it is an impossibility for you to be simultaneously you and the cause of yourself and your own reason there is no SUCH THING as free will...in fact there is no degree of freedom in whatever exists and it is true ! You might just as well throw the word freedom altogether down the drain...now stop arguing in circles and address my last post in the terms it was presented if you are capable enough...later I will post some videos to provide a concrete example on what the Philosophers say concerning your argument and MY argument...my position is hardly any novelty regarding free will if only you were honest enough to acknowledge it...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

So, the fact that you're on a2k doesn't exist; it's all an illusion. Yup.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

???

What does my being or not being on A2K says about my freedom or lack of it ?

I am here because it is possible to be here ! My willing of being here certainly has reasons far beyond my knowledge and control... for all that I care I wasn't stroke by a hurricane yesterday in order to be here today and the fact that I am willing this conversation does not clarify a jot to myself on why I am willing to be here much then the common sense poorly controlled answer on which I can enumerate half a dozen of presupposed reasons which ultimately I am not at all sure...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

my position is hardly any novelty regarding free will if only you were honest enough to acknowledge it...

Variants on your position have been associated, mainly, with G.Strawson, which in no way reduces the fact that it's full blown nonsense. Your objection has no force against free will under standard definitions, and that includes incompatilist interpretations.

1 Reply

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know