To What Extent Does Free Will Exist?

Originally posted by JS357
However, supposing I accept that randomness is a necessary condition for free will, it seems to say that an uncaused event in the causal chain is required and somehow this uncaused event is ours to bring about.

Surely if I have to bring about the uncaused event, then I am the cause of it - and that begs the question: why am I doing so?

Sorry, coming late into this thread I am replying to stuff as I come across it. I will explain my position a little later.

Originally posted by CalJust
If you want to bring in Christianity here, how about the following interferences of God in our Free Will:

Negative: And God Hardened the heart of Pharao, so that he would not let the Israelites go - with disastrous results for him and his people

Positive: "I will put my Spirit on them and write my laws on their heart, and cause them to walk in my ways" ...[text shortened]... tc" because I know they are there. Just explain to us why God overrides your Free Will, and why.

But a well versed theist would simply reply that there is no indication that G-d overrides your Free Will. The point is that the factors that have caused or determined the self (over here: G-d) cannot be properly said to have coerced it, due to the fact that G-d’s causality indeed forms us, but our free will is related to our ability to manifest our will long after the formation of our self;

It follows that the specific theist concept of free will, as it is presented at the passage you mentioned, is meaningful solely when it boils down to describing external influences coercing the mind (man’s decision), and not the internal (divine) composition of the mind (which is caused and determined by G-d) or the formation of the will (which is caused and determined by the man and thus free). If this distinction is not taken into account, any kind of distinction between the human mind and reality (in this context G-d’s reality, that is) is impossible and therefore any kind of formation of free will is impossible😵

After having read this far, here's my two cents worth:

There seem to be two themes being discussed. Originally, Duchess posed the question as to what constitutes FW in a situation of coercion. Clearly, the law accepts that what was not done willingly (e.g. a confession) is not valid in a court of law. And many would protect themselves and their family by doing stuff they would not "willingly" do.

However, this situation is complicated by other factors such as how does one know that a person is REALLY unwilling? He or she may even be a masochist and secretly "want" the torture. So it is still not all black and white, but there must be allowance for greyness.

The second theme of discussion, mainly JS and bb, deals much deeper with the subject: Why do we do what we do? i.e. Choices vs determinism.

I certainly do not claim to be a philosopher, or to be as widely read on the subject as others on this thread, especially Duchess, are. So my simple take on Free Will is that whatever we chose we chose for one of two reasons:
- to increase our pleasure
- to minimise our pain.

From that then follows why do we experience certain things as pleasure and others as pain? Here our past experience, upbringing, even genes, must certainly play a role.

Quite frankly, I am not at all sure to what extent my decisions are influenced by the immediate options and stimuli before me at that moment, and past experiences and habits? Is it part of the old nurture vs nature debate?

Originally posted by black beetle
If this distinction is not taken into account, any kind of distinction between the human mind and reality (in this context G-d’s reality, that is) is impossible and therefore any kind of formation of free will is impossible😵

Very interesting observation.

I do not think Duchess intended this to be a religious, but rather a more philosophical, thread.

However, the matter that you raise is at the centre of a typical Christian problem: if you say that the Spirit of God lives in you, to what extent is what you do God's responsibility and not yours?

Originally posted by black beetle
The concept of randomly generated alternative possibilities for decision making processes and thus for action as regards the animals and the human beings, is presented well by Martin Heisenberg amongst else (Is Free Will an Illusion?, Nature, 459, May 2009).

Anyway, since our emotions, our thought patterns and our cognitive apparatus as a whole allow ...[text shortened]... s come to me freely and I ‘m aware of the fact that my actions are created from me willfully
😵

I want to test a metaphor about Martin Heisenberg's two-stage model.

In a choice situation, we have a virtual "empty bucket" whose full level has been formed by our genetics (our nature) and our experience (our nurture). We pick out alternative choices for consideration and put them in the bucket. We do not at this stage do a full evaluation of each alternative before putting it in the bucket, we just pick them on account of a general feeling about them. The ones that come to hand for picking, are to some extent subject to his father's uncertainty principle, so they might be a different set, at a different time. (Some people may, having picked just one alternative, stop picking. They might as well keep that alternative in their bucket for all choice situations.)

The alternatives might not be alternative actions, they might be alternative bases for action.

Our bucket has a satisfaction level that is full enough after having picking enough alternatives, so we stop picking. Then we start a deeper evaluation. If one of them proves relatively satisfactory or leads to a relatively satisfactory action, we choose it. If none are OK, we empty the bucket and look around for more alternatives.

Perceived pressure and perceived importance affect all this.

Note that some people, in some situations, are practically speaking, compelled to select a particular alternative every time, let's say, they always look to the Bible.

Originally posted by CalJust
Very interesting observation.

I do not think Duchess intended this to be a religious, but rather a more philosophical, thread.

However, the matter that you raise is at the centre of a typical Christian problem: if you say that the Spirit of God lives in you, to what extent is what you do God's responsibility and not yours?

To this atheist, the question as regards the Spirit of G-d is bonkers😵

Originally posted by black beetle
To this atheist, the question as regards the Spirit of G-d is bonkers😵

To this Christian, this entire thread is bordering on mere mental masturbation.

I mean, I understand how goalpost-moving can become a hobby, but when it becomes the raison d'etre for the thread, it becomes incredibly self-serving.

Originally posted by JS357
I want to test a metaphor about Martin Heisenberg's two-stage model.

In a choice situation, we have a virtual "empty bucket" whose full level has been formed by our genetics (our nature) and our experience (our nurture). We pick out alternative choices for consideration and put them in the bucket. We do not at this stage do a full evaluation of each alterna ...[text shortened]... mpelled to select a particular alternative every time, let's say, they always look to the Bible.

In fact the model generates new alternative possibilities just because it lets the agent choose otherwise in exactly the same conditions that obtained before the moment of choice😵

Originally posted by Suzianne
To this Christian, this entire thread is bordering on mere mental masturbation.

I mean, I understand how goalpost-moving can become a hobby, but when it becomes the raison d'etre for the thread, it becomes incredibly self-serving.

Lady Suzianne,
The free will issue is still open and not reconciled yet; methinks this is the raison d'etre for the thread😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Lady Suzianne,
The free will issue is still open and not reconciled yet; methinks this is the raison d'etre for the thread😵

[quiet reset for bb/S]

Originally posted by black beetle
In fact the model generates new alternative possibilities just because it lets the agent choose otherwise in exactly the same conditions that obtained before the moment of choice😵

"In fact the model generates new alternative possibilities just because it lets the agent choose otherwise in exactly the same conditions that obtained before the moment of choice"

Consider this. Suppose the exact same circumstances and the exact same decision-making agent exist in two instances. The agent decides to do action A in one of the instances, and the same agent (being the same in all respects) decides to do different action B in the other one of the instances.

In what sorts of situations, and to what sorts of agents, is the above a possibility?

We seem to agree that it is possible if there is true (unpredictable) randomness in the decision-making operation. But this is free willy-nilly, not free will.

Can the rational mind construct a model of free will that makes the situation described above plausible?

Originally posted by JS357
"In fact the model generates new alternative possibilities just because it lets the agent choose otherwise in exactly the same conditions that obtained before the moment of choice"

Consider this. Suppose the exact same circumstances and the exact same decision-making agent exist in two instances. The agent decides to do action A in one of the instances, and ...[text shortened]... rational mind construct a model of free will that makes the situation described above plausible?

For the time being no ostrich served us an omelet, but we still need the eggs; methinks we can decide whatever we want according to our cognitive apparatus in the same sort of situations and to the same sorts of agents under the exact identical circumstances
(which they are not ad infinitum the same because, even if the causes and conditions were identical, We ad infinitum happen to find ourselves at a different temporal sequence because we are a phenomenon-in-flux),

and therefore our decision may be identical as previously or different, because our will
(whilst we are processing the same pieces of info according to the evaluation of the mind)

can well connect with the perceived reality and assess the given available pieces of information in a different way
(because, as a phenomenon-in-flux, we have no standard predetermined reactions).


If my personal mind is rational, you do have the model you requested
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
For the time being no ostrich served us an omelet, but we still need the eggs; methinks we can decide whatever we want according to our cognitive apparatus in the same sort of situations and to the same sorts of agents under the exact identical circumstances
(which they are not ad infinitum the same because, even if the causes and conditions were ident ...[text shortened]... rmined reactions).


If my personal mind is rational, you do have the model you requested
😵

You last me at "ostrich."

Originally posted by JS357
You last me at "ostrich."

A bird with long legs is almost any man's dream😵