Free Will is Real

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
60,879
Reaction score
12,403
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
The ability to focus our minds on anything we want to, I think, is a convincing display of Free Will, but others go further, lol

You may be a big bunch of atoms governed by the mechanical laws, but you are not just any bunch of atoms. You are an intricately structured bunch of atoms, and your behavior depends not just on the laws that govern the individual atoms but on the way those atoms are assembled. At a higher level of description, your decisions can be truly open. When you walk into a store and choose between Android and Apple, the outcome is not preordained. It really is on you. ...
The neuroscientific skeptic is absolutely right that, at the fundamental physical level, there is no such thing as intentional goal-directed agency. The mistake is to claim that there is no such thing at all. Intentional agency is an emergent higher-level property, but it is no less real for that. Whenever our best scientific explanations of a particular phenomenon commit us to postulating certain entities or properties, then it is very good scientific practice to treat those postulated entities or properties as genuinely real. We observe patterns and regularities in our social and human environment, and the best way to make sense of those patterns and regularities is by assigning intentional agency to the people involved.
What about the second argument, the challenge from determinism—that, before I walk into a café, it is preordained what I will order?
The jury is out on whether the world is fundamentally deterministic—it depends on how we interpret quantum mechanics—but suppose it is. This does not necessitate that the world is also deterministic at some higher level of description. Indeterminism at the level of psychology is required for free will and alternative possibilities. That is entirely compatible with determinism at the fundamental physical level.
Think about weather forecasting. Meteorologists are interested in higher-level patterns and regularities. In fact, the very notion of weather is a higher-level notion. At the level of individual air molecules, there is no such thing as weather. Perhaps the system at that very fine-grained level of description would indeed behave deterministically according to classical physical laws, but as you move to a more macroscopic description, you abstract away from this microphysical detail....
Likewise, to describe the complete state of a human agent, we do not describe the full microphysical state of every elementary particle in the brain and body. That would be the wrong level of description. If our best theories of human agency compel us to postulate forks in the road between which agents can choose, then we’ve got very good scientific reasons to take alternative possibilities at face value. If you ask psychologists, cognitive scientists, and economists, they will give you different theories of how human choice-making works. But they all treat human beings as agents who are faced with choices between different options, so all these theories assume alternative possibilities. ...
My intentional mental state—namely, my intention to drink—is very systematically associated with my actions. If my mental state changes, my resulting actions change as well. By contrast, not every change or variation in the underlying physical states would give rise to a change in the resulting act.
A leading philosopher whose work I hugely admire, Jaegwon Kim, raised an important challenge against mental causation, the so-called causal exclusion argument. If you consider a particular effect and you’ve found a cause that fully accounts for that effect, you should not simultaneously postulate yet another distinct cause for the same effect. That would be an act of causal overattribution. Let’s suppose, once again, I lift my arm to drink some water. You can fully account for the action by reference to the physical state of my brain, so there is no reason to postulate yet another cause—namely, a distinct mental cause.
My response, which Peter Menzies and I developed, is that if we accept the interventionist theory of causation, the causal exclusion argument does not generally hold. For any given system, the most systematic causal relations may not involve the lowest-level variables, but could involve higher-level variables, or there might be systematic causal relations at both levels.
 

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
65,279
Reaction score
9,059
Points
2,030
You say our choice of Apple or Android is free will, but isn't that choice based on our knowledge and experience? Knowledge and experience is far from completely self directed but rather often determined by events that occur completely randomly, and at the whim of chance.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
9,601
Reaction score
487
Points
85
The ability to focus our minds on anything we want to, I think, is a convincing display of Free Will, but others go further, lol

You may be a big bunch of atoms governed by the mechanical laws, but you are not just any bunch of atoms. You are an intricately structured bunch of atoms, and your behavior depends not just on the laws that govern the individual atoms but on the way those atoms are assembled. At a higher level of description, your decisions can be truly open. When you walk into a store and choose between Android and Apple, the outcome is not preordained. It really is on you. ...
The neuroscientific skeptic is absolutely right that, at the fundamental physical level, there is no such thing as intentional goal-directed agency. The mistake is to claim that there is no such thing at all. Intentional agency is an emergent higher-level property, but it is no less real for that. Whenever our best scientific explanations of a particular phenomenon commit us to postulating certain entities or properties, then it is very good scientific practice to treat those postulated entities or properties as genuinely real. We observe patterns and regularities in our social and human environment, and the best way to make sense of those patterns and regularities is by assigning intentional agency to the people involved.
What about the second argument, the challenge from determinism—that, before I walk into a café, it is preordained what I will order?
The jury is out on whether the world is fundamentally deterministic—it depends on how we interpret quantum mechanics—but suppose it is. This does not necessitate that the world is also deterministic at some higher level of description. Indeterminism at the level of psychology is required for free will and alternative possibilities. That is entirely compatible with determinism at the fundamental physical level.
Think about weather forecasting. Meteorologists are interested in higher-level patterns and regularities. In fact, the very notion of weather is a higher-level notion. At the level of individual air molecules, there is no such thing as weather. Perhaps the system at that very fine-grained level of description would indeed behave deterministically according to classical physical laws, but as you move to a more macroscopic description, you abstract away from this microphysical detail....
Likewise, to describe the complete state of a human agent, we do not describe the full microphysical state of every elementary particle in the brain and body. That would be the wrong level of description. If our best theories of human agency compel us to postulate forks in the road between which agents can choose, then we’ve got very good scientific reasons to take alternative possibilities at face value. If you ask psychologists, cognitive scientists, and economists, they will give you different theories of how human choice-making works. But they all treat human beings as agents who are faced with choices between different options, so all these theories assume alternative possibilities. ...
My intentional mental state—namely, my intention to drink—is very systematically associated with my actions. If my mental state changes, my resulting actions change as well. By contrast, not every change or variation in the underlying physical states would give rise to a change in the resulting act.
A leading philosopher whose work I hugely admire, Jaegwon Kim, raised an important challenge against mental causation, the so-called causal exclusion argument. If you consider a particular effect and you’ve found a cause that fully accounts for that effect, you should not simultaneously postulate yet another distinct cause for the same effect. That would be an act of causal overattribution. Let’s suppose, once again, I lift my arm to drink some water. You can fully account for the action by reference to the physical state of my brain, so there is no reason to postulate yet another cause—namely, a distinct mental cause.
My response, which Peter Menzies and I developed, is that if we accept the interventionist theory of causation, the causal exclusion argument does not generally hold. For any given system, the most systematic causal relations may not involve the lowest-level variables, but could involve higher-level variables, or there might be systematic causal relations at both levels.
The neuroscientific skeptic is absolutely right that, at the fundamental physical level, there is no such thing as intentional goal-directed agency.
.
the above is not true, there is no certainty for any metaphysical alteration for a living being at any level of either the physiology or the spiritual content as dramatized eventually by an organisms physiological expiration - where reproduction transcends in progression the previous version to the next.

"free will is real" - is real if not restricted by an outcome that may be deterministic, do no evil. or rot in hell - (spiritual death).
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
71,043
Reaction score
4,122
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Free will is one of the fundamental principles taught by Moses. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
19,262
Reaction score
862
Points
190
Free will is one of the fundamental principles taught by Moses. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will.
Then god punishes man when he chooses wrongly (according to god).
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
71,043
Reaction score
4,122
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Free will is one of the fundamental principles taught by Moses. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will.
Then god punishes man when he chooses wrongly (according to god).
Right and wrong is determined by logic. If something is wrong then eventually it will fail.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
19,262
Reaction score
862
Points
190
Free will is one of the fundamental principles taught by Moses. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will.
Then god punishes man when he chooses wrongly (according to god).
Right and wrong is determined by logic. If something is wrong then eventually it will fail.
Logically, 2 people can look at the same thing and differ on whether it's right or wrong.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
71,043
Reaction score
4,122
Points
1,855
Location
Houston

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
71,043
Reaction score
4,122
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Free will is one of the fundamental principles taught by Moses. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will.
Then god punishes man when he chooses wrongly (according to god).
Right and wrong is determined by logic. If something is wrong then eventually it will fail.
Logically, 2 people can look at the same thing and differ on whether it's right or wrong.
True, but they can't avoid the consequences of their choices.

ahhh haaaa!

ahhh haaaa!

ding schooling taz.gif
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
19,262
Reaction score
862
Points
190
Free will is one of the fundamental principles taught by Moses. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will.
Then god punishes man when he chooses wrongly (according to god).
You know that how?
The 10 Commandments...
That just states what they should and shouldn't do.

Try harder.
God's rules. Break them and you go to hell (which god created).
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
19,262
Reaction score
862
Points
190
Free will is one of the fundamental principles taught by Moses. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will.
Then god punishes man when he chooses wrongly (according to god).
Right and wrong is determined by logic. If something is wrong then eventually it will fail.
Logically, 2 people can look at the same thing and differ on whether it's right or wrong.
True, but they can't avoid the consequences of their choices.

ahhh haaaa!

ahhh haaaa!

View attachment 366823
But given their individual circumstances, they both can be right.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
71,043
Reaction score
4,122
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Free will is one of the fundamental principles taught by Moses. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will.
Then god punishes man when he chooses wrongly (according to god).
You know that how?
The 10 Commandments...
That just states what they should and shouldn't do.

Try harder.
God's rules. Break them and you go to hell (which god created).
Again, how do you know this?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
71,043
Reaction score
4,122
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Free will is one of the fundamental principles taught by Moses. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will.
Then god punishes man when he chooses wrongly (according to god).
Right and wrong is determined by logic. If something is wrong then eventually it will fail.
Logically, 2 people can look at the same thing and differ on whether it's right or wrong.
True, but they can't avoid the consequences of their choices.

ahhh haaaa!

ahhh haaaa!

View attachment 366823
But given their individual circumstances, they both can be right.
No. Perception of truth is not truth. It's someone's perception.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
19,262
Reaction score
862
Points
190
Free will is one of the fundamental principles taught by Moses. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will.
Then god punishes man when he chooses wrongly (according to god).
You know that how?
The 10 Commandments...
That just states what they should and shouldn't do.

Try harder.
God's rules. Break them and you go to hell (which god created).
Again, how do you know this?
The bible.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
19,262
Reaction score
862
Points
190
Free will is one of the fundamental principles taught by Moses. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will.
Then god punishes man when he chooses wrongly (according to god).
Right and wrong is determined by logic. If something is wrong then eventually it will fail.
Logically, 2 people can look at the same thing and differ on whether it's right or wrong.
True, but they can't avoid the consequences of their choices.

ahhh haaaa!

ahhh haaaa!

View attachment 366823
But given their individual circumstances, they both can be right.
No. Perception of truth is not truth. It's someone's perception.
Truth is sometimes subjective.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
71,043
Reaction score
4,122
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Free will is one of the fundamental principles taught by Moses. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will.
Then god punishes man when he chooses wrongly (according to god).
You know that how?
The 10 Commandments...
That just states what they should and shouldn't do.

Try harder.
God's rules. Break them and you go to hell (which god created).
Again, how do you know this?
The bible.
Which verse?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
71,043
Reaction score
4,122
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Free will is one of the fundamental principles taught by Moses. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will.
Then god punishes man when he chooses wrongly (according to god).
Right and wrong is determined by logic. If something is wrong then eventually it will fail.
Logically, 2 people can look at the same thing and differ on whether it's right or wrong.
True, but they can't avoid the consequences of their choices.

ahhh haaaa!

ahhh haaaa!

View attachment 366823
But given their individual circumstances, they both can be right.
No. Perception of truth is not truth. It's someone's perception.
Truth is sometimes subjective.
No. It's not. I've addressed this before. The answer doesn't change. Truth is not subjective. Truth is discovered. Man is subjective, dummy.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
 

Taz

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
19,262
Reaction score
862
Points
190
Free will is one of the fundamental principles taught by Moses. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will.
Then god punishes man when he chooses wrongly (according to god).
Right and wrong is determined by logic. If something is wrong then eventually it will fail.
Logically, 2 people can look at the same thing and differ on whether it's right or wrong.
True, but they can't avoid the consequences of their choices.

ahhh haaaa!

ahhh haaaa!

View attachment 366823
But given their individual circumstances, they both can be right.
No. Perception of truth is not truth. It's someone's perception.
Truth is sometimes subjective.
No. It's not. I've addressed this before. The answer doesn't change. Truth is not subjective. Truth is discovered. Man is subjective, dummy.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
Everyone has their own truth:

We bomb them = good
They 9/11 us = bad
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top