Free Will, Decision making and religion

[JuliaL]

I'm going to call free will a sensation of imagined control of future events based on an incompletely calculated prediction of how current conditions will determine them.

Our big forebrains were honed and sculpted by eons of natural selection to model the current status of ourselves and our environment. Those brains better able to predict the future from perceived regularities in these current, constantly updated, models and those better suited to guiding near future actions based on those models survived and, more importantly, replicated better. The sense of self and the illusion of free agency able to affect future events has been positively selected for and highly preserved. Self preservation is easier to accomplish if one recognizes there is a self to preserve. Intentional actions are only possible if there is a self with motivation to intend. Free will is the subjective experience of this motivation.

Justice takes place in a substantially more complex milieu. It involves not only a self, but the entire community of persons interacting in a society. It isn't possible to have a system of ethics with only one individual isolated from its environment. If we were able to perfectly predict the emergent patterns stemming from the unimaginably complicated interactions building from a statistically significant number of QM events we would be able to answer the question of whether will is free or determined (subject to whether QM is actually random or only appears so.) The existence of that question depends entirely on our capacity to measure and model. Unfortunately, that capacity is not very great.

Alex, I'll take compatibilism and consequentialist justice for $2000.

[Ignorant]

Are you done with the argument from incredulity now?

I didn't even realize I was making an argument. Can you point to where I did?

I was merely trying to put the implications of the idea into my own words. Trying to step into someone else's worldview is a mental exercise that I find fruitful.

Or, in short, "I think, therefore I am" regardless of what kind of "I" I am

Right, but then that is the fundamental principle from which Descartes demonstrates (or at least thinks he demonstrates) the existence of a unifying/identifying principle of "action" in human beings, a thing that changes under one aspect but remains the same under another, viz. Descartes's "I" which he called a soul. That is the antithesis of the behaviorist position which questions the reality of free human agency.

In other words, if everything moves constantly in a determined series of cause and effect, then even the phrase "I think" is not a single moment in the series, but rather itself is a long line of cause and effect. The "I" which pronounces the "I" and the "I" which pronounces the "think" are not the same, nor are either the same as the "I" which preceded the uttering. Sure, some "thing" exists in each instance, but it is not the same thing in each of them. In which case "I think" is also an illusory phrase.

There is no "I" that thinks. Thought itself is merely a causally predetermined "behavior" or natural effect of the universe; not very much different than photosynthesis or getting a Royal Flush. That is not to say it isn't true (which would require an argument). These are merely the implications which I find to be the case if it were true.

---

We may feel like we have free will. This isn't justification for saying we do, especially when we can't even define it or test whether a person has it or not.

Sure. All I said was that, if this is true, then that "feeling" of freely directing our own actions, and even the "feeling" of having an identity, is an enormous illusion (I said delusion but people don't like that my use of that word). That is an incredible thing if it is true, isn't it?

[JuliaL]

Sure. All I said was that, if this is true, then that "feeling" of freely directing our own actions, and even the "feeling" of having an identity, is an enormous illusion (I said delusion but people don't like that my use of that word). That is an incredible thing if it is true, isn't it?

In what reference frame is the feeling of having an identity an illusion? Are you a philosophical realist?
Identity is what it is. From there, reality is the illusion (or at least its actual existence is unprovable.)
I'm here. I'm not so sure about everything else.

[Smaug]

Whether the Universe is absolutely deterministic as Laplace viewed it or fundamentally possesses an element of probability is an open question. Moreover it is not known whether this question can be answered at all (it's a philosophical issue). Speaking of my own view on this subject I assume that there is an element of probability. Anyway, math shows that even in a strictly deterministic set a dynamical system as complex as human brain, let alone the whole Universe exhibits chaotic behaviour that allows us to view such a system as a technically stochastic one.

Speaking philosophically, my concept of Free Will implies that there exists a set of possible ways (displacements) that one's mind may take. The term possible displacement is used here roughly in the same sence as it is used in variational principles. Thus it is such a displacement that is allowed by the constrains set upon the system. In this respect constrains may be both purely physical and social or psychological. A moment of decision-making is such a moment when between multiple possible ways an actual way is chosen. The machanism of choice may be a fully deterministic one or a stochastic one and doesn't play a crucial role. I like to stess that in no way I'm trying to present a scientific hypothesis here, just philosophizing a little.

Considering the above definition it may be said that Free Will exists when there's more than one possible way to choose between. Although it's clear from the beginning that there is only one actual way (a "trajectory").

[Whateverist]

Personally I question the unity of identity but find very little support for that position .. even among those who are happy to cop to determinism. I think the consciously held concept of self is overly determined by just one aspect of self. But I don't question the reality of that portion of self, nor the rest of it.

We seem to experience free will because we actually do have a great deal of latitude to act deliberately for consciously determined reasons. We get to shoot our arm up in the air any damned time we want to. However, we are also determined because experience is screened pre-consciously and its felt valuation is entirely determined by our greater consciousness. What memories and past experiences are presented for conscious consideration represent another pre-conscious choice. The body - mind feedback loop is still another.

The free will vs determinism debate is an ongoing dynamic within our very organism. Conscious free will is an adaption of our species, a delegation of a portion of consciousness to deal with rapidly changing circumstances in a learned rather than instinctual manner. The purpose of the conscious mind is to serve the ends of the organism, not to decide which ends those should be. However we can and do form opinions about what the purposes of our choices should be. We can even endeavor to over rule or ignore the ends which our organism would choose, and sometimes we should. This capacity promotes prosocial behavior which also feeds back on survival value and no doubt is a large reason for the amount of consciousness devoted to this very task.

The point is that the answer to the free will vs determinism debate is both, simultaneously and for all time.

---

Considering the above definition it may be said that Free Will exists when there's more than one possible way to choose between. Although it's clear from the beginning that there is only one actual way (a "trajectory").

Wait. Are you saying that free will never exists because in fact there is always a trajectory leading to just one outcome? Or are you saying sometimes the choice of possible resolutions for a decision really can be rich in some cases and few in others?

---

Our big forebrains were honed and sculpted by eons of natural selection to model the current status of ourselves and our environment. Those brains better able to predict the future from perceived regularities in these current, constantly updated, models and those better suited to guiding near future actions based on those models survived and, more importantly, replicated better. The sense of self and the illusion of free agency able to affect future events has been positively selected for and highly preserved. Self preservation is easier to accomplish if one recognizes there is a self to preserve. Intentional actions are only possible if there is a self with motivation to intend. Free will is the subjective experience of this motivation.

Interesting. My only objection would be to the need of maintaining any illusion. I don't require the illusion of free will in order to go on choosing as if my life depended on it. The illusion only enters in when you suppose that conscious considerations are the only ones in play and that your conscious assessment is the only one being made. They aren't. But that doesn't negate the relative freedom of the conscious mind. Of course pre-conscious screening and valuation enters in to color our perception of each outcomes desirability even as we suppose we are weighing our choices in an entirely free manner.

One might even argue that the loss of such pre-conscious participation would be a real set back and a kind of malady. Pure, detached choice making would not be a desirable state of affairs.


PS: I liked and entirely agree with your comments regarding justice.

[JuliaL]

Interesting. My only objection would be to the need of maintaining any illusion. I don't require the illusion of free will in order to go on choosing as if my life depended on it. The illusion only enters in when you suppose that conscious considerations are the only ones in play and that your conscious assessment is the only one being made. They aren't. But that doesn't negate the relative freedom of the conscious mind. Of course pre-conscious screening and valuation enters in to color our perception of each outcomes desirability even as we suppose we are weighing our choices in an entirely free manner.

One might even argue that the loss of such pre-conscious participation would be a real set back and a kind of malady. Pure, detached choice making would not be a desirable state of affairs.

I don't believe there is an actual need of maintaining the free will illusion. Natural selection does not always optimize. It most often works on the 'good enough' solution (That would be from the standpoint of the individual. From the tautology of survival of the fittest, the ones who survive are, by definition, most fit and the process that got them there was optimal.) So both the interplay of unconscious, which I think you refer to as the pre-conscious in the context of intentional movement, and the conscious may be seen as a 'good enough' solution to the problems of universe modeling and future predicting. It was good enough to get your parents laid- leading to the most important and momentous event in the universe (from your standpoint)--you.

Another sub-optimal 'good enough' solution that I really don't like is pain.
In Catch 22 Yossarian criticized God for his creation of pain.
When Lieutenant Schiesskopf's wife defended pain as useful he said:

Oh, He was really being charitable to us when He gave us pain! Why couldn't He have used a doorbell instead to notify us, or one of His celestial choirs? Or a system of blue-and-red neon tubes right in the middle of each person's forehead? Any jukebox manufacturer worth his salt could have done that. Why couldn't He?

I've tried to think of a better system than the one that natural selection came up with. You do need something which is at least distasteful to reduce dangerously stupid behavior like base jumping or snake handling. Lepers have extremities go gangrenous and drop off because they don't feel enough pain to motivate protective behaviors. Maybe just make painful things smell bad but not hurt. Some of it just doesn't make any sense---why have an organism feel so much pain from their teeth that they starve to death?

Whether the Universe is absolutely deterministic as Laplace viewed it or fundamentally possesses an element of probability is an open question. Moreover it is not known whether this question can be answered at all (it's a philosophical issue).

Largely agree. Even if we knew every event in space time, we wouldn't know that there are not events outside those we knew about which could subsequently affect the former. I Godel. I see no way to a solution without doubt.

Considering the above definition it may be said that Free Will exists when there's more than one possible way to choose between. Although it's clear from the beginning that there is only one actual way (a "trajectory").

I'm a little confused by this. Is it that there appear to be multiple possible choices but in fact there is only one trajectory rendering all other of those choices void?

[Ignorant]

In what reference frame is the feeling of having an identity an illusion? Are you a philosophical realist?

In reference to the proposed description of reality in the first post on this thread. Assuming reality is truly as the first post describes, then I think it would follow that identity is illusory, even if the apparent experience of identity actually occurs.

Identity is what it is. From there, reality is the illusion (or at least its actual existence is unprovable.)
I'm here. I'm not so sure about everything else.

That's fine. I don't think Descartes ever truly got farther than that either. It is interesting in itself that most of us on the planet (maybe not?) probably agree with you and here's why it's interesting: most people go about interacting with their perceived reality, with other people, and even investigate it, but always with the underlying reservation that says "it is possible that none of this is real". Weird.

[JuliaL]

---

In what reference frame is the feeling of having an identity an illusion? Are you a philosophical realist?

---

In reference to the proposed description of reality in the first post on this thread. Assuming reality is truly as the first post describes, then I think it would follow that identity is illusory, even if the apparent experience of identity actually occurs.

OK, got it. Though I have a hard time understanding how the experience of being a self could be deluding itself regarding itself. It is its own, identical to itself, frame of reference. What would it be "actually" in the OP? An emergent property of some other system?

---

Identity is what it is. From there, reality is the illusion (or at least its actual existence is unprovable.)
I'm here. I'm not so sure about everything else.

---

That's fine. I don't think Descartes ever truly got farther than that either. It is interesting in itself that most of us on the planet (maybe not?) probably agree with you and here's why it's interesting: most people go about interacting with their perceived reality, with other people, and even investigate it, but always with the underlying reservation that says "it is possible that none of this is real". Weird.

Problems of solipsism & inference, as far as I know, have no firm solutions.
So we ignore them and act as if there was a reality and that tomorrow will follow on similar to today. We really have no other well defended choice. Only occasionally do we consciously recognize that this is the situation.

[Ignorant]

---

[hide]
In reference to the proposed description of reality in the first post on this thread. Assuming reality is truly as the first post describes, then I think it would follow that identity is illusory, even if the apparent experience of identity actually occurs.

---

OK, got it. Though I have a hard time understanding how the experience of being a self could be deluding itself regarding itself.

So do I! But if there is no "thing" (e.g. Descartes's soul, some metaphysical unity, whatever) which remains "itself" under one aspect while changing in other aspects, then there can be no "self" understood as we commonly understand it.

We experience that we have a continuous identity, but if there is nothing actually continuous about what we are (which, according to the worldview of the first post, seems to be the case), then there is no actual "I". It is merely the illusion of continuity.

It is its own, identical to itself, frame of reference. What would it be "actually" in the OP? An emergent property of some other system?

I have no idea what "it" would be. According to physical determinism (or other similar models), what is the identifying continuity (if any) in a bacterium?

Problems of solipsism & inference, as far as I know, have no firm solutions.
So we ignore them and act as if there was a reality and that tomorrow will follow on similar to today. We really have no other well defended choice. Only occasionally do we consciously recognize that this is the situation.

Am I the only person who finds that strange?

[Mudhammam]

Descartes was wrong when he said "I think, therefore I am," concluding that above all else only one's own conscious experience could be definitely affirmed. What I think he should have said was, "I think, therefore I am thinking." In my view, "I," "self," "ego," are not what is doing the thinking---though that is certainly the illusion---but themselves just other thoughts part of the stream of consciousness.