Free will (long rant) If you don't believe in free will you have no choice but to check it out XD

**Fernanvic** · 12-29-2010 05:15 PM

I was arguing with a friend about free will and about what is good. (My friend does not believe in free will or any kind of non subjective good)

Note: whenever I use the word choose I mean taking the option that most benefits the thing that I am choosing.

I think that there isn't really any one thing that humans call good, there isn't really one set of criteria by which to define it. But I decided that if I was going to search for an objective and unquestionable good I'd call good that which is your moral obligation. If someone can prove that you are morally obligated to do something then it doesn't matter if you say that you consider for example that good is the search for happiness (because everyone wants it or whatever) you would still be obligated to do what is your moral obligation.

If you are morally obligated to do something then if presented with two or more choices you must choose the one that would be the most beneficiary to the thing that is the moral obligation. With that in mind one would just (yeah right, "just"

) have to find something which is the thing that you are morally obligated to do and prove that that is the only thing that you are morally obligated to do.

Of course there is the possibility that there is no such thing as objective moral obligation, but I'll talk about that later.

After getting that far my friend and I started to discuss what that thing could be. I first suggested reason, since it's the only thing capable of making the classification that would allow someone to place the thing that is good above other things, but as my friend correctly pointed out the classification still exists even if there is no reason to understand it. (If it hadn't the existence of good would be tied to the existence of reason and since good is the thing that must be chosen those things that benefited reason would be the things with the highest priority to be chosen).

Next we tried will, not only will but those things in the universe that allow will to exist as well (for example if will were to exist and humans were the ones to have it then not only humans but also those things which keep them alive(earth, sun but not a galaxy far away that doesn't matter) would be the things that are good) and for a little while we thought that it was that thing that must be chosen, because it would be the only thing that could choose good, but then we realized that even if will didn't exist another thing could still be good and be the thing that must be chosen even if there weren't anything to choose it.

So there, I wasn't able to figure out what is the thing that must be chosen (assuming it exists).

Now begins the part about free will: (It's related to what came before, we talked about it simultaneously in the argument but I decided to separate it to make it less confusing, hopefully)

I define free will as the ability to be able to take an option out of many in such a way that it is not completely predictable which one you will choose but neither does it depend entirely on probabilities.

To clarify: If the universe is completely deterministic and follows rules set in stone then no free will however if the universe is not deterministic but those things that are not determined just depend on randomness with nothing to control them then still no free will.

I realize that I can't comprehend how such a thing as free will can be, but I can't really think of any definitive reason as to why it cannot.

So the conclusions I've arrived are: There might be a remote possibilities that something must be chosen and there might exist something which can choose it and (uuuuuuuuuuuunprobably though it may be) one of those things which can choose could be me.

Ok until now it seems that I'm a guy who believes that free will is such a remote and undirected possibility that it's not even worth considering, however I believe in free will for the following reasons.

I've arrived at conditions that I don’t think even the guy who believes the least in free will in the whole universe would complain about, if reduced my free will to the lowest possibility, but even in these conditions I still believe it makes more sense to believe in it.

Let us examine the possibilities of the universe under these conditions:
1. There is no free will, there is no moral obligation.
My possibilities. It doesn't even make sense to consider what to do because I have no control over it.
2. There is free will and I have it, there is no moral obligation.
My possibilities: I can do whatever I want, there is no objective good nothing I do has any moral meaning.
3. There is no free will but there is a moral obligation.
My possibilities: same as 1
4. There is free will but I don’t have it, there is no moral obligation.
My possibilities. Same as 1
5 There is free will but I don’t have it, there is a moral obligation.
My possibilities: same as 1
6 There is free will and I have it and there is a moral obligation.
My possibilities: I can choose that which is a moral obligation and do good. Of course since I have free will I can also not choose it and be bad.

Those are all the possibilities. Since its not 100% certain if we have free will of not we don’t know if our actions are the result of probabilities, determinism of free will. The logical choice is to assume that we are living under condition number 6, since no matter how much more probable the other are it is the only one that carries the chance to do what you must do.

Example: Imagine that the only 2 possibilities are 1 and 6. 1 carries a 99.9% chance of being true. But if you assume that it is true what are you gaining? A 0.1%percent chance of doing bad and a 99.9% chance of your actions not being objectively good or bad. however if you assume that you are living under possibility 6 you have a 0.1 chance of doing good and a 99.9% chance of doing nothing.

So it makes sense to assume that we have free will, improbable though it may be.

Or it would...

Since I can't find anything that must be that which must be chosen if such a thing exists even if I assume I have free will I have nothing to direct it at.

However I am now thinking that since it's my job to choose that thing. I do have one thing to choose, to exercise my reason since it's the only thing that might one day allow me to understand what that thing that I must choose is and once I do choose it.

And that is why I live under the assumption that I have free will.

**Velzhaed** · 12-31-2010 07:53 AM

I agree that we have free will, and that good and evil are subjective. I just couldn't follow your reasons. Maybe I'm just sleep deprived.

**Fernanvic** · 12-31-2010 10:08 AM

Yeah, i've got to think about how to rewrite this to make it somewhat comprehensible

**JesterKK** · 01-03-2011 02:33 AM

I find free will to be a logical impossibility, for reasons which I may explain later when I'm not so tired. but briefly, A cannot cause A. It must be caused by something else. And if causation is out of the picture, then as you said, behaviour is random and choice redundant. also absolute moral obligation is illogical. the main arguments for that are the euthyphro dilemma and the absence of 'freedom' from external factors. the only way that free will could be possible is if logic did not pertain to truth. but that would be a weird sort of life eh?
You dont need to live under the assumption that you have free will in order to do what you want. You actually don't need to assume anything to do what you want because wanting and doing are not grounded in reason.

**Raz** · 01-15-2011 08:52 PM

Free will is the balance to destiny.

"A cannot cause A"
We live in a reality that is built on cause and efect, I agree. But must not the first cause be without cause? at least thats what my logic tells me

**Goodafternoon** · 01-16-2011 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Fernanvic

Now begins the part about free will: (It's related to what came before, we talked about it simultaneously in the argument but I decided to separate it to make it less confusing, hopefully)

I define free will as the ability to be able to take an option out of many in such a way that it is not completely predictable which one you will choose but neither does it depend entirely on probabilities.

To clarify: If the universe is completely deterministic and follows rules set in stone then no free will however if the universe is not deterministic but those things that are not determined just depend on randomness with nothing to control them then still no free will.

Even if the universe would be completely deterministic, would follow rules so that if someone could see those rules and understand them there would be no surprise it still doesn't mean that there is no free will. Free will is only a perception of a choice. There is never something called free will. If you want a cookie you are tempted by factors, so your will is influenced and therefore not totally free anymore. Same thing for more difficult choices in life. Free means no bonds whatsoever and therefore might totally free will not exists but we have a perception of free will that I'm glad to live by.

About the moral obligation...
John Martin Fischer believes that we humans don't have free will but still feel that obligation and are morally responsible for the choices and actions. He says that the control needed for moral responsibility is weaker than the control needed for free will. If you look further into him he thinks that the truth of causal determinism would preclude the control needed for free will but not the control needed for moral responsibility.

That's my assumption of free will

**Rainmaker** · 01-16-2011 06:53 PM

Couldn't agree more. Free will by its literal definition is impossible but the perception is still there.

**spockman** · 01-18-2011 05:47 PM

Are human actions magical? Does math lie? Can we do things unaffected by variables or the rest of the universe? Is human thought a mystic thing or does it have physical properties linked to the brain?

Alright. Take the universe as it is right now. Copy everything about it. Every variable. Every minute detail. Now duplicate the universe and let it run on a different but identical timeline. Will universe B ever diverge from universe A? Or will they always remain identical? Or do it like this. Back up in time 5 minutes. Don't alter anything at all. Just let the 5 minutes replay again with the exact same factors. Will the five minutes play out any differently the second time they occur?

And why does determinism counter-act free will? If our thoughts and personalities are tied up in our brain, then what my brain decides may be the ultimate and unavoidable result of millions and millions of variables, but it was still the conclusion of my brain and it was because of the intrinsic qualities that make me 'me' that my brain decided however it did. Someone elses brain, someone elses personality in that same situation, may have decided something entirely different because they have different chemistry.

Free will advocates sometimes claim it is dualism that makes us choose one thing or another, not pure chemistry. They will claim it is our 'soul' and personality that makes decisions. But for that to be true, does the soul have to be insubstantial? Can't the parts of a soul including personality be part of our brain and still be just as valid? Assume determinism is correct. Okay. Now we know why we make the choices we do. Does knowing why somehow make them invalid?

**Goodafternoon** · 01-18-2011 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by spockman

Does knowing why somehow make them invalid?

Definitely not. I believe there is no 100% free will, simply because we're influenced by the factors around us. Even if our brains would make a decision that would be different from an identical twin, with an identical life etc we definitely can make another choice. But choosing something / deciding something is not the same as free will. At least it will never be pure free will.
But all that doesn't make me remove this line I posted:
Free means no bonds whatsoever and therefore might totally free will not exists but we have a perception of free will that I'm glad to live by.
The perception is something I value a lot. Let me be free, so I can be unique. Even though I know that pure freedom is not out there.

Nice thought with the universe. Don't know about that. I'm not a pure believer in causal determinism so I don't really have an opinion about it.

**ChaybaChayba** · 01-18-2011 07:32 PM

Lol I have free will, I can do whatever I want, I don't understand the whole argument against free will. To me it's like saying you cannot choose whether right now you hit yourself on the had, or you don't. Yes you can choose. If you can't choose, then they call this a mental disorder. They call it obsessive compulsive disorder. What kind of bullshit is this anyway?

If we had no free will, why doubt, why make decisions, why think? If we truly had no free will, we wouldn't even doubt the fact whether we had free will or not. If we had no free will, we would just act without thinking, without doubt, without making decisions. We obviously doubt and think, therefore, we have free will.

**ChaybaChayba** · 01-18-2011 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by Goodafternoon

Even if the universe would be completely deterministic, would follow rules so that if someone could see those rules and understand them there would be no surprise it still doesn't mean that there is no free will. Free will is only a perception of a choice. There is never something called free will. If you want a cookie you are tempted by factors, so your will is influenced and therefore not totally free anymore. Same thing for more difficult choices in life. Free means no bonds whatsoever and therefore might totally free will not exists but we have a perception of free will that I'm glad to live by.

About the moral obligation...
John Martin Fischer believes that we humans don't have free will but still feel that obligation and are morally responsible for the choices and actions. He says that the control needed for moral responsibility is weaker than the control needed for free will. If you look further into him he thinks that the truth of causal determinism would preclude the control needed for free will but not the control needed for moral responsibility.

That's my assumption of free will

Good argumentation. But here is my counter: If you want a cookie your behavior is indeed influenced by factors, but these factors are exactly things like "I like cookies" or "I don't mind getting fat" and liking cookies, is your free will, not minding getting fat, is your free will. These factors you talk about are defined by your free will. So the fact you would make the same decision each time, is not an argument against free will, it is an argument pro free will. It is exactly because you would make the same decisions each time, that this is proof, that the decisions is based on your will, and your will alone. That is free will. The factors you talk about which influence the cookie eating, are factors which are determined by your will in the first place.

The only reason why are actions are predictable in the first place is exactly because our actions are based on our will.

**Goodafternoon** · 01-18-2011 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

These factors you talk about are defined by your free will.

Can you give me a reason for that? For example, I don't mind getting fat. Why do you think so much people are against those tiny models? Exactly, because our will is influenced by them. You cannot live your life without being influenced by something outside of yourself. For example your taste of music. You like your own music, have some artist no-one else around you listens, but i'm almost sure if you listen a lot of music with friends your tastes overlap. And in time they will start to overlap more and more. That's not just me talking, it's a proven fact.

So sure, you choose to like cookies, you choose to like the fact to be fat. But all those choices are based on millions of small things like, hey I woke up nice this morning, i'm in the mood for...
And of course your waking up was a happening of the car which went by your house, your daughter making a noise, your sleep being there at the right time etc etc....

Hope you get my point.
Sure there is free will. But not pure free will. Only the illusion

**ChaybaChayba** · 01-18-2011 11:19 PM

We are indeed influenced by the world around us, I get that point, that is why you argue that free will is an illusion. But we have the free will to choose how to handle this influence. That is my point. There is not only the outside world, there is also the inside world. But then again, this inside world is again influenced by the outside world which would be an argument that we have no free will. But this influence, again, is influenced by the inside world. It is your free will how to handle the influence. Then again you can argue, that how you handle this influence, is influenced by the outer world. Then again, I can argue, that this influence of the outer world, on the influence on how the handle the influence, is again influenced by the inner world. So we can keep going back and forth like this ad infinitum, and maybe this doubt on which is the cause and which is the effect is what leads to free will.

As the present is created from the past, and the present creates the future, we can conclude there is only the present moment. As the past no longer exists, and as the future doesn't exist yet, only the present moment exists. If only the present moment exists, this moment most be infinitely small. If this moment is infinitely small, it is impossible to determine which is the cause and which is the effect. If it is impossible to determine which is the cause and which is the effect then we can no longer determine what caused our will. So we can conclude, we have free will, because cause and effect are interchangeable due to the nature of time, not being linear, a line, but more like a dot.

You still follow? lol..

Anyway I just came up with this argument thanks to you, and I think it's a pretty good argument for free will. As you argue all actions are determined, caused and therefore free will is an illusion, I argue that cause and effect are interchangeable, due to the nature of time, and thus, we do have free will.