Can you tell me how we form beliefs that are not, in some way, tied to our wants? — TheMadFool
I would like to answer that question with another question if you don’t mind. How did you form your belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Did you simply want that to be the case? Though, I’m guessing you meant to ask me how choice-oriented beliefs could be formed instead of just ordinary beliefs. I think those beliefs could be formed the same way. Just like you might have been taught in school that the Earth revolves around the Sun, you might have also been taught by your parents or society that the disadvantages of drug use are greater than the advantages. This doesn’t seem to necessarily imply that you wish that either beliefs were the case, but rather you simply believe the information that is provided to you. Nonetheless, I think you might still have wants that contradict that information which you may still genuinely believe. I think we could be indoctrinated into holding value beliefs that are contradictory to our wants — TheHedoMinimalist
For me, it isn’t a matter of resisting influential factors, but of understanding them in order to connect and collaborate — Possibility
I don't know if you would consider my version of free will as radical but it appears to me that if we are to call ourselves free then there should be no force, from torture to logic, that should have an influence over us. I think I touched on this in some other thread; the basic idea being that if we are free, in the truest sense, we should be able to deny every possible influence over the choices we make. — TheMadFool
Belief, if free will exists, must also be a choice. — TheMadFool
Belief, if free will exists, must also be a choice. — TheMadFool
You said that awareness of our wants and preferences give us freedom. Consider a little thought experiment. Imagine a person X who's not "aware" in your terms and so is like a slave to his wants and being thus his personality, here being considered as determined by his wants, is of type P. He then becomes aware and he consciously alters the landscape of his wants, transforming into another personality, type Q. The problem is that we can't say for sure that X wasn't of type Q right from the beginning, simply defaulting to a type P because he wasn't aware of what his real wants are. It's a similar situation to a person who at a point in his past liked Coke but then, after becoming aware of other fizzy drinks, changes his brand to Pepsi. There's no way of knowing that he actually liked Pepsi from the start but was making do with Coke as a substitute and when Pepsi became available made the switch but, if you notice, there's no alteration in his wants at all; in fact his want was just waiting to be satisfied. Ergo, any change in our wants/preferences, even if it resulted from what you call awareness, can't be taken as evidence that we have free will. — TheMadFool
It does seem that as the more aware we are, the more control we have over our behavior. Doesn't this then prove that we're free? After all we're able to do the opposite of what we want to do. Unfortunately no because this too is a clash between wants, one want being hidden from view and suddenly, with increased awareness, coming into view and then chosen over another. Basically, awareness doesn't change us in a free will sense as much as it exposes our other wants. — TheMadFool
Let me start by clarifying what I’ve been saying: that it’s not awareness of our wants and preferences that give us freedom - it’s awareness of alternatives and of our capacity to choose from them — Possibility
.For the moment let's stick to the multiplication of alternatives that awareness brings. So here is a person, awareness in hand, gazing fondly at the world of possibilities laid out before per. At one point fae has to choose and the way this is done is by weighing the pros and cons of each possibility (choice) and this, to me, requires a set of values which themselves must be chosen according to another value system and so on. Either that or we make a random selection. Both situations seem incompatible with free will; after all in one there's no beginning and in the other the choice isn't yours. — TheMadFool
Prior to the act of choosing, the metaphysical will is entirely free. — Possibility
which refers to the CAPACITY to choose an option from available alternatives, NOT the act of choosing itself. — Possibility
Let's pause here. In mathematics, a definition is used to determine what you're talking about; for example, we define lines as parallel if they are coplanar and have no points in common. This is a prescriptive definition; the definition tells us how the term should be used. By contrast, in natural language, we start by using terms; a lexicographist creates dictionaries by looking at how terms are used, then writes the definition from that. This is a descriptive definition; here, the definition serves to document how terms are used.You know very well that free will is defined in terms of choice — TheMadFool
Something I just realized, perhaps misunderstood: if free will exists then every path to the future must have an alternative. If there is only one route to the future there can be no choice and where there is no choice, free will becomes meaningless as its definitional essence is choice. — TheMadFool
A lot of people describe free will in this manner; this is essentially the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP). But people also say that it feels like they have free will; this includes both people who subscribe to PAP who believe they have free will and those who subscribe to PAP who believe they do not. It's as if they think these two things are identical.You spoke of alternatives and that's where I want to begin. I agree with you that awareness does one thing for sure - it reveals alternative pathways to the future. — TheMadFool
...not necessarily, but in the case of eating per se, certainly. But we have eaten; we've eaten food countless times in our lives. Multiple times, we even agentively set about a goal of eating with a spoon, with a fork, with chopsticks, with fingers, and have multiple times managed to succeed in such eating. But also, we eat food, not bricks or nails. It's fair to use these past patterns to develop models of the world whereby we "forecast" that we can eat ice cream with a spoon, but not bowling balls with chopsticks; where said theories purport that the things we seem to be doing when we choose are actually real; without ever appealing to some future ontic potentiality, which doesn't really seem to have to do with the thing we do when we choose anyway. In other words, no, we don't require PAP; we simply require the universe follows laws, that we can learn them, that we can use this to formulate forecasts not prophecies, and that we can use these forecasts to drive a decision process to select one to enact.How would I know if you had the capacity to eat? By eating, right? — TheMadFool
But aren't cases like gambling addicts curious in this framework of metaphysical freedom? Gambling addicts are one group of individuals where it seems difficult to say that a person's will is free such that the person is the agent making the choices about what to do next. Can a person be free at the same moment they feel compelled to do something where no external enforcing agent exists? — CeleRate
this, to me, requires a set of values which themselves must be chosen according to another value system and so on — TheMadFool
which refers to the CAPACITY to choose an option from available alternatives, NOT the act of choosing itself.
— Possibility
This is a distinction without a difference. The capacity to choose must include the act of choosing. How would I know if you had the capacity to eat? By eating, right? The capacity to do x is inferred from doing x. How else would I know you had the capacity to do x? — TheMadFool
It has no observable/measurable difference in time, no. But capacity is a potential relation, as is knowledge. I infer your capacity to eat from the information I have regarding you in relation to the information I have regarding my capacity to eat, given subjective experience. I don’t need to observe you actually eating to be confident in your capacity to eat. This confidence has a degree of uncertainty, sure - but doesn’t everything? — Possibility
However, that doesn't solve the problem at all because your capacity to eat or the sample's capacity to make choices is still based on values/wants that they didn't choose and so, if anything is entailed through this exercise it's that yes we have a capacity to choose but these choices are not free in the sense that they were not influenced by things beyond our control. — TheMadFool
Influence at the level of potentiality is not control, it is simply potential to influence. If we are aware of this potential, if we are connected and collaborating (if we understand the conditions under which our relation to this value/potential influence is stronger/weaker), then we would recognise our capacity to alter these conditions and therefore its value/potential with regard to determining and initiating our actions. It need not actually influence us at all. To the extent that we are unaware/ignoring, isolating or excluding information regarding our relation to its potential, our act of choosing is not free. — Possibility
Exercising free will is NOT a matter of going against what one wants, or of self-denial. It IS about our capacity to restructure our value systems in relation to new information. — Possibility
Well, this "capacity to restructure" must be observable right? Imagine that before the "restructuring" of our value system we had a particular set of wants, call it x. After the "restructuring" we should be in possession of a different set of wants, call it y. Now, if y is not different in the sense it contradicts or "goes against what one previously wants", x, then we wouldn't be able to call it "restructuring" right? — TheMadFool
The lack of of free will is predicated on not being able to do the opposite of what we want, those wants that we're born with. Ergo, if free will is to exist, it must involve going against these congenital wants. This is a basic idea and I don't know why you insist the contrary. — TheMadFool
As for the fifth-dimension I don't see its relevance. I can come to terms with time being the 4th dimension but what is the "fifth" dimension? Is it time? Is it space? Neither time nor space has significance insofar as my argument is concerned, I neither talked about time nor about space. — TheMadFool
They only ‘feel compelled’ because they are ignoring, isolating or excluding elements of ‘choice’ from their perceived potential, as either:
- the ACT of choosing;
- the variety/RANGE to choose from; or
- the specific ALTERNATIVES or options available to be chosen;
before they even determine their actions, let alone initiate them. — Possibility
No, a capacity is NOT observable, only perceivable. — Possibility
Does this mean that the addict is the agent directing these psychological states? In other words, they are ignoring, isolating or excluding elements of choice, but could choose to attend to or include elements of choice?
If this is the case, why do they seek out various addiction recovery programs? There sure are a lot of addicts saying that they desire to quit their vice. They express guilt. They commit time going to programs. Some even commit suicide. 25% of alcoholics and 20% of gamblers.
One would think that the friends, family, and professionals in the lives of these people might point out the other options. Yet, addicts repeatedly fall off the wagon and report struggling against thoughts related to their vices. But they're the ones in control, right? They can choose a different path. They know the better choice. They desire the healthier choice. They do things consistent with a commitment to a healthier choice. And still they struggle. Where's the struggle coming from? And to kill oneself over the guilt of being too weak to quit? Does the one-armed bandit actually hold a gun to the addict and demand that its lever be pulled? — CeleRate
The addict can choose to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with elements of choice - but it’s not an easy road. — Possibility
Addicts may certainly be aware of a better lifestyle, and they may desire to live a healthier life, but their struggle often comes from a lack of connection to this better, healthier lifestyle as a choice they perceive themselves capable of making. They seek out and commit to addiction recovery programs, but in many situations they’re looking to be fixed by a mechanic, without realising that they need to critically examine themselves how they think about and evaluate everything in relation to their addiction, and then actively seek awareness, connection to and collaboration with the alternatives available. — Possibility
The above quote encapsulates an argument against free will for if we didn't chose our preferences (likes and dislikes) and all our actions are determined by our preferences then it follows that we're not free; we are automatons, each with its own preprogrammed set of dispositions that will ultimately determine every course of action that we'll ever choose in the course of our lives.
You describe a problem of an addict failing to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with elements of choice, and you make a claim that the addict doesn't realize the need to critically examine oneself, but I do not see what is going on with the will. Where did the will go? The addict is not being coerced. Is the addict free to choose abstinence? If so, then why is the price so often death by suicide? — CeleRate
So increasing awareness of, connection to and collaboration with the potentiality of alternatives available is essential to the freedom of the will. — Possibility
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.