I want to run something by you for your opinion.

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. 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.

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.

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

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. So, the answer to the question I asked you, "how do we form beliefs?" is pointless if an explanation involves a process of belief-formation that has a forced nature to it, even if that force is logic itself.

So, we must, in order to be free, be able to reject every want we have but if you'll notice this situation arises because we want to be free and that want - to be free - is programmed into us, without our consent as it were. Please note there is a choice between wanting freedom and not wanting it and ergo, true freedom would necessitate a free choice but since we never chose to want freedom, we're not free.

For me, it isn’t a matter of resisting influential factors, but of understanding them in order to connect and collaborate — Possibility

If one is influenced then one is not free even if one understands the influence. The essence of choice, itself the essence of free will, is not affirmation but negation. We need to be able to say "no" to something that's pulling the strings of our mind's decision center. Think of it. Your notion of awareness only makes sense if through it we can negate a previous pre-awareness state.

I seek your opinion on the following:

What does it mean to make a completely free choice with regard to free will?

I mean, the way I seem to be suggesting, a completely free choice necessarily must arise from a want that must be causally isolated from any and all things that can force the choice upon us.

Now consider the idea of choice. For simplicity consider a situation that has two options. Making a choice in this situation can't be done randomly for that would automatically preclude free will; choosing randomly is not a personal choice. So, we have to make a personal selection, meaning here that randomness is excluded, between the two options. This calls for an evaluation of the pros and cons of the two available alternatives. We all know that our wants are critical to what we consider pros and cons. These wants are preprogrammed and so, no choice we ever make can be free. So far so good.

However, there's the "problem" of beliefs (TheHedoMinimalist) and awareness (Possibility), both conditions that can result in us making choices contrary to our wants, suggesting that we may act in defiance, like rebellious robots, of our programming (wants) and that flings the door wide open to the possibility of free will.

First, let's consider beliefs. Belief, if free will exists, must also be a choice. The notion of being forced to accept a belief, even if that force be logic, is incompatible with free will. Since beliefs have to be optional and our choices are decided by our wants and our wants were not of our choosing, it follows that beliefs that oppose our wants are simply instances of differing wants, one want against another want manifested as a belief, clashing with each other.

Second, we have awareness. 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.

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

Well, I think we should discuss the usage of the word “free” as it applies to a variety of different things. For example, we might call Canada a free nation because people who live in Canada have more freedoms than they would in the vast majority of the world. I feel that it seems reasonable to call Canada a free nation despite the fact that there isn’t an unlimited freedom there. Similarly, we might say that Canada values free speech even if they support some restrictions on speech like ones that involve threats of violence. Given this, I think someone could reasonably say that we have free will in the same way that Canada is a free nation. We might be said to be free relative to animals and Canada might be said to be free relative to other nations.

Belief, if free will exists, must also be a choice. — TheMadFool

I’m not sure about that claim. Couldn’t we say that free will is like a mediator between beliefs and wants? What determines whether we act on our wants or our beliefs in any given instance? Some philosophers might say that nothing determines our prioritizations between beliefs and wants and it’s simply our free will.

Belief, if free will exists, must also be a 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.

Since we must have a choice and we all know choices are want-based, something we had no hand in acquiring, we must return to the original dilemma - infinite regress or randomness.

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

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.

Let’s take a closer look at ‘want’, to start with, which refers to awareness of an experience of lack. The implication seems to be here that each individual is born with an intrinsic and unique structure of lack that waits to be satisfied on an ongoing basis - their response to which forming part of their personality. So awareness, from your perspective, appears to be a matter of discovering this fixed structure of lack within ourselves, and altering our personality in a way that best serves to satisfy it on a daily basis.

This is not how I see it, but I understand how rational this perspective seems, given the confidence we tend to have in the conceptualisation of a four-dimensional, observable/measurable reality and Darwinian evolutionary theory. Lack is a fundamental experience of existence, but the reality is that we lack much more than we realise, and much more than we want at any one time. Our wants are limited not so much by our genetic makeup, but by our awareness, connection and collaboration with the potential and value of experiential possibilities.

We tend to understand awareness as discovering reality, but we also tend to assume that reality refers to objects in time. So when we talk about an awareness of wants and preferences, the assumption is that these wants and preferences are properties of who we are as objects in time. But we aren’t merely objects in time - our awareness of existence as human beings extends beyond the limits of four-dimensional reality, enabling us to develop awareness of, connection to and collaboration with potential and possible aspects of existence, from the Big Bang to a variety of Armageddon scenarios, for instance.

The awareness I’m referring to is the perceived potential and value of certain qualities of subjective experience, irrespective of objects in time. In this context, the awareness of Pepsi’s actual existence is arbitrary - it comes down to an awareness of qualitative alternatives in sweetness and flavour experience, subjective relations to brand identity, etc. In the same way, one can switch from Coke to Diet Coke based on perceived value that has nothing to do with the drink as an object in time, but with awareness of one’s potential, atemporal relation to the subjective experience of drinking cola.

So if we are aware of Pepsi but unaware of how the quality of our potential experience drinking Pepsi differs from that of Coke, then we are still not completely free to choose between these two alternatives. But my point is that the potential is there for greater freedom in our capacity to increase awareness.

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

It isn’t just a matter of being able to do the opposite of what we previously wanted, but about being aware of alternatives and our capacity to choose from them. When we find that we want Pepsi instead of Coke, we don’t lose awareness of our capacity to choose Coke, and we don’t suppress our desire for Coke by preferring Pepsi. Rather our relation to the potential value of both are integrated into our conceptual reality, and we reduce that information - we collapse that potential - into a determined action to choose Pepsi.

I know we can come at this from your angle but did you check my reply to Hedominimalist. I know you have a lot of valuable things to say on the matter but allow me to work my way to what concerns me from what you said below:

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

You know very well that free will is defined in terms of choice; no choice, no free will. 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. Awareness may also do other things but I'll leave that to you to find out.

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.

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

.

This is the problem I continue to see with discussions on the existence of ‘free will’: a fundamental misunderstanding of what ‘the will’ is on a metaphysical level. How quickly these discussions become wholly about the temporal ACT of choosing, and then we’ve lost the ability to discuss the freedom of ‘the will’, which refers to the CAPACITY to choose an option from available alternatives, NOT the act of choosing itself.

Prior to the act of choosing, the metaphysical will is entirely free. We are free to ‘choose’ between awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion on a metaphysical level in relation to the five-dimensional experience of choosing an option from available alternatives. This metaphysical ‘choice’ is made according to a conceptual system of interacting value structures in potentiality. It does not occur in time - so there is no beginning, and no infinite regress.

Prior to the act of choosing, the metaphysical will is entirely free. — Possibility

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?

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?

Let me offer a bit of deconstruction... this might actually help.

You know very well that free will is defined in terms of choice — TheMadFool

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.

When it comes to the general question of how free works, I think we need to appeal to descriptive definitions; because people seem to disagree about given definitions. Furthermore, people's definitions of free will often conflict with how they use the term, and it's here that I want to emphasize a problem.

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

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

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.

But this is dubious; the thing we seem to have has nothing to do with alternate futures per se... there's kind of a "hidden theory" that connects the two, but that theory itself is questionable. Consider that at time T0, I deliberate between vanilla and chocolate. At time T1, I act to attain vanilla. And at T2, I'm actually eating vanilla. PAP would have us say that at T0, there are two T2's; say T2A where I'm eating vanilla, and T2B where I'm eating chocolate. Then at T1, I'm "picking future T2A". At T2, T2A attains, and T2B for lack of better terms "disappears". Now does it really feel like this is what's going on?

I would argue, no, it does not. We do not even feel, at time T0, that we mentally time travel to T2A, sniff it; then travel to T2B, and sniff that; then compare our mental time trips. We do not feel like prophets, prophesying potentialities T2A and T2B, nor is that part of our theory of mind for others. What we feel like is that at time T0, we are considering the potential T2A and T2B, as counterfactuals. The considerations feel more like something constrained by what we know and model; our theory of mind is consistent with this (consider playing poker, for example; we don't presume people know what hand we have when making their bets... we presume they have a type of perspective based lack of knowledge). In contrast to prophets, we feel like weathermen, forecasting potentialities. Having choices result from these forecasts does not require PAP; it requires only that the universe follows laws, that we can learn of those laws, and that we can apply that knowledge to make decisions.

So to answer your question here:

How would I know if you had the capacity to eat? By eating, right? — 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.

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

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.

The metaphysical will is free - a person’s will is only free insofar as they are aware of, connected to and collaborating with all three aspects of choice. So a person’s will is potentially free. Every manifestation of that will in 4D (ie. determined and initiated action) is necessarily a reduction of that freedom in relation to perceived potential/value. Think of it as a collapsed potentiality wave.

The problem is that most people seem to conceptualise reality according to one primary value structure or system at a time as a four-dimensional ‘force’, which limits all the interacting values according to this one structure. @"TheMadFool” describes the way this structure is often perceived:

this, to me, requires a set of values which themselves must be chosen according to another value system and so on — TheMadFool

When this primary value system prioritises immediate and superficial reward for action such as gambling, their relation to internal affect assumes the highest value over long-term financial and social commitments for instance, and one can ‘feel compelled’ by the perceived value of this internal affect to do something where no ‘external enforcing agent’ exists.

This is a reduction of five-dimensional reality - of interrelating values - in much the same way as ‘time’ is a reduction of four-dimensional reality - of interrelating events. When we relate to a painting of a ball, the two-dimensional information is recognised as a meaningful reduction of three-dimensional reality. So too, our instincts, values and desires are reductions of five-dimensional reality - only we don’t recognise them as such. We tend to think of them as distinct four-dimensional ‘forces’ fighting for dominance over our actions, like ancient gods with petty ambitions.

But they point to a five-dimensional reality of interrelating values or potentiality, irrespective of time. It is how much we understand the five-dimensional irreducibility and relativity of these interrelations that impact on our freedom to choose from a range of available alternatives.

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?

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

I thought you might be headed that way and I agree with you that a capacity, to choose in this case, can be inferentially generalized from a sample to a population and so removing the necessity of direct observation in each individual case to decide whether the capacity of choice exists or not. Going back to my example of eating, you can infer my capacity to eat by relating me to you and your own capacity to do so. 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.

Also note that in the process of forming the general belief that people have the capacity to choose, some of us had to be observed in the act of choosing. By the same token, imagining the population was reduced to one, just me, my capacity to choose can be inferred only from an act of choosing that I can demonstrate.

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.

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

At the risk of repeating myself and boring you to death, the essence of free will is choice. For free will to be a meaningful concept and for it to exist there must be at least two options available. Imagine this is the case and suppose we have 3 options. Now comes the actual process of making a choice. How is this done? As far as I can see the process of making a choice involves a value system by which we measure the pros and cons of each available option. All this value system is is a set of our preferences (likes/dislikes) and that, we know, leads to my argument that it's either an infinite regress of preferences or random selection of preferences, both incompatible with free will.

I may be misreading you but I can make some kind of sense where you're coming from. Firstly we've structured our lives around the existence of free will and this reinforces our belief that we do have free will. Secondly, everyone has the experience of denying ourselves what we want e.g. a lover of wine may refuse a glass of the finest wine, etc. However, if we just dig a little deeper we come face to face with the fact that all instances where someone has denied faerself what fae wants there always is something fae wanted even more. For instance the wine lover refuses a glass of the finest wine not because fae exercised free will and went against faers wants but because fae wanted something else more; maybe faer refused the wine because fae wanted to maintain faers health and being a want it leads to the original dilemma I proposed.

It seems you ARE misreading me, or perhaps just overlooking some elements of my argument. You might want to read my reply to CeleRate above. I believe that we’ve structured our lives around a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for the will to be free. 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.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you view the fifth-dimensional aspect of metaphysical reality as something we’ve made up, something NOT real. You seem to dismiss it almost entirely, and focus on actual choice as the essence of ‘free will’. I’d like to clarify this aspect of your position before we get too much further along, because my understanding of ‘free will’ is that it operates irreducibly in this fifth-dimensional reality.

The freedom of the will exists ‘prior’ to the actual process of making a choice - the potentiality wave has already collapsed at the point you appear to be starting from. We have already effected a reduction of the will when we ascertain only three options. In my view, random selection is the same as ignorance, and there is no infinite regress because all value systems potentially interact in a timeless environment, so to speak.

So I agree with you that the wine lover probably wanted something else more,,, but I disagree that this leads to a dilemma in the way you have proposed, despite what we apparently ‘know’.

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?

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.

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.

Well, it seems like you haven’t really followed much of what I’ve written in this thread at all.

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

No, a capacity is NOT observable, only perceivable. What is observable is evidence which points to that capacity, but is not capacity. Capacity refers to potential, not actual, existence. What you’re describing here is like pointing to a rendered drawing of a ball and insisting it’s a drawing of a circle that’s light on the top and darker on the bottom, nothing more.

In some situations, we refer largely to a logical value system; in others, a moral value system; others still, an aesthetic value system; etc - or a combination of several at once. All of these value systems interact within a broader conceptual system that represents our perspective of ‘reality’. What we refer to as ‘our value system’ is a reduction of those interactions in relation to a particular four-dimensional situation. What I mean by ‘restructuring our value systems’ - note the plural systems - refers to the way they interact in fifth-dimensional reality as our current conceptualisation of the world.

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

No, the lack of free will (as you describe here) is predicated on the false assumption that we are born with a particular set of wants (as an ‘objective’ structure of lack) that is somehow intrinsic to who we are, such that we are compelled to pursue some semblance of ‘completion’, only to discover more wants, more apparent lack. If this is a basic idea of the argument against ‘free will’, then I maintain it is fundamentally misunderstood.

We develop our sense of lack from interactions with the unfolding universe - in relation to this universe, we will find that we lack far more than we could ever acquire. A sense of ‘completion’ is not found in eliminating or even overcoming our unique perspective of lack, but in recognising that what we lack in relation to the potential universe is awareness, connection and collaboration with it, and all our wants are a symptom of this.

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

The fifth dimension is value/potential. This is why it is relevant, and why time and space have no real significance, except that you keep trying to reduce this value/potential to what is observable/measurable in spacetime.

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

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?

No, a capacity is NOT observable, only perceivable. — Possibility

:smile: Thank you for the great discussion.

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

First of all, I tend not to define an ‘agent’, because I believe all agency derives from awareness, connection and collaboration - in that sense, we are never wholly the ‘agent’ as such, but always a member in collaboration. Control is an illusion - even when we think it’s all me, that ‘me’ consists of a bunch of connected and collaborating biological systems that nevertheless have a limited perspective. The more we understand their potential, the more capable we are of anticipating and arranging the causal conditions for more desirable responses.

The addict can choose to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with elements of choice - but it’s not an easy road. Think of it as being asked to collaborate with a race of aliens that just sent you a text message saying they know how to ‘fix the planet’ - that’s about how frightening and unreal these alternatives may seem from their perspective.

Awareness of and desire for available options is only part of the battle. There’s a significant amount of humility, pain and loss to come to terms with in increasing awareness of where you really are in relation to where you want to be. Friends, family and even professionals are not particularly helpful with this. We lack compassion (which is not the same as pity) - we tend to live our lives around addicts according to the belief that our own humility, pain and and loss should be avoided at all cost, but theirs is different because it’s necessary, self-inflicted or deserved. If they’re struggling with this immense humility, pain and loss and lash out, surely we can handle a little humility, pain or loss ourselves before we feel the need to strike back.

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.

Some addiction recovery programs are designed to help the friends and family feel better. Others are designed to help the patient emerge feeling better, or saying and doing the ‘right’ things. A few are designed to facilitate the addict’s own re-evaluation.

When you’ve reduced your perceived potential to the extent that most addicts have, and then you realise what little potential/value that amounts to - without guidance or inspiration towards greater awareness of, connection to AND collaboration with a broader potential/value - it can be hard to perceive any value at all in your life going forward. Suicide looms large at this point.

An addict, more than anything, needs people to interact with their potential and value beyond the addiction - to perceive them as more than an addict, recovering or otherwise - and to treat them accordingly. That can be a challenge if they have come to embody this limited potential and little else. But we develop an awareness of our potential and value most readily through the eyes of those with whom we interact.

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

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?

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 say that as if it could be some other way that unfortunately just didn’t turn out to be the case. You say “freedom”, but you describe a multiple personality disorder.

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

The will is the faculty by which we determine and initiate action via three conceptual ‘gates’: ignorance/awareness, isolation/connection and exclusion/collaboration. So increasing awareness of, connection to and collaboration with the potentiality of alternatives available is essential to the freedom of the will. Without it, the will IS pre-determined according to awareness, connection and collaboration with information from past experiences as well as genetic, chemical, molecular and atomic structures, and the addict is NOT free.

When no potential alternatives are perceived as available, ‘abstinence’ is equal to non-existence.

the addict is NOT free — Possibility

Is anyone?

*sigh* Yes - potentially, anyone is free. Even the addict.

So increasing awareness of, connection to and collaboration with the potentiality of alternatives available is essential to the freedom of the will. — Possibility

I'm taking your use of "essential" to mean "necessary". Addicts involved in recovery programs are routinely informed of alternative options. If awareness is freedom, then where is the freedom when there is awareness? Thanks