What about free to?

What about free to? — Noble Dust

That's a different quesion, requiring a different answer. I wish to have the discussion on this thread to focus and deal with the "free of" aspect, and that only. Sorry, not trying to be negative, but wishing to keep the focus on the OP.

I'm suggesting that the OP framing of "free of" could potentially be the wrong way to frame the free will question.

Okay, that's different. So in what way is it wrong to frame the question? A direct and logical criticism is something I can deal with, in which you describe your proposition unambiguously and in a positively full way, so it can be understood why and what your objections are to frame the question the way it is framed.

I welcome you to add a precise and comprehensive (i.e. something that makes sense) description of your thoughts, why, and how the question in the OP is a wrongly framed question. Please DO NOT supply quizzical answers, or questions. Make positive statements that precisely reflect and communicate your objections.

Thank you very much.

If you are incapable of doing that, I can't answer your objections. Sorry, but I am not going to second-guess quizzical posts and try to figure out what they mean, when meaning is lacking in posts or when meaning is conveyed in the form of quesitons.

"Free of" is negative; "free to" is positive. "Free" is by nature a positive concept.

"Free of" is negative; "free to" is positive. "Free" is by nature a positive concept. — Noble Dust

These are descriptions of your own sentiments that you attach to words and concepts. That is nice. But it can't be disagreed with, so there you go, now we know what you like and think is positive, and what you don't like.

Beyond that there is no value to your statement. Your own private sentiments are of little concern to the interest of philosophy. You are not stating an agreement disagreement with any proposition; you are not making a point; you are not making a stand, and you don't supply any proof of anything. You just state, innociently and kindly, what you like and what you don't like. This is interesting to some, maybe, but it has, pardon me, and please forgive me for saying this, nothing to do with philosophy.

I like ice cream. I really do. I am not lying, this is the honest truth. What can you do with that as a philosopher, Noble Dust?

You like the expression "free to" and you don't like the expression "free of". What do you think i can do with that as a philosopher, Noble Dust?

No, it's not my preference that "free of" is negative and "free to" is positive; it's just grammatically correct.

No, it's not my preference that "free of" is negative and "free to" is positive; it's just grammatically correct. — Noble Dust

Jesus the Lord Christ. This is going from nowhere to nothing. Please don't do this to me, Oh Lord.

Noble Dust, I am sorry, but the difference in our understanding of what grammar is, what sentiments are, and how personal preferences are a different concept from philosophical opinions, that I am incapable of continuing the discussion with you. Please feel free to continue to contribute to this topic, but please don't expect replies from me.

I don't know how relevant this is or if it even makes sense but let's look at the free will issue from a different level in a manner of speaking. It's quite obvious that each person comes with a set of preferences (likes and dislikes) that fae didn't choose for faerself. Ergo, in that sense, we're not free. This can be read as our will not being involved in its, to use an industrial term, manufacture. Its features, particularly those which have a role in the way in which we think/speak/act were incorporated into us and they're at the controls, in the driver's seat and all we can do is go where they decide to go so to speak. That's that.

This is where it gets interesting. Zoom out, readjust the focus, reduce the magnification and think not of individuals, trapped as it were in a web of preferences they didn't choose and are under the control of, and get that 10,000 foot view and what will come into your field of vision is the entirity of humanity. Consider humanity, humor me, itself as an individual. What are its (humanity's) preferences? It (humanity) seem to have, if my analysis is correct, conflicting, contradictory, preferences. If you sample the behavior of individuals, you won't see a pattern in them that indicates the population, humanity, has predelictions, propensities, tendencies, proclivities (preferences). The saw one man's food is another man's poison best sums up the point I'm trying to make. I guess what I want to say is the super-organism that humanity is or is supposed to be evinces "preferences" that are mutually contradictory. There are two conclusions that follow:

1. The mutually contradictory nature of humanity, treated as a super-organism, means that opposing, antagonistic likes or dislikes cancel each other and what we're left with is an entity that has no preferences and thus must, in that sense, be free

2. Humanity, again as a whole, a super-organism, being capable of having preferences that are opposite in quality must mean that it's free for none of these preferences seem to exert a dominating influence, which if false would've meant that humanity is just another, though bigger, version of the individual with predelictions that it can't resist or counter but must be slaves to.

lol!

I'll read your response and reply at another time; my brain still hurts from absorbing the replies from Noble Dust. I need to take a breather. Will come back later, sorry.

Will come back later, sorry. — god must be atheist

Of your own free will, presumably. Not because anything made you come back.

Now that we're already discussing the topic of free will and the OP seems to be open-ended, I'd like to raise another issue regarding free will. It has to do with explaining it. Necessarily that all explanations are causal in character. To explain free will one has to find a cause for it. Right? In essence to explain free will we're actually looking for a cause for something that shouldn't be/isn't caused. Contradiction! How can there be a cause for an uncaused? In other words, two things:

1. Free will, if a causal explanation is what's required to understand it, can't be understood. It (free will) becomes inexplicable within the current paradigm of what constitutes an explanation.

2. We need, perhaps there's that person out there with an IQ that's off the charts, a new species of explanations, acausal explanations

1. Free will, if a causal explanation is what's required to understand it, can't be understood

2. We need, perhaps there's that person out there with an IQ that's off the charts, a new species of explanations, acausal explanations — TheMadFool

This is brilliant, TMF! I like this. And I think we found that person already, s/he's joined this thread and I so rudely dismissed him or her! Noble Dust was the person who is qualified to find an acausal explanation, and s/he probably did and I was too blind to see that.

Of your own free will, presumably. Not because anything made you come back. — Wayfarer

If you can't figure out on your own any causal explanations to guide my will to do this, then there is no way anyone else can explain it to you, either. Therefore I shan't start, and that I shant, shan't mean that I am dismissive of your opinion or disrespectful of it; it just means that I just don't see enough common ground on which to build an argument of our differences.

I must add, as a guide if you Wayfarer, wish to start to mind-experiment on your own, why my will would guide me to come back to this without it needing to be free: will is guided by unfulfilled needs, and it can learn patterns and behave in patterns that guide it, even at times when the influences that taught it that behaviour are not even present. I am saying will is not a stranger to conditioned response.

1. The mutually contradictory nature of humanity, treated as a super-organism, means that opposing, antagonistic likes or dislikes cancel each other and what we're left with is an entity that has no preferences and thus must, in that sense, be free

2. Humanity, again as a whole, a super-organism, being capable of having preferences that are opposite in quality must mean that it's free for none of these preferences seem to exert a dominating influence, which if false would've meant that humanity is just another, though bigger, version of the individual with predelictions that it can't resist or counter but must be slaves to. — TheMadFool

This is also a very nicely built thought, I like it very much. (I spent some time on facebook recently, for the first time in my life, hence the use and needing to use the "like" feature.)

Your explanation culminates in how this huge organism, made of humans, with null vector preferences, has freedom from preferences... but I tend to think that "having freedom from preferences" is closer to "having no preferences" than to, and is different from, "having freedom of preferences".

In other words: the component humans inside the giant have individual preferences, but the giant itself is free from preferences. It has no preferences. However, can we safely say it has freedom of preferences? after all, its tiny compnent parts will scream and complain if they don't get their choice of preferences.

Yes, that's an interesting thing: how will the giant be affected for its preference, if the components do not get theirs?

Do the components influence the mental and emotional balance of the giant?

Does the giant have any mental powers or emotional life, in the first place?

I am not philosophising in the sense of proof/disproof of propositions; I am now at this point not philosophising in the sense of stating propositions; I am playing, instead, a logical game, the parameters of which are not even fully established. The game rules are not clear yet of this game, either, but I hope that everything will fall into place if we play the game right, the game of building and examining and finding out the qualities of the model of the giant made of a myriad of tiny component humans.

Yes, this is digression, and perhaps TheMadFool could please start a thread with this idea, if we were to be pedantic about off topic digressions in this thread of mine. TheMadFool, that would make a fascinating thread, and with a little luck and with disciplined respect by the participant posters perhaps it could go to places. I mean this, I hope that's obvious from my enthusiasm.

What makes the will free is not it's freedom from causation as such, i.e. the will is not somehow unconnected from the fabric of causality.

The will is free if it is the manifestation of the person having it in the world. Not just a product of pressure from outside or biological needs, but of the mind having it.

Actually, after blasting @Noble Dust I gave myself to thinking. Maybe I am and have been looking at this issue too dogmatically. It dawned on me that when the phrase was first coined, people lived in slave-keeping societies. So there were qutie a huge number of the population that did not have freedom. This somehow translated into the common vocabulary as people who were not slaves, who were free, could carry out their will freely, there were less, much fewer restrictions on willing something and achieving it than the restrictions the slaves faced when they willed something.

The will is not free, @Echarmion, like you said, of causation; it is free, however, when it is possessed by a person who can carry out the dictates of his own will.

Never thought of it that way before.

So at worst, "free will" is a misnomer, but if we look at the original milieu in which the phrase was coined, that is, in biblical times, we must see that it is a composite expression not able to stand up to true scrutiny for its actual literal meaning in philosophical terms, but as part of a vernacular of some past ages, it makes perfect sense.

If you can't figure out on your own any causal explanations to guide my will to do this, then there is no way anyone else can explain it to you, either. — god must be atheist

I understand the arguments - that the will is determined by pre-existing factors. It might be determined by evolutionary imperatives, or by cultural conditioning, resulting in an illusion of free choice, when in fact your choice is pre-determined by factors of which you’re unconscious. But if this is the case, then [i[rational debate[/i] can’t be efficacious. You will continue to believe as those unconscious determinants dictate, regardless of anything that could be said; you’re doomed to believe what you believe, regardless of what is said to you.

You will continue to believe as those unconscious determinants dictate, regardless of anything that could be said; — Wayfarer

You'd be right except that conscious, emotional and rational influences also affect free will, not only subcounscious, unconscious ones.

So debate is not futile, because it has the potential to change people's opinions.

That it has not presented in forum discussions that anyone changed their minds or philosophy or religion, should not fool the observer. Many discussions here enticed me to new thoughts, to new insights. Yes, not one incited me to do a complete turn-about; but there were changes iand development in my understanding of the world, people and myself, that were helped by the intellectual input of others in the discussions that affected me in ways to develop new thoughts.

You'd be right except that conscious, emotional and rational influences also affect free will, — god must be atheist

But that is not an argument AGAINST free will. If your will is determined by conscious, emotional and rational influences, then your decisions are freely chosen.

Many discussions here enticed me to new thoughts, to new insights. — god must be atheist

That's a great outcome and the main reason for participating in these forums.

But that is not an argument AGAINST free will. If your will is determined by conscious, emotional and rational influences, then your decisions are freely chosen. — Wayfarer

you're right Why then did I say this? It was simply posted to help you to realize that rational thoght also influences the will, free or not. You specifically denied that in your post, so that's why this part in my post.

ayy.

If your will is determined by conscious, emotional and rational influences, then your decisions are freely chosen. — Wayfarer

Is it not your will that makes you decisions, but something else? That is bizarre.
You state that your will is determined.
But your choices are not determined.
So what determines your choices?

I propose it is that part of me which is my will that determines my wilful choices.

What is your view on that?

Impediments, influences and limitations.

1. Nature of Will

Hormonally, psychologically, emotionally, sexually, sensually and so on, the human body is made to dictate appealing from unappealing regardless of your will in a way which influences your will and really, often simply constitutes your will. "I" refers to the consciousness, the "will" in free will means "will of the consciousness" but I don't decide many things about what I want and like, that's largely pre-determined. The best example is someone trying to quit smoking, the body is addicted and gives off every signal that it wants to smoke but these desires are repressed by the consciousness to exert a person's will not to smoke.

Firstly, this is expressed as both the individual wanting and not wanting to smoke, we cannot express their desire to smoke as not being part of their will. Thus will is not necessarily pitted against something else, will in of itself is constructed and influenced by external forces (not my consciousness). My inability to cleanse my will of external influences poses the greatest threat to my free will, which is actually inherently not free at all by its very nature. I cannot be as just a consciousness, I am first and foremost a biological being.

2. Difficulty of Applying Will

All follows from my first point, the consciousness can make choices but could face incredible resistance. I simultaneously desire conflicting things and the longer I need to sustain a choice the harder it becomes to follow through on my will. I can easily decide to hold my arm out in front of me but it's much harder to hold it out until I stop due to physical limitations rather than "wanting to stop". Applying my will can be challenging, requiring effort, this effort implies resistance and resistance shows a lack of freedom.

3. Free Will vs Belief vs Interpretation

The limitations are not limited to less intellectual topics, I think a central issue to free will is control. Ever heard "you are free to believe whatever you want to believe"? Except you aren't and you can't. If you decide "I'm going to start believing in solipsism today", you are really only succeeding in lying to yourself, aren't you? You can't actually believe in solipsism just because you decided you would, internally, you know you are lying to yourself and you still don't believe in solipsism.

I could go on with examples but to answer your question "what is free will free of" it is free of impediments, influences and limitations. I think generally the "do we have free will question" asks do we at least have some control and some free will, only a fool would ever argue that they have 100% control and influence over their will.

I do want to add that I recognise a distinction between "free will" as the consciousnesses freedom to make choices, even if those choices can't be enacted and the ability of the consciousness to enact their choices. I think both factor into the question of free will but technically I think former is true free will and that the individual has absolute free will. However, that free will could be totally meaningless because the consciousness reverses their choice a second later due to their inability to sustain or enact their will. So I focused on the latter issue in my last post.

It was simply posted to help you to realize that rational thoght also influences the will, free or not. You specifically denied that in your post, so that's why this part in my post. — god must be atheist

I presumed I was arguing the case against determinism. That is the usual form in threads about this subject.

If your will is determined by conscious, emotional and rational influences, then your decisions are freely chosen. — Wayfarer

As far as emotional influences go: no. Not in general. Not if the emotion is not voluntarily admitted to.
Free will does not know any measure other than the intrinsic value of the matter it focuses on. It is you who makes a decision, not the emotion.

I propose it is that part of me which is my will that determines my wilful choices. — god must be atheist

I would call this on-point. (Individual) freedom is represented by willful act and will hence is free in a tautological self-defining way.

the human body is made to dictate appealing from unappealing regardless of your will in a way which influences your will and really, often simply constitutes your will. — Judaka

Which is not necessarily a contradiction at all, as long as such an influence is not perceived as such. One is as free as can be until there is something which is actively perceived as limiting ones freedom.

Firstly, this is expressed as both the individual wanting and not wanting to smoke, we cannot express their desire to smoke as not being part of their will. — Judaka

Of course, we can. The person gives a declaration of intent and that's it. One could even say that it is a demonstration of free will to be even able to want something different than what one is doing or what actually is the case.

My inability to cleanse my will of external influences poses the greatest threat to my free will, which is actually inherently not free at all by its very nature. — Judaka

Do you feel it that way? Then maybe you are just told it was your free decision..

I can easily decide to hold my arm out in front of me but it's much harder to hold it out until I stop due to physical limitations rather than "wanting to stop". — Judaka

Are you asking that you "want to want something" now? Such things are quite interesting. All the "perfect dystopias" like "1984", "Equilibrium", "The year 2525" and so on play with such problems: Perfection of rational freedom by total subjection of his own nature - you do have the choice then. If you cannot want what you want to want, then you are lacking (technological) means.

Which is not necessarily a contradiction at all, as long as such an influence is not perceived as such. One is as free as can be until there is something which is actively perceived as limiting ones freedom. — Heiko

I agree to the extent that characterisations are always subject to interpretation but I don't conclude as you do. I think the body's influence on the will constitutes an outside influence, the question is how greatly can you be influenced before you are more of a puppet to those influences than an actor with free will. There should be a point where the individual acting in accordance with those influences to a degree where it is reasonable to doubt the ability of the individual to go against those influences. Also, I don't think perception can be trusted to bring clarity to this matter.

Of course, we can. The person gives a declaration of intent and that's it. One could even say that it is a demonstration of free will to be even able to want something different than what one is doing or what actually is the case. — Heiko

Well, what you've described is not what I meant, the desire to smoke and the desire not to smoke both enter the consciousness and that's how that works. Which is different from i.e flinching involuntarily. The whole problem here is that merely characterising your will as "what I want" and "what I don't want" is not the same as "I don't want that" but you do, that's the whole difficulty of exercising your will. If someone wants to stop smoking then they need to address the conscious decision they make to buy smokes, keep the smokes and smoke because that constitutes the entire problem. Declaring "really, I want to stop smoking" while you still make conscious choices which go against that demonstrates a lack of free will. How else would you interpret it?

Do you feel it that way? Then maybe you are just told it was your free decision — Heiko

Merely going with all of your psychobiological proclivities isn't freedom, that's just being taken along for the ride without trying to resist.

Are you asking that you "want to want something" now? — Heiko

I was saying that you can decide you want something but the growing pressure to do the opposite builds up until you eventually or quite possibly almost immediately capitulate. Like deciding you will do something bold until it comes time to do that thing and you're immediately overcome by fear which causes you to change your mind. Essentially, you are free to choose whatever but even simple things like losing weight or going for a jog every day can be tremendously difficult for most people. Thus your emotions influence your will and reverse your decisions and your ability to deviate from your life trajectory with will is limited. Millions of people want to lose weight or exercise more and there's no physical reason they can't but they find it very difficult. How do you respond to that?

I think the body's influence on the will constitutes an outside influence, the question is how greatly can you be influenced before you are more of a puppet to those influences than an actor with free will. There should be a point where the individual acting in accordance with those influences to a degree where it is reasonable to doubt the ability of the individual to go against those influences. Also, I don't think perception can be trusted to bring clarity to this matter. — Judaka

The question remains if bodily limitations are perceived as such. This may be done in reflection. If you act in accordance with yourself there cannot be a question about if you are acting as freely as you can. The act is a direct expression of your will, then. The prohibitive laws questioning mental stability of certain subjects may be in place to protect them from theirselves but cannot be justified on the grounds of those subjects' will as they may explicitely be carried out against it.

Well, what you've described is not what I meant, the desire to smoke and the desire not to smoke both enter the consciousness and that's how that works. — Judaka

There is no "desire" not to smoke and cannot be as that is a negation. There may be a desire to smoke and a rational decision to stop smoking to feel more healthy or whatever.

The whole problem here is that merely characterising your will as "what I want" and "what I don't want" is not the same as "I don't want that" but you do, that's the whole difficulty of exercising your will. — Judaka

Which pretty much brings it to the point: "I don't want that" is not a rational end, hence never a direct maxime of free will. It serves another purpose.
Smoking a cigarette is not necessarily very harmful. Extrapolating in about potential consequences of doing it again and again would is an abstract form of free will - which is also hinted at by it's negative nature. The question you are asking then is not "Do I smoke this cigarette?" but "Do I want to smoke cigarettes again and again?" As an abstract question this gets an abstract answer - which may be "No, not in general, but this one." What would you want then? Not that difficult.
So much for "exercise": if you have got the feeling you cannot stop smoking go see a doctor.
We are not in the middle ages.

Merely going with all of your psychobiological proclivities isn't freedom, that's just being taken along for the ride without trying to resist. — Judaka

So
1. It is rooted in your nature
2. It is admitted by your reason
Now it gets very difficult to construct a problem, don't you think?

I was saying that you can decide you want something but the growing pressure to do the opposite builds up until you eventually or quite possibly almost immediately capitulate. — Judaka

Are you talking of power now? There may be external and internal resistances and your problem is you lack the power to execute your will. So what does the rational individual necessarily have to do? Go see a doctor, buy weapons or question your decision.

Like deciding you will do something bold until it comes time to do that thing and you're immediately overcome by fear which causes you to change your mind. — Judaka

Then either you are lacking power or your abstract reasoning is wrong in that you only whish you wanted to do it...

Thus your emotions influence your will — Judaka

If they really did there would not a problem. This is where the circle closes: You either want or do not. The rest is a question of power.

The will is not free from influence. That's all that needs to be known. Our will to act is influenced. The closest thing we have to free will is recognizing that brute fact, and acting accordingly by virtue of choosing our influences as judiciously as possible.

The question remains if bodily limitations are perceived as such — Heiko

I am not talking about bodily limitations, I am talking about the body's influence on will. An example might be discussing how getting aroused can influence a person's choices or how addiction can cause unbearable cravings. When we talk about different personalities, temperaments and so on or the effect of being tired, angry or hungry. The culmination of which is a mix between two effects, firstly that your will is a construct of your psychobiological self and secondly that the freedom of your will is compromised by numerous and potent influences affecting it.

There is no "desire" not to smoke and cannot be as that is a negation — Heiko

Our will is messier than that, it is fractured and inconsistent, over time and in different contexts. One can vocally dictate their desires but actions speak louder than words, no human acts completely in accordance with what they say they want.

We are not in the middle ages. — Heiko

I don't smoke btw lol.

Then either you are lacking power or your abstract reasoning is wrong in that you only whish you wanted to do it — Heiko

The power to suppress your own desires? I think I understand our disagreement pretty well, at least this one of them. Over time, our desires change, we do not simultaneously earnestly and wholeheartedly commit to something while also deciding it's not worth it. When you commit to something, that is you trying to exercise your will but when you later decide it's not worth it, I think that's also your will. Why the change? Because your will is influenced by things like emotion which are not consistent over time. Over the passage of time, the attempt to exercise will shall generally be defeated. This isn't based on my experience, it's based on things like obesity rates, looking at addiction, knowing a little about psychology and many other contexts where this can be seen.

By the way, I'm not saying there isn't will or that we can't do useful things with our choices but just answering OP's question. Certainly, people can make the choice to quit smoking and succeed but consider how many emotions and desires have been coded into us or become present as a result of our circumstances and how hard it can be to change these things. I think over time, a person can gradually build habits and make transformations but it's rare, difficult and limited in scope.