Welcome, to start what exactly is your understanding of free will and what side of the fence of it, whatever it may be, are you on? Define it for us in your own words, to the best of your ability. What arguments have you heard that don't seem to cut it for you?

In a religious context, which actually vary greatly, you can expect to include more logic than doctrine here or you'll see receive the wet rope treatment I can assure you. :grin:

Generally from what discussions I can recall from here they seem to revolve around specific doctrines stating or essentially resolving to "everything is predetermined" .. essentially no longer a religious debate but more of one about determinism in general. Is this perhaps what you mean?

can't find an argument that is satisfying to disprove it. — Barondan

You want to disprove that free will exists? Or disprove that it doesn’t exist?

There is no way to prove or disprove that life has choice. However, if you believe that you have no choice, then you don't and just let things happen. Believing that you have a choice makers life more interesting. BTW, you do have a choice.

I wish to see a compelling argument that makes thinking of free will as a possibility without the use of some outside power.

well you first have to define your terms.

If you were predetermined to do something and so did it, is that free will?

If your decision was entirely random is that free will?

If it’s neither, then are you looking for a decision that is not determined and at the same time not random? Does that even make sense? I don’t think it does.

Thank you for the response but I guess that answer is less than fulfilling for me personally. From everything I've seen and been taught, our universe is that of cause and effect. That means that every decision(or effect) is the result of something before it(the cause). If that's true everything has been decided. It's unsettling which is why I posit the question to this forum.

I suppose my terms are that no decision is random ergo, no decision is truly free because it is the direct consequence of something that happened before.
This is fundamentally what I can't disprove. I hope that makes sense.

Do you find it rather odd that these same deterministic scientists award themselves Nobel Prizes for their achievements? Examine the hypocrisy of their actions and don't be concerned with their totally fabricated mythology. There is no way to prove or disprove determinism, so live as you choose. You are trying to make a choice, aren't you?

So randomness suffices for you?

If you roll a dice and get 3, did you choose to get 3? Assuming the dice is actually fully random.

I accept that to my limited understanding of physics and in relation to my own outlook it is random but that doesn't mean it is, does it? I mean there was a reason, whether the way the dice came out of the hand or the way it bounced because of the type of wood or amount of force, that it came up 3. I feel like that's just fact. Not to mention why did the person roll the dice to begin with.

I am not defending scientists who as you say might be awarding themselves Nobel Prizes. I'm just looking at simple scientific method that dates back long before the invention of the Nobel Prize. I am trying to make a choice. My question is, is that choice really mine.

Yes, it is.

Determinism is a belief. There is no scientific basis for it. Believe what you choose to believe.

Well if disproving determinism suffices for you you can go into quantum physics. There are events that are truly random there. The world is not deterministic. There was never evidence of that anyways. Because we can’t go back in time and check if it’s deterministic or not.

Otherwise, if you can’t shake the determinism off (and there are some that say QM don’t mean the world isn’t deterministic on a macro scale) then you should go into compatibilism the belief that determinism and free will are compatible.

Let me ask you this: If you were locked in a cell, and the guards told you one day “we are removing the door to your cell, but we will shoot you on site if you try to leave, and our snipers never miss” will you have become any more free?

I not sure how I missed this comment since it was the first lol. I'm not intending to get into any kind of religious or spiritual argument. Mine is more of my observance of the universe as I understand it. Based on cause and effect which makes me think that we don't have free will in that context. That's why I wanted to make sure I didn't want an outside influence to sway the discussion. Thank you for responding.

Ok :) Why?

There are causes, a choice, an an action.

Why do you have a choice? Because, the mind create things and it chooses what it wishes to create. You created a question for this forum by choice. You can now choose what you wish to believe. Certainly, don't believe scientists who give themselves awards for their personal achievements. That's awkward.

I'm not sure I understand the point of the question you asked at the end of your post but I don't think I would be anymore free than I was before they took the doors off. I might be missing something though so I'm sorry if I am sounding ignorant.

As for your other statement is it possible that quantum mechanics are only seemingly random because of our own ignorance about how things work?

Believe what you want to believe. You can always create any mythology you wish. There is no way to prove or disprove that you have a choice. But if you believe that you have no choice, then don't take personal credit for any accomplishment. You did nothing.

I guess I think that my mind created this question to ask because of something else that happened before to make me wonder.

I'm really not trying to be contradictory I swear. I'm just troubled by this thought and wanted to see if other people had some insight that seemed satisfactory. I really do appreciate the conversation so much!

And your mind chose to post the question on this forum and now is choosing how to respond. Your mind is a wonderful. Admire yourself and what you choose to do with your life.

I'm not sure I understand the point of the question you asked at the end of your post — Barondan

Good. Then I know you’re not being biased.

I don't think I would be anymore free than I was before they took the doors off. — Barondan

Well, before the doors were taken off, you had no ability to leave. IE, determinism. After they were taken off you had the ability to leave but you would get shot if you do. IE, indeterminism, but you would never do the act in question.

So it seems that determinism and indeterminism are not the issue here. It seems that “freedom” does not increase when you get the ability to do things you would never do anyways. Maybe the variable that matters is whether or not the thing you’re doing is what you want to do.

So maybe a more accurate definition of free will is “Doing what you want to do without outside influence”. In that case, whether or not the world is deterministic shouldn’t be a problem. It would be like whether or not the door is there. Doesn’t matter, you wouldn’t want to leave either way.

is it possible that quantum mechanics are only seemingly random because of our own ignorance about how things work? — Barondan

I think there was a paper stating that, no, quantum randomness is fully random and not due to our ignorance. How that would be proven is beyond me. But physicists on a whole also seem to think this. That quantum randomness is true randomness, not just ignorance.

I really appreciate this response khaled. I'm gonna have to think over what you said and also try and find this paper you speak of. I'm not sure I agree yet but that's kind of the point of philosophical debates lol. You have given me a better answer than anyone else I've ever spoken with about it.

My names Dan and I hope we can speak more in the future.

There is no way to prove or disprove that life has choice. However, if you believe that you have no choice, then you don't and just let things happen. Believing that you have a choice makers life more interesting. BTW, you do have a choice. — MondoR

I agree. I'm starting to believe that what makes life indeterministic is that we believe we have free will and have a will to prosper. I associate it with spirituality.

What makes life indeterministic is surrendering our free will or not believing we have it to surrender in the first place.

Ultimately, it is a spiritual question of how one views life and treats life.

There was an experiment performed that the researchers concluded demonstrated that quantum probabilistic behavior (it's not random) is intrinsic to the universe, and there are no hidden variables. However, I try to refrain from using the latest scientific thinking in what amounts to a question about how one chooses to lead one's life. Scientists are overwhelming on the side of non-determinism, as evidenced by the enormous number of awards they bestow on themselves for their individual accomplishments. Actions speak louder than words.

I appreciate everyone's comments and views. I wish it was 5pm and we were all sitting around a table talking about this. Unfortunately I'm gonna need to hit the hay for now but look forward to conversing later.

Believing that you have a choice makers life more interesting — MondoR

This is the point where free will stands heavy in its position. Sometimes we tend to think and work that everything around us can be controlled by our own skills and behaviour. If you believe you can change the situation with effort it makes living the life a worthy and beautiful feeling as @MondoR well said previously.
Nevertheless, this can make a good debate inside of free will (I do not want go for a tangent) and determinism. I guess if you put more emphasis in your own circumstances and trying to get a “better” situation you somehow make “determinism” weak because you have the control of present and what could the future holds.

So it is interesting how free will can be/or not be a good example of how to face predetermined criteria.

My personal view differs from the conventional in that I don't believe that free will should be concerned with the possibility of non-determinism, be it material or otherwise. It should be concerned with human agency.

For example, if I do something bad and you do something good to repair the damage, my action has provoked your counteraction. Your character demanded it, and now I have learned how to provoke you again. I will do something bad again and you will do something good to repair the damage again. Is that lack of free will? I don't believe so. Why? Because you act consistently with your personality, which seeks and attains involvement in the outcome.

In other words, to define free will, one has to think not solely about stimuli and responses, but about the participation of a character/personality that achieves its goals. As long as the individual is not confused factually about the nature of their involvement in a situation, and their personal agency acts as a determining factor in the outcome, then they are exercising their freedom. If they act under someone's command or are forced by factors that are beyond the scope of their personality/identity. they are not manifesting in correspondence with their character, and are not free.

But there are many obvious cognitive parameters that will be involved there. For example, a patient with mental illness might have difficulty creating consistent character and behavior, i.e. personality, and therefore will be at odds with exercising any freedom. Non-determinism wouldn't help at all, because it would only blur the presence of agency even further.

I have stated before, that if I was having a theist inclination, it would be pantheist/panpsychist. The hypothesis will be that I may be completely embodied, including all my consciousness. You can see how that creates a problem, since matter is governed by laws of nature, and many people will describe the freedom as either hanging on non-determinism in those laws or not being present at all, but I wouldn't. For a pantheist (even dystheistic one), the material laws, as grotesque as their consequences to human beings might be in terms of suffering and dissatisfaction (which is why people think of them as too profane to be the sole carrier for consciousness), are not necessarily unspirited. They are merely inhumane, because when given the latitude to evolve to high-entropy outcomes, which is the most frequently encountered condition in nature, they cause decay of organization and collide with our need for sustenance, our desire to apply our ethics and ideals. Consequently, the only counterbalancing factor is that nature is being sculpted by the interactions of low-entropy lifeforms like ourselves with their external environment, giving a properly justified perception that we are bound by nature and fighting it, rather then facilitated by it.

Our self-recognized, even if affected by genetics and development, boundaries are such that there is express conflict between the nature within and the nature without. This conflict makes us reject the universe as taking part in our free will, because it symbolizes pain and decay, the chaos, the enemy.

In reality, we are practicing those boundaries flexibly and they are emergently psychological, not always clearly physically defined. Outside of ideological discussions like this one, in routine life, people associate themselves with their body, but an ailing body part, such as a cancerous organ, might feel as a predatory hostile agency, while a separate person, such a family member might feel as an organic connection that we have with the world. For pantheism/panpsychism/naturalism, the natural law is not only limitation of who you are, it is description of all there is, and part of it is you, and other parts are distinct from you, and many of them are hostile to you and contest your existence, restricting your self-realization. Being able to realize yourself in the world, as you are currently determined, and to govern the outcome according to your convictions and/or need for personal satisfaction is having freedom. Free will is having your coherent personality behind this realization.

I wish to see a compelling argument that makes thinking of free will as a possibility without the use of some outside power. — Barondan

The question of FreeWill came up in a thread on Religious Belief. One common modern "scientific" argument against Freewill in general (not specifically religious choice) is the findings of Benjamin Libet's experiments on voluntary acts. A common interpretation of those results was to conclude that the body had already chosen to act before the mind became conscious of its own intention to act. Hence, "freewill is an illusion". But Libet himself left open the possibility of minimal freedom, in the form of a final conscious Veto of the body's subconscious decision to act. For me, that narrowly-limited-freedom-to-choose is sufficient to validate our intuitive feeling of moral & functional Freedom. It's what I call "FreeWill within Determinism".

I'm not sure what you meant by "outside power". Are you referring to a divine gift of Free Will? My notion of Freewill is not based on any scriptural authority, but on the role of Randomness in Evolution. My later post on that same thread gives my reasoning. :smile:

FWIW, here's a link to my reply on the Religious Belief thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/503419

Conscious-will could thus affect the outcome of the volitional process even though the latter was initiated by unconscious cerebral processes. Conscious-will might block or veto the process, so that no act occurs.The existence of a veto possibility is not in doubt.
___Benjamin Libet, the 'freewill' experiment
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/551587e0e4b0ce927f09707f/t/57b5d269e3df28ee5e93936f/1471533676258/Libet%2C+Do+We+Have+Free+Will%3F.pdf


Rationalism versus Fatalism : Freewill Within Determinism
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

PS___Here's a discussion on "apparent randomness :
Apparent randomness is strong evidence for the existence of free will :
https://www.kialo.com/apparent-randomness-is-strong-evidence-for-the-existence-of-free-will-5685.2309?path=5685.0~5685.1-5685.2309