If you can flip a coin and call it, catch it, then throw it into a smelter, you have just defeated determinism.

No takers, eh? No prizes for guessin' why, it's a hairy problem.

A few salient points to consider:

1. If not determinism, then what? Randomness, an easy answer, but we don't want that, do we? A between-Scylla-and-Charybdis situation. Is being capable of randomness freedom?

2. Causality-wise, we want not to be effects but we don't mind being causes. In other words, we wish to be outside the casual web but we also want to be able to influence the course of the future. Is this possible?

3. Why would the mind create an illusion of freedom if, in fact, we aren't free?

4. From a book I read (paraphrasing): The more knowledge we gain of how our minds work (psychology leading the pack), the more control we have over our lives. So, is free will a matter of when and not if? Once, probably in another century or so, psychologists & philosophers discover human thinking patterns, we can then take the helm and become fully autonomous agents. Just to be clear, I've seen real-life instances of people gaining control of their lives through this process.

5. How appealing is being semi-autonomous? We have free will but only in a limited sense.

6. Do we really want free will? Daoism for example, from a certain angle, seems to be averse to the idea of doing what(ever) we want. Go with the flow is not exactly a call to claim one's freedom.

Volition is, like every other nonlinear dynamic system, deterministic. (Btw, introspection is illusory, and I am a compatibilist.) So what question/s are you trying to raise with the OP?

1. If not determinism, then what? Randomness, an easy answer, but we don't want that, do we? A between-Scylla-and-Charybdis situation. Is being capable of randomness freedom? — Agent Smith

People aren't billiard balls. An influenced or compelled choice is still a choice.

2. Causality-wise, we want not to be effects but we don't mind being causes. In other words, we wish to be outside the casual web but we also want to be able to influence the course of the future. Is this possible? — Agent Smith

Certainly, being able to imagine a future seems like a useless adaptation for a choiceless creature.

3. Why would the mind create an illusion of freedom if, in fact, we aren't free? — Agent Smith

It does have to explain what we have done and sometimes we honestly don't know. We have the illusion of an illusion in some sense in order for reality to remain stable.
Probably, true.

5. How appealing is being semi-autonomous? We have free will but only in a limited sense. — Agent Smith

It's free will in a normal sense. Do you want to decide to breath every ten seconds?

6. Do we really want free will? Daoism for example, from a certain angle, seems to be averse to the idea of doing what(ever) we want. Go with the flow is not exactly a call to claim one's freedom. — Agent Smith

Who other than yourself could make you write the above?

A reasonable definition of freedom dissolves the debate entirely. Just as an unreasonable one settles it in favor of determinism. The physical world appears probabilistic where determination is actually negative. In other words only the possible things happen, but not happening and not possible aren't the same thing. Come at me bro.

meta-physical topics — Gnomon

Not meta-physical. The will does as it has come to be. Time is fundamental as motion/movement/causality since there was no stillness stopping everything. Consciousness came to be along the way since before life there wasn't any; same with life. The notion of a self is the result of experiencing. No mysteries left.

Volition is, like every other nonlinear dynamic system, deterministic. (Btw, introspection is illusory, and I am a compatibilist.) So what question/s are you trying to raise with the OP? — 180 Proof

What caused you to become a compatiblist? Did you have the option to reach a different conclusion? Can you trace an unbroken chain of causation beck to the Big Bang? Or was your own reasoning ability a meta-physical Cause of your decision? FWIW, I am also a compatiblist. However, if we both have free thought, you may not agree with how I arrived at my summation of the pertinent causes of Freedom Within Determinism.

My FreeWill questions are expressed in the linked blog post. For example : "Is FreeWill Fake Agency?" ; " is it Self-deception or Self-determinism?" Several other questions are addressed by the author of the SKEPTIC article. For instance : " “Voluntary behavior . . . Is an emergent phenomenon at the level of the entire organism embedded in physical reality”. That’s what I call “Holism”, or “Systems Theory”.

A link to the article is in the blog post. For those who may be on the fence, the second page of the blog has links to more detailed discussions of the perennial Free Will vs Determinism controversy. :smile:

Is FreeWill Fake Agency? :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page26.html

If not determinism, then what? — Agent Smith

magic

a magical invisible soul that can magically create first causes out of its magical invisible spiritual intelligence

Deterministic – a non-metaphysical concept which compatibilists assume – does not mean what determinists (or indeterminists) mean by metaphysical determinism. You're confusing apples with oranges again, sir.

magic

a magical invisible soul that can magically create first causes out of its magical invisible spiritual intelligence — Miller

:up: A possibility, yes!

Good responses!

People aren't billiard balls. An influenced or compelled choice is still a choice. — Cheshire

This doesn't make sense to me. What's a no choice scenario then?

Certainly, being able to imagine a future seems like a useless adaptation for a choiceless creature. — Cheshire

:chin: Magnifique! Being able to, in a sense, predict the future only makes sense if the predictor means to make adjustments for it. Free will!?

we honestly don't know. — Cheshire

That's right! "I don't know" is an acceptable response to a query. Me either! However, it would be better if we knew.

This doesn't make sense to me. What's a no choice scenario then? — Agent Smith

The basis for determinism; such as the planets going around sun. The physical forces are overwhelming enough to rule out alternate paths and the subjects(planets) lack the capacity for agency. It's a deterministic or 'no choice' model.

Magnifique! Being able to, in a sense, predict the future only makes sense if the predictor means to make adjustments for it. Free will!? — Agent Smith

Thanks, I just thought of this one. It is compelling if you accept evolutionary selection as influential enough to demand an explanation. In order to be an advantage the predictor has to 'successfully' make adjustments and not just believe they are making adjustments.

That's right! "I don't know" is an acceptable response to a query. Me either! However, it would be better if we knew. — Agent Smith

On occasion we do make choices which are rationalized after the fact. I don't think the whole of determinism is without some rational basis. But, extending the observation to suggest every decision is made and then rationalized over extends the evidence.

↪Cheshire Good responses! — Agent Smith

Well, thanks. Arguing for secular free will has never been easy. The belief that freedom implies randomness shuts down the discussion more than often. Or the notion that free will should always be realized as to explain every aspect of one's condition. I acknowledge there are many influences and contextual pressures that drive outcomes, but if they can be understood and accounted for; then these are not proper illusions.

:up:

There's something between determinism and randomness.

Do you think the following argument makes sense? It does to me.

1. Some things don't have an effect (e.g. me pushing the Eiffel tower won't do jack shit to it!).

Ergo,

2. Some things have no causes.

Causality isn't violated, only the cause must be potent enough to produce an effect. As per physics causal potency should be ever diminshing (the Domino effect & chain reactions seem to be exceptions) i.e. a cause (should/does) peter(s) out, fade away. I suppose the secret to free will is to be found not in physics but in (bio)chemistry.

There's something between determinism and randomness. — Agent Smith

I go a step further and argue "randomness" is a strawman that disposes of the concept of 'will' for the sake of argument. Fundamentally, the world is probabilistic and negatively determined by what's impossible. If I saw a person acting randomonly I doubt my first impression would be an individual exercising free will.

1. Some things don't have an effect (e.g. me pushing the Eiffel tower won't do jack shit to it!).
Ergo,
2. Some things have no causes. — Agent Smith

I think that's a fair summation that points to a break down in the imaginary casual chain.

Really, there's only to 2 conditions for a cause under my argument. The event was not impossible and enough time passed for it to occur. Negative determination.

Deterministic – a non-metaphysical concept which compatibilists assume – does not mean what determinists (or indeterminists) mean bymetaphysical determinism. You're confusing apples with oranges again, sir. — 180 Proof

Where did I say anything about "metaphysical determinism"? I had never heard that label until you brought it up. Apparently, you are labeling my apples as oranges. . . . Sir. :joke:


Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, that it is incompatible with free will,
Note -- "Determinism" is metaphysical in the sense that it is a philosophical conceptual construct, not a physical object. FWIW, I accept that the general assumption of an unbroken chain of Cause & Effect is true, and how the real world works. However, from my Enformationism perspective, the self-reflective human mind, with self-generated will-power (intention ; agency), is an emergent Cause, as an added link in the cosmic chain of events and priors. Hence, limited local Free Will is compatible with general universal Determinism. I'll have more to say about that in another post. :smile:

Where did I say anything about "metaphysical determinism"? — Gnomon

Context + this:

What caused you to become a compatiblist? Did you have the option to reach a different conclusion? Can you trace an unbroken chain of causation beck to the Big Bang? Or was your own reasoning ability a meta-physical Cause of your decision? — Gnomon

:roll:

A possibility, yes! — Agent Smith

is magic a possibility?

or is it just magical thinking

something cant come from nothing. no matter if its spiritual or not. and therefore even a magical soul would not be able to create first causes, and therefore it would have no true free will

because despite everyone being too ignorant to realize it, true free will would be the ability to create first causes from nothing into the mind.

from that ego delusion comes the god delusion. the ego creates god

Where did I say anything about "metaphysical determinism"? — Gnomon
Context + this:
"What caused you to become a compatiblist? Did you have the option to reach a different conclusion? Can you trace an unbroken chain of causation beck to the Big Bang? Or was your own reasoning ability a meta-physical Cause of your decision?" — Gnomon — 180 Proof

Oh, I see. You put the apple of a FreeWill vs Determinism context together with the mention of a "meta-physical" orange, and concluded "metaphysical determinism". As a Compatiblist myself, I am not a proponent of that particular line of reasoning (see Fatalism below). Instead, I was suggesting that human Reason could be an emergent "meta-physical" (mental not physical) Cause of forging a new link in the physical chain of Causation. The ability to choose between probabilistic options, is a determinant of the subsequent branch of contingent causation. In other words, Reason is your get-out-of-bondage-to-Fate-free-card.

FreeWill is not an "illusion", it's a worldview. It's a meta-physically (memes, not genes) evolved belief system that allows creatures with reasoning ability to statistically predict the future course of events, and to make rational choices instead of knee-jerk reactions to current events. FreeWill is not self-deception, it's Self Determinism. :nerd:

Note 1. In the blog post prior to the one linked in the OP, I discussed the connection between scientific Reductionism, and the ancient worldview of Fatalism. There, I said :
Another divergence in our philosophy is between Determinism, narrowly defined, and FreeWill, as the ability to choose based on rational evidence rather than on fatalistic necessity. But Determinism is a belief and a premise, not an objective fact. And Determinists typically assume a linear chain of physical causes only. Yet they ignore the influence of feed-back loops in the human mind, which become the non-physical Causes we call "beliefs". The behavior of lower animals might result from external influences only. But the human mind is able to interrupt the flow of physical causation with feedback loops that insert new learning links in the chain (creative ideas). When those new links are perceived as different from our beliefs and preconceptions, the mind begins to look for a way to get back on course. Which is known as "Reasoning".

Note 2. Then, in the following blog post (caused in part by the prior post) I said :
After those scenic side-tracks, he finally gets around to “unpacking free will”. For his analysis, you can read the article. Here, I’ll only mention a couple of points. 1) “Trying to account for choice at the level of neurons . . . wouldn’t provide any causal account”. That would be like looking for Meaning in the circuits of a motherboard. 2) “Voluntary behavior . . . Is an emergent phenomenon at the level of the entire organism embedded in physical reality”. That’s what I call “Holism”, or “Systems Theory”. Finally, he looks at “Freewill as Phenomenal Experience”, and says “Although this naïve view has largely been abandoned by serious thinkers, it can still be useful : what difference does it make if you believe that free will is an illusion? Would you no longer make any choices at all?”. In his considered opinion, “free will is a puzzle but it is not an illusion”. To that, I say “amen”.

In short, fatalism is the theory that there is some destiny that we cannot avoid, although we are able to take different paths up to this destiny. Determinism, however, is the theory that the entire path of our life is decided by earlier events and actions.
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/10942/A-Level/Philosophy/What-is-the-difference-between-determinism-and-fatalism/

Risks are problems of contingent causation; they are problems due to unforeseen or uncontrollable causal processes instigated by human action
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40878435

Not meta-physical. The will does as it has come to be. Time is fundamental as motion/movement/causality since there was no stillness stopping everything. Consciousness came to be along the way since before life there wasn't any; same with life. The notion of a self is the result of experiencing. No mysteries left. — PoeticUniverse

Again, my coinage of a new spelling for an old concept goes right over the reductive head. Since, by "Meta-Physical" I mean the non-physical (e.g. mental) aspects of reality, I am thinking of changing the spelling to "Menta-Physical", to indicate that I am referring to subjective Ideas, not objective objects, Nor to super-natural spooks. For example, Genes are physical, while Memes are Menta-Physical : physical substrate but mental (imaginary) expression.

That invisible-but-knowable mind-stuff (ideas ; information) was the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume of On Nature. In the first volume, he presented the then-current state of physical science --- as known by direct sensory observation, without modern sense-enhancing technology. And then, in the subsequent (meta-) volume, he discussed the contemporary philosophical opinions about the natural world, which included Ideas, Speculations, Concepts, Theories, and Principles. Those were known only by introspection, or by exchanges of memes (words). Although some of his idealistic notions, such as "Form", were presented as-if realistic, like the Buddha, he was trying to avoid speculating about anything beyond the reach of sensory experience (i.e. super-natural). Yet, he lumped our sixth sense of Reason (nous) and Introspection (mental imagery) under the general heading of "phusis" (nature), which materialistic moderns interpret as "Physics", but not "Psychology".

Human "Will" is completely natural, but it is, by my definition, Menta-Physical. Reductionists typically try to reduce everything to its material substrate. But, that cannot account for Holistic phenomena in human culture. One such immaterial concept is "Health", which is derived from the root for "Wholeness". Another is "diet", which does not refer to any particular food, but to a generalized notion. All philosophical and scientific "Principles" are generalizations, that are never found in Nature, but only in human Culture. Likewise, all universal concepts, such as "the Universe", do not refer to any particular thing, but to a system that we can comprehend only in metaphors and analogies with physical objects.

So, the future-oriented Will is an emergent property of a physical Brain, sophisticated enough to generate a Menta-Physical (nee Meta-Physical) rational Mind. It's not a material object, but a motivating mental concept. And those who can't distinguish the difference, are shooting at a will-o-the-wisp. :joke:

PS___No mysteries? When did you achieve Enlightenment and Omniscience? Should I address you as "Bhodi"? :wink:

PPS___The original Buddha typically avoided speculations about supra-mundane concepts, except such principles as "Nirvana", which could be interpreted as a mundane state-of-mind, not a heavenly realm. Ironically, modern Buddhists do attribute super-natural feats to all bodhisattvas,

The Five Marks of the Mental :
features that set characteristically mental phenomena apart from the characteristically physical phenomena. These five marks (intentionality, consciousness, free will, teleology, and normativity)
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01084/full

The Soul as Intellect :
Controversy surrounds almost every aspect of De Anima, not least because in it Aristotle characterizes the active mind—a topic mentioned nowhere else in his entire corpus—as ‘separate and unaffected and unmixed, being in its essence actuality’ (chôristos kai apathês kai amigês, tê(i) ousia(i) energeia; DA iii 5, 430a17–18) and then also as ‘deathless and everlasting’ (athanaton kai aidion; , 430a23). This comes as no small surprise to readers of De Anima, because Aristotle had earlier in the same work treated the mind (nous) as but one faculty (dunamis) of the soul (psuchê), and he had contended that the soul as a whole is not separable from the body \
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/active-mind.html
Note -- In my thesis, the human Mind is also a form of Energy, in the sense of EnFormAction.

MYSTERY IS IN THE MIND
UNCERTAINTY IS IN THE MIND, AND IN PHYSICS

PS___No mysteries? When did you achieve Enlightenment and Omniscience? Should I address you as "Bhodi"? :wink: — Gnomon

Yes, as Bhodi, and as All-Knowing Philosopher Scientist of All Universes.

Oh, I see. — Gnomon

:monkey:

is magic a possibility?

or is it just magical thinking

something cant come from nothing. no matter if its spiritual or not. and therefore even a magical soul would not be able to create first causes, and therefore it would have no true free will

because despite everyone being too ignorant to realize it, true free will would be the ability to create first causes from nothing into the mind.

from that ego delusion comes the god delusion. the ego creates god — Miller

Magic vs. science. When humans encountered inexplicable phenomena it used to be magic but now it's just not (scientifically) understood as of yet. I don't know when this happened but it happened. Magic was once knowledge (of the supernatural kind) but now it's just ignorance (of the scientific kind).

When I know that it will rain stars tonight I wanna go watch them and when someone/thing stops me, my free will is constrained in its freedom. The will to go see them is not determined by anything.The will to see them can have all kinds of determinants, but all of them together create the will. So again, determinants are necessary for free will. — Goldyluck

:ok:

Oh, I see.[/quote]

It's a miracle! The blind now see. The question remains though : see what?
Did you take the red pill, or the blue? :cool:

something cant come from nothing. no matter if its spiritual or not. and therefore even a magical soul would not be able to create first causes, and therefore it would have no true free will

because despite everyone being too ignorant to realize it, true free will would be the ability to create first causes from nothing into the mind. — Miller

Good one! Plus, a first cause wouldn't know anything, given that it has no input.

5. How appealing is being semi-autonomous? We have free will but only in a limited sense. — Agent Smith

Yes. I call it "FreeWill within Determinism".

Free Will versus Free Won't :
Since the question of conscious choice is integral to the notion of morality, Shermer asks if we are indeed free to choose our actions. Some secularists claim that human behavior is pre-determined by an unbroken chain of cause & effect stretching back to the Big Bang. Nevertheless, no one actually believes that he is a mindless zombie driven by ancient urges. So, Shermer intoduces the concept of “Free Won't”. In our contingent world, humans are never totally free to make unconstrained moral choices. Only an agent outside of our space-time world would be perfectly free. But a current theory of how the brain works is based on a business corporation. Normally, most decisions are made on lower levels, then relayed to a decider-in-chief at the top, who only exercises veto power to stop processes that are already in motion. This modified determinism model was made necessary by recent experiments indicating that conscious decisions are delayed reactions to subconscious motives. Those computer-like cause & effect processes present go/no-go options for the conscience to allow or deny. That's why human behavior is unpredictable, as compared to natural agents. For us, a fork in the causal path is an opportunity for creative, or moral, action.

Note -- Michael Shermer is editor of SKEPTIC magazine.

Only an agent outside of our space-time world would be perfectly free. — Gnomon

:up: Does God have free will?

Michael Shermer, great guy! I watched some of his talks. He gives me the impression of someone who's thought things through. Admirable!

“Free Won't” — Gnomon

:100:

Gotta make a note of that!

Compliance implies, if you give it some thought, slavery, the very definition of absence of free will won't.

Most (all?) moral/legal codes are about what we shouldn't be doing (don'ts) - an acknowledgemnt of our proclivities, a tendency to immorality, and a call to/an aid to resist them (free won't).

What we want to do (free will) is, if you really think about it, simply another form of bondage.

conscious decisions — Gnomon

Free won't decisions aren't free of the will either. No decisions are made in consciousness; consciousness reflects the brain product that has already finished and took time, plus even more time has passed while the representation in consciousness was being built and woven into the flow.

Free won't decisions aren't free of the will either. No decisions are made in consciousness; consciousness reflects the brain product that has already finished and took time, plus even more time has passed while the representation in consciousness was being built and woven into the flow. — PoeticUniverse

So, you are a Drone controlled by Fate, or a Cyborg doing the Will of the hive? And your Artistry and Poetry are done un-consciously by an AI program. All this time I thought you were a regular guy. :joke:

Did you take the red pill, or the blue? — Gnomon

I took "the red pill" and with formerly blind eyes I clearly saw then "There Is No Red Pill".

Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.

:fire:

So, you are a Drone controlled by Fate — Gnomon

We are all automated! What appears in consciousness is ever the past that's all over and done. At least it's the just past, for conscious content is always a very sequential representation to what the brain came just up with, and so it's not that far behind.

Of course, this realization of choices not being directly decided in consciousness right then and there is still the most shocking information of all to us, and furthermore it undermines many other philosophic proposals…

Although the conscious content is never of the now and so cannot be causal, rumination continues on sometimes and the process repeats, if one is not instantly reactive, perhaps with other brain areas contributing. Perhaps the qualia grant subsequent brain analyses a shortcut to more quickly size up the ongoing situation, with the qualia serving as a focus. Eventually all the other brain figuring areas have checked in and a final decision arrives, or not, if it can be delayed or to wait for more information.

Thus, the will is fixed to what it has become up the moment, but the will is dynamic and so its repertoire can be enlarged through learning, unto new and better fixed wills of the future moments.

The universe does us, not some other way around; we can't really claim blame or fame. Besides, whenever were we responsible for how we formed from genetics, nature, and nurture? Never.

What if one cannot learn because the will has become much too fixated? Doom.