The Socrates of The Clouds has the advantage of being quite funny though. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It certainly is! But also quite serious.

What logic? You seem to be saying something like: "an entity is free if and only if it is free from its inception."

I do not see a demonstration of this though.

Consider a universe of just one agent and a video game. At first, the agent has no freedom. They are in a tutorial mode during which they can only click on one bottom at a time as the game demonstrates how all the different buttons work. Through the tutorial, the agent gains true beliefs about what the buttons do. But they can't choose anything, they just watch.

Then the tutorial ends. Now they can push the buttons however they want, choosing which to use. In what sense have they not gained any new freedom? In what sense has the tutorial robbed them of their ability to choose which buttons to press?

Since you're asking me this question after admitting that you had a hard time following my original post, you're essentially using the strawperson argument whether you realize that or not, so I'll end this debate with you here.

Ok, I was honestly just trying to be helpful in pulling these out. I see that you have gone back and made it clearer.

I would just point to two things here:

This suggests that our learning process is guided by external influences, rather than by our own free will.

Why not both?

Our learning and decision-making processes are shaped by external influences and do not stem from a truly autonomous free will.

If you look back, you'll see that I agree with you on the paradoxical nature of an absolutely free will. I think most philosophers would. I guess my suggestion would be: "is this a good definition of free will?"

Look at the inverse of your conclusion, if our learning process was not guided by external influences at all, would that make us free? I would say no. Our memories and beliefs, who we love and who we despise, are all influenced by things that are external to us, right? But if our actions were fully autonomous, then it couldn't be the case that our memories play any role in our choices (unless we suppose our memories are also divorced from the world, not caused by it). So this seems to lead to the impossibility of free will in either case.

Our actions can't be free if they are fully determined by the world, but they also can't be free if they are completely divorced from the world, since our interactions with the world make us who we are. This is why most conceptions of free will reject the idea that it entails being "totally autonomous."

Which is to say, I think you are correct, but in the larger scheme of free will discussions the "free will" that proves to be contradictory in this way is not the "free will," being debated. For example, most compatibalist accounts of free will assume that the world as a whole is deterministic.

What is the premise of logic? As I'm sure you know, logical arguments are dependent on premises and conclusions, therefore, what is the premise of logic that leads to the conclusion that logic is logical? Ah, but wait, if you use logic to say that logic is logical, would that not be a circular fallacy? I see no reason why it wouldn't be, therefore, logic requires faith.

But if you use the argument that because logic is logical is why logic is true, that is dependent on awareness being truly as it seems to be, which we can't know, therefore, logic still requires faith.

Yes, but that's just rearranging the appearance/shell of the figures. The inherent 1+1 =2 if it was actually in reality 3+3=500 we just shift changing the shell. The awareness is set in the decimal system, and its identity will pretty much remain the same regardless of what shell we put on it while using the decimal system. — Vaskane

How do you know this, that there exists nothing which could contradict this reasoning? Because for that to be true, you would have to know everything, and therefore know that there is nothing else which could contradict your reasoning, but you naturally don't know everything, so you can't make that argument with 100% certainty.

Why not both? — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Why not" is not logical reasoning, it's like saying that suddenly, we are able to use free will. Sure, that could be true, but why should I believe that? What basis does such a belief have in being meaningful to have faith in?

If you look back, you'll see that I agree with you on the paradoxical nature of an absolutely free will. I think most philosophers would. I guess my suggestion would be: "is this a good definition of free will?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

To clarify, I do believe free will exists, but I do not believe we gain it until after death, and even then, we only have free will within ourselves. We already have a will, we are just not free to use it, it is restricted. To have a free will within yourself means that your body/mind is truly you, so the actions of your body/mind came from just you, but are limited by how things are around you, for if this were not true, our free wills would contradict each other.

Our freedom would allow us to not only have bodies/minds which are truly us, but also have knowledge which is truly us. We would each be unique in a way that others are not. The reason why I believe we don't have free will right now is because this world is not perfectly good, in that it would be irresponsible to give us free will in this situation, as it would be like telling us to figure out things ourselves.

If logic were truly like that, such absolute certainty, why am I able to doubt it? If it were truly so true, myself doubting it should not even be possible, I would have to be lying, yet to lie, seems strange, after all, who would I be trying to convince? Obviously not someone who claims to know logic, as you are, and yet, I stand firm that logic requires faith even now. So tell me, why am I doing this?

I'm confused what you're talking about now.

Once you have faith in logic, it's consistent, but the system of logic itself is not logical, in that you can't prove it to be real with evidence, you have to rely on faith-based evidence. In other words, by believing that logic is real, you by extension believe that reality has consistency for logic to be true.

Once logic doesn't work, that means all arguments for or against it shouldn't work... but no, that implies there is no other form of reasoning aside from logic, but since we don't know everything, we cannot say if this is true.

. I struggle with unclear English.
— Tom Storm
wahhhhhhh :cry: — Kizzy

Any particular reason for your fatuous rudeness?

In other words, you're assuming that we're both using logic right now, but if logic doesn't actually exist, that would then just mean that you and I think we're using logic, when in reality, we're using something different which just seems like logic.

Once you have faith in logic, it's consistent, but the system of logic itself is not logical, in that you can't prove it to be real with evidence, you have to rely on faith-based evidence. — Echogem222

Another way of explaining our trust in logic (without resorting to faith) comes with understanding the ability that neural networks in our brains have, to subconsciously perform pattern recognition. In learning to use language we develop at least a rudimentary recognition that logic works reliably. Subsequently we naturally expect the consistent pattern we have recognized to continue to hold.

So maybe "faith" isn't a particularly good way of understanding the situation?

And why believe the brain even exists? Likely science, but why believe science is real? Evidence, I imagine, but why believe evidence is real? Etc. I think you get the point here.

Any why believe the brain even exists? Likely science, but why believe science is real? Evidence, I imagine, but why believe evidence is real? Etc. I think you get the point here. — Echogem222

To answer your questions... Reliable patterns to observations.

Yes there is more to our thinking than logic, but jumping from that to faith is missing out on a much more explanatory picture of what is going on.

You're assuming that all faith is blind faith, but you see, true blind faith is when you no longer think you have faith in something, but instead think you know something is true, because when you think you know something, how can you then be wrong? It prevents people from thinking critically to have blind faith in things, it prevents people from desiring to learn more, after all, you already know so much, so there's no need to doubt what you already know. And this certainty in turn encourages others to no longer think they have faith in anything, but think that they truly know things, which is why so many people in this modern day believe in things that many people understand as being ridiculous.

You're assuming that all faith is blind faith, but you see, true blind faith is when you no longer think you have faith in something, but instead think you know something is true, because when you think you know something, how can you then be wrong? It prevents people from thinking critically to have blind faith in things, it prevents people from desiring to learn more, after all, you already know so much, so there's no need to doubt what you already know. And this certainty in turn encourages others to no longer think they have faith in anything, but think that they truly know things, which is why so many people in this modern day believe in things that many people understand as being ridiculous. — Echogem222

You are remarkably confident in your beliefs about what I am assuming.

Also quite wrong.

With how vague you're being, can you truly blame me? I'm doing my best to understand what you're getting at, and yet the first time I mess up, you don't correct me, you instead just say I'm wrong... and that's all. Makes me wonder just how committed you truly are to this debate.

It might help for you to re-read my original post, as I have recently added some more details to it for enhanced clarity.

With how vague you're being, can you truly blame me? — Echogem222

I'm not blaming you. I don't suppose you have libertarian free will.

I'm doing my best to understand what you're getting at, and yet the first time I mess up, you don't correct me, you instead just say I'm wrong... and that's all. Makes me wonder just how committed you truly are to this debate. — Echogem222

I'm not committed to debate at all. You might say I was investigating the degree to which you are open to learning. You thinking that you know what I'm assuming does not bode well I'm afraid. You see, there are patterns I've learned to recognize.

Well here's a new trick. When folk point out that the thesis in your OP shows a misunderstanding of the topic, go back and edit the OP to change the topic.

If I reformulate your three points as:

1.) If we do not have knowledge then we can not act freely since knowledge is a prerequisite to acting freely
(If not A then not B)

2.) If we are free then we should not have a predisposition towards knowledge
(If B then not C)

3.) If we have a predisposition towards knowledge then we are not free.
(If C then not B)

Conclusion: We do not have free will.
(Not B)

--------------

First, I'd like to point out: Structurally, there is no contradictions present here. You keep saying “...contradict logic”. A contradiction is a logical entity, it doesn’t contradict logic. A contradiction would be of the form: If A then not A.

Second, I’d like to point out that I have no reason to accept 1, 2, or 3.

For 1, let’s imagine an entity that is definitely free. I put a gun to the entity’s head and tell it to pick a number between 1-10. Having no information about the number, what it means, if it will have any effect at all or otherwise, the entity still has 11 options (1 being to not answer at all).

For 2, first of all why not and second of all I don’t believe that we have a predisposition towards knowledge, but we learn over time that knowing things is beneficial and try to actively acquire knowledge for that reason. This has nothing to do with our freedoms. In fact, some people freely choose to not acquire knowledge.

For 3 basically the same as 2.

Ah yes, because when the majority says something is true, they are always right, never could there be a situation where the majority is wrong. That would just be absolutely crazy. (I'm being sarcastic).

If you are talking about how I changed the title, I did that so that we would all have conversations more on topic, as I felt that many just read the title, didn't read much of the post, totally missed the point because the title wasn't clear enough.

Free will implies the ability to make choices based on knowledge or beliefs, but if we started without any knowledge or beliefs, there would be no basis for making any choices, undermining the concept of free will. — Echogem222

Based on faith also. Many do not believe we started without any knowedge or beliefs — tabula rasa.

But even in tabula rasa I fail to see how that problematic.
1 – I am born, a stupid baby who knows literally nothing.
2 – As a baby, I can't make choices because I basically have no consciousness at that point.
3 – I have sense perception before I am able to make choices.
4 – My senses give me some beliefs (the sky is blue).
5 – I am now able to make choices based on the sky being blue.

we had free will, we would have to know (either through direct knowledge or faith) that knowing things is important before we knew anything — Echogem222

Why does free will require knowledge? I don't see how that follows.

This suggests that our learning process is guided by external influences, rather than by our own free will. — Echogem222

Surely we don't have absolute free will, I think only a "pantheistic" God could have such. But it does not imply we have no free will at all.

and starting from a state of complete ignorance or uncertainty would make the concept of free will paradoxical, it follows that we do not have free will — Echogem222

Or maybe it follows that we don't start from complete ignorance, meaning that we do have innate ideas?

why am I able to doubt it — Echogem222

Can you doubt the law of identity though?

Why do you choose to do anything? Why do you know what your answer is of what you will do before you do it? Because you have knowledge of what you should do, but where does that knowledge come from? If your first source of knowledge had nothing to do with free will, why would you then assume that you gain free will later?

For 1, let’s imagine an entity that is definitely free. I put a gun to the entity’s head and tell it to pick a number between 1-10. Having no information about the number, what it means, if it will have any effect at all or otherwise, the entity still has 11 options (1 being to not answer at all). — 013zen

No, this is false, if they truly had free will, they would not be limited by your knowledge, after all, in their mind, they can react to things you say however they want, suffering would not affect them, they could shut off all of their senses, and killing them would not be possible because their body and mind would be fully them, you could not use things to control how they experience anything.

For 2, first of all why not and second of all I don’t believe that we have a predisposition towards knowledge, but we learn over time that knowing things is beneficial and try to actively acquire knowledge for that reason. This has nothing to do with our freedoms. In fact, some people freely choose to not acquire knowledge. — 013zen

Some people freely choose to not acquire knowledge?? Where is your evidence for that? Am I just supposed to believe that you're telling the truth?

I don't assume I gain free will later. My comment was just trying to pin that your argument does not necessarily follow. I am not stating the opposite case.

Ok then.

So you concede? :grin:

↪013zen
For 1, let’s imagine an entity that is definitely free. I put a gun to the entity’s head and tell it to pick a number between 1-10. Having no information about the number, what it means, if it will have any effect at all or otherwise, the entity still has 11 options (1 being to not answer at all).
— 013zen

No, this is false, if they truly had free will, they would not be limited by your knowledge, after all, in their mind, they can react to things you say however they want, suffering would not affect them, they could shut off all of their senses, and killing them would not be possible because their body and mind would be fully them, you could not use things to control how they experience anything. — Echogem222

1. How does "being free" entail the ability to "shut off all of [one's] senses"
2. How does "being free" entail that "killing [the thing that is free is]...not possible"?

For 2, first of all why not and second of all I don’t believe that we have a predisposition towards knowledge, but we learn over time that knowing things is beneficial and try to actively acquire knowledge for that reason. This has nothing to do with our freedoms. In fact, some people freely choose to not acquire knowledge.
— 013zen

Some people freely choose to not acquire knowledge?? Where is your evidence for that? Am I just supposed to believe that you're telling the truth? — Echogem222

Many people do not know, for example, how to do basic maintenance on their car. Doing oil changes, fixing headlamps, etc. These are problems that come up regularly throughout life, and present opportunities for people to learn how to do these things. Instead, they pay others that did seek out the knowledge to do it for them.

No, I don't, but it sure sounded like you did.