Of course I have free will: I make choices! Why is this even a question?" But as we think about it longer, it becomes more clear that we decide less. — A Ree Zen

We've come a long way in not actually getting the problem of free will. No wonder some of our thread makers have lost motivation.

So, I don’t see morality as being absolute. — Roy Davies

What does it even mean to say this! Absolutism claims universal moral truths -- not that you are put in shackles to follow them.

I'd like to get more into the intelligibility of moral views. So, I'm gonna try to explain further using the traditional arguments we're all familiar with.

I think I disagree with the idea that free will presupposes ethics; in any given moment, confronted with a situation that allows a "choice", there is only one course of action that is most moral from the point of view of consequentialism, for example - the one that achieves the most desirable consequences. So one really has no choice if they want to be as moral as possible. One could, however, argue that from the point of view of a law or rule based morality that what must be done in a certain situation is apply a law, and, while there may be different degrees to which the law is applied and different ways of applying it, the law is ultimately applied, so, once again, there is only a superficial amount of choice. — Aleph Numbers

Moral absolutism presupposes free will. How? According to moral absolutist's view, there are universal moral principles that are accessible to all of us regardless of culture or situations. So while moral absolutism is contra relativism, it is not necessarily out to destroy it. There is an allowance given to moral relativism -- but only because universal moral principles take into consideration that individual experiences are an inescapable and necessary ingredient to becoming a moral agent.

But this idea that a moral agent, coming out of experiences, can turn around and recognize those universal moral principles is what makes free will real. Or, what makes "will" necessarily free will. We have an awareness, through meditative analysis, if not through coaching, that there are principles that are true regardless of time, place, or culture.

So, to answer the line I quoted above from Aleph -- "..one really has no choice if they want to be as moral as possible": This is simply the opposite of the argument for moral absolutism. We are moral absolutist because we have free will. How? Overcoming our habits, our culture, or situation and recognizing that there are universal moral principles out of which we are moral agents extraordinaire is what it's all about.

@debd

so
he has understood Chinese

And yet...
Memorizing all the rules does not allow me to answer questions like "How do you feel today?", "What are you grateful for today?".
...so he has not understood Chinese
This doesn't strike you as problematic? — Banno

Yes, this is a good way of putting it. That's why early on in the thread I tried to make a distinction between saying that the person "passed the program instruction" and that same person understanding the Chinese language. There is a big difference and the way the scenario is worded is a gloss over this distinction.

C follows immediately. — JosephS

:up:

I'd really appreciate it if you could also briefly discuss your thought process as you solved it! — Alexis Schaffer

I solve visually. Part of my work. I can't.

:death: :flower: — 180 Proof

:smile: Hi Proof!

....

The program enables the person in the room to pass the Turing Test for understanding Chinese but he does not understand a word of Chinese.
Now consider the room to be our brain and the person is replaced by a chain of neurons. — debd

So are we just gonna ignore the fact that the person in the room passed the program instruction, and not the understanding of the Chinese language?
Sometimes I feel that thought scenarios like this is more like a sleight of hand in logical argument -- as long as the reader keeps losing track of what is being said, the argument keeps its force.

Not for nothing, but I suffered some traumas this past week. I couldn't tell you if I deserved the suffering or if it was good for me. I have however noticed an improvement in how I philosophise for it. Take that as you will. So while no pleasure was had, writing leaves me more satisfied. — MSC

Thank you for putting what I wanted to say into perspective.

I feel like we need to transcend pleasure as a source of motivation or as an end goal. I am not sure why exactly. But facts don't seem to have any relation to pleasure. — Andrew4Handel

I will refer you to vital signs, if we are talking facts. All the measurements of pulses, heart rate, blood pressure, and things concerning organs -- all these provide a picture of an individual's well being, as in equilibrium state. There is an ideal measure of resting heart beat, for example. Experts will tell you to take your resting heart rate when you're actually just resting and not doing anything, or not excited about something (pleasure), in order to get the accurate picture.

Everything that happens is necessary. The pursuit of change is neither discounted or proved by such an observation. That isn't an argument against Aquinas and Augustine so much as a challenge to them. — Valentinus

Good point! I think observations such as "everything that happens is necessary" is often misconstrued as 'everything' is known, therefore, determined. Note that the observation excludes anything that hasn't happen yet -- or at least this is a fair interpretation. But we will get to the validity of that observation some other time.

I can be reasonably certain you saw the firework because I saw it too. Big.

I can only be reasonably certain how it made you feel by analyzing computer data, small. I can't trust you telling me without trusting one of your small four to reliably determine what is going on across all the other 8. — MSC

Couldn't agree more. But there's always behavioral cues, Big, that you can gather from me without me being aware, small, I'm giving away my secrets, i.e. liking the fireworks.

That's all I wanted to chime in with. I'm trying to keep out of free will debates as I no longer know where I stand on the issue. — MSC

:) No prob!

However, one thing I observed with many of these comments, is the rather ubiquitous idea that human life needs pain so that we can have the pleasure of overcoming it. I just find this theory lacking in any ethical claim. — schopenhauer1

It's a good thing to be able to overcome pain, but I see your point. Pleasure is not the word we want, to me the word is 'satisfaction'. Normally we don't put ourselves into pain and suffering (I don't mean the kind we get from workout), but we find ourselves in one, and this is simply because we live a human life. ( Yes, I know. Bear with me) We are aware of relationships, and the eventual pain when those relationships disappear, as in death or separation. Experiencing suffering allows another dimension to a life where everything is in order and works like clockwork.

What does equilibrium mean to you? I'm not disagreeing. I do see what you are saying, I don't necessarily want pleasure when I feel pain, I just want the pain to be gone. Just feeling balanced is a worthwhile reprieve from some forms of suffering. The forms of suffering and pain that harm me. So pain in my legs while I am exercising is a good thing and in the long run is beneficial, not harmful. — MSC

You know it, subconsciously or mostly you'd be made aware of it because it's a 'good' feeling. Equilibrium is not just in how we feel, but it is a measurable condition. If you want to be specific and literal, there's vital signs, for your reference. It's hard to articulate what's equilibrium for a person, but you just know it whether you're by yourself or in a crowd. The absence of apprehension, foreboding thoughts, or even loud excitement (in the form of screaming fans in a large concert arena) -- all these are nonexistent in an equilibrated state.

It's interesting when you say, pain is a good thing when you're exercising. Yes, we've learned to welcome bodily pain from workout . But mostly we are not aware that our body is designed to alleviate pain, always trying to bring our state into balance.

Pleasure is not the end goal. Equilibrium is. Most of us might not be aware of this revelation -- but upon examination, this is truly what peace is about. Equilibrium after a painful experience is what our mind wants, not necessarily pleasure. We are happiest when we have equilibrium, which pleasure cannot provide.

6) Regardless of whether or not we are in a simulation, in either case, we have no free will due to our desires. — telex

How about this -- there is something else that controls our desires. Rationality has been the center of this human ability to go against our desires.

if she kills him out of intent, then we would morally blame her, but why is that different from control? she still has no choice? — Augustusea

I see the point you're trying to make. But this scenario is not the reality we are questioning here. However, if this had been actual event, Jane was put in a predicament where her will was compromised. And yes, she could choose to not kill White, period. She has nothing to do with the chip being in her brain if she didn't agree to it. She could choose not to have the chip in her brain.

I don't know how to argue for or against the will in terms of metaphysical reality. I do use the likes of Hume and Mill to drive the point that agency includes rationality as well as the five senses or empirical observation.

Different categories of science have different procedures and protocols and requirements to say that something is proved to be so. Technically they have not proven that smoking causes cancer because you can't ethically take nonsmokers with no tendency towards cancer and have them start smoking. We just have too much evidence that the result would likely be cancer. — TiredThinker

Lab experiments are certainly not fit for this kind of study -- it would be unethical, if not criminal. Natural observations of organisms/animals/people are used instead. Letting them live their life and then watching what happens. If we have a problem with this kind of experiments, let's ask ourselves -- why?
What is it lacking or unsatisfying that we are skeptical of its findings? Why do we need directional arrows to clearly point us to the direction of .... results that we could truly declare, this is the culprit!

Some people want directional arrows and connecting dots showing the way to results, if scientific findings are to be believed!

Anti-scientific stance often tries to find faults in the methodology and what-if scenarios detailing a thousand ways a particular scientific findings could go, then moves on to introduce an "equally legitimate" way of finding out the "facts". Note I say "legitimate"-- as it often a plea to be allowed to live alongside scientific endeavors. Neighbors, if you must.

Do we have reasons to satisfy requirements of rationality? In other words, is rationality normative, i.e. to do with reasons? — mrnormal5150

Yes, it is normative. Foundations are required in any inquiry. Rationality provides the foundation for an inquiry regarding existence, for example, or even for our everyday decision-making attempts.

Spinoza's rejection of the idea of free will as an agency in the stream of events is at odds with his clear message that we can make things better by being smarter and less arrogant.
Or it is not at odds. Both claims are true. — Valentinus

Please explain. Interesting point.

It isn’t that there are no limitations, but that we don’t feel limited by them. And it isn’t that this freedom is a property of the individual organism, but is exercised in one’s individual awareness, connection and collaboration with reality. Freedom of the will begins as an apperception of variable potential, inspiring imaginable possibilities in these conceptual structures that determine and initiate action. — Possibility

:up:

It is curious that people ask this question about negative actions, actions that harm others. If you save a life, are you responsible for your actions? If you perform an act of kindness are you going to say that you were not responsible? What about your MBA or your Diploma
? — FreeEmotion

Good observation!
It is curious as to why it seems it is always the harmful actions that makes the question of responsibility or obligation relevant to the issue of free will. In Mill's conception of ethics, offense certainly is given a serious thought regarding actions of individuals in a civil society.
And I don't know if this is commonly asked, but when it comes to the question of "do we have an obligation to save a drowning person, and if we choose not to, are we a bad person" sort of deal, right becomes the issue -- as in the right to choose a course of action.

I have always been obedient to my parents, a good boy, anti-social, a hardworker.. and now my youth is over. I never had a gf, never enjoyed anything, never had fun.. — Desperado

I'm not going to talk about 'meaning', 'goal', or 'achievement' here cause talks like that don't excite the five senses as much as a thing of the now and the present.

I'm guessing you're not invested in things of the now and the present -- something that requires your time now, your experience now, or your ability to respond to an emergency situation now.
For example, if you've ever tried to rescue a domestic household cat or kitten, you'd oversee first on how to retrieve that cat or kitten, bringing it home, assessing the cat's condition, feeding, cleaning, and taking it to the vet if injured. Then, you must now think of the cat's temporary home, then permanent home. All of a sudden, you have a responsibility that requires your time, your space, maybe a little money, then your maturity. You are the overseer from the beginning to end.

Do you have any ideas where else free will is as critical? If we could get a fix on the provenance of B it'll go a long way in solving the puzzle of free will. — TheMadFool

I think we're duped to believe that there is a thing called 'will' and then another called 'free will'!

Would you agree that if we have a will, it's necessarily a free will? I think the illusion, if any, lies in making a distinction between will, on the one hand, and free will on the other. What do you think if we remove this false distinction? I would go so far as to say, naming it "free" lays down the foundation for a fallacy of a distinction without a difference, intentionally.

Your desires are produced, regulated, and controlled by only one being. Even the seemingly automatic movements, such as the heart beat, are produced, regulated and controlled by the same being. — NOS4A2

And is this being the 'will'? I would think so.

Morality starts off by assuming free will but how it reacts to moral acts is deterministic in nature. You can't have the cake and eat it too, right? — TheMadFool

Good post MF.

Is free will apart from other things then? Where does it reside?

Truly, to conceptualize something as illusory, that something must have some form for us to know what we're talking about. If it is existence we mean by free will, heck a unicorn is understandably conceptually illusory. But free will?

But then, when I dig deeper and try to see what it is that motivates me to prevent me from eating the chocolate bar, it’s hard to see anything else but just another desire. Perhaps this time there was more rational thought involved in the action, perhaps it was a more long-term desire, e.g. to stay healthy, but it’s hard to see any fundamental differences. — Jarmo

Okay, we're getting somewhere. Thank you, Jarmo.

And is it just another desire, then another desire, like infinite regress? We might think this way, except that we couldn't choose to be born, for one thing, among many things. There is no motivation prior to birth, no agency prior to anything. So, why is it that now we have a wealth of choices deep within us, allowing us to choose to act or not to act, or to change our course of action, or to keep going on the same path? How are these desires and motivation got into our system? And let's not forget here that breathing is done without having to be constantly aware of it, salivating is instinctive, our biological needs will happen during deep sleep and coma.

Trust me, there isn't an infinite amount of choices we can make. Yet conformity is an issue with JS Mill, herd mentality with Nietzsche, habits with Hume. Why? What were they talking about here? Were they insinuating something else besides motivation or desire?

Well, if you don't think 'cause' is the right word then you've begged the question. You can't genuinely pursue the question of free-will from the presumption that our actions are not 'caused', you've already presumed your conclusion. — Isaac

This idea that our instinctive desires are something other from us and 'we' control them are just warmed-over Christian original sin narratives. — Isaac

Sorry for taking a long time to respond.

First, let's hold off on talking about free will here. I'm requesting that someone, anyone respond to the issue of "control of desires". I'm denying that we don't have control of our desires. Do we or do we not have control of our desires. Please answer this.

Second, I don't know what you're talking about in the second quote. "something other from us". What's that? I haven't started talking about where the desire resides, etc.
I'm not talking about original sin narratives. How is this brought here?
Let's get back to the basic discussion of desires.

How does a 'motivating factor' cause behaviour without a the 'desire' toward a certain response? — Isaac

I don't think "cause" is the right word here. And I don't understand your question because I said in my previous post that there are desires that drive other desires. Our issue is "control" and, to borrow from Olivier5 post, agency. So please clarify.

though I don’t buy the idea that there’s no such thing as human agency. — Olivier5

The important point here is human agency is sound and alive. While admittedly, as my post above, that other motivation/desires influence our thinking and behavior, the fact that we do make decisions should be the key here.

What is it that motivates them to do so? — Isaac

Internal and external 'rewards or goals' can motivate anyone. Yes, then we can argue that 'okay, so there are other desires that control these desires'. But here's where we can investigate 'control' -- if it's truly that desires rule our mind and action, then no 'other' motivating factors, no matter how great, would change that. But other factors can and do change the way we behave and think.

I have for now settled with the argument that we cannot control our desires which guide our decisions, thus we are not really free. — Leiton Baynes

Argument by assertion. Where's your argument for "we cannot control our desires"? Because behavioral psychology attests that we can. Studies show we can. Children can learn to control their desires/emotions.

Now my question is what does the absence of freedom mean for ethics and how can our actions be judged if we cannot really control them. — Leiton Baynes

Repeated assertion. Let's talk first about control of desires before we talk about freedom of the will.

Feeling free is not free will. — whollyrolling

:grin:

well then I suggest you come up with your own arguments, rather than arguing by proxy. — A Seagull

I'm not arguing. I'm here contributing to the others' responses.
I'm not interested in arguing in favor of something that's innate. If you yourself do not doubt, I mean in an authentic way, then good for you.

Well then it is probably not true. — A Seagull

Probably.

Really? So what? — A Seagull

I am suggesting you read his writings. And I want to add, read the cartesian doubt.

Really? Prove it! — A Seagull

I can't -- not to you. Doubting is a first-person account. You can do meditation on what doubt is. But don't lay down step by step proof of doubt.

Many neurobiologists conclude from premises X, Y, Z to the conclusion that our will is unfree. But that means that their very argument is based on unfree reasoning, i.e. having no alternatives, undermining any confidence or justification in that process and therefore in the conclusion. If you have no choice what to think it's basically circular reasoning: you can just hope your one way is right, no other chance since no other way. — Pippen

So math is circular reasoning all along, undermining any confidence or justification in that process and therefore in the conclusion.

Certainty is the default conclusion. Doubt began with greater intelligence and the exploration of alternative possibilities. — A Seagull

Yes, and no. Wittgenstein did try to explain our doubting. Doubting is innate.

Including subsets within subsets blurs the reality of the information. One would, I think, like to see statistics that give a clear picture of the quantity of each group, and the total does make more sense when it adds up to 100% — Sir2u

Admittedly, yes. If you read polls by Gallup, for example, they try to make it as basic as possible for the general public. If you want to use individuals in more than one attributes, keep making header titles that highlight the different attributes.

Is there a fundamental unit(s) of thought? is the question clear? better... what are the fundamental blocks of thought (in terms of imagination)? — Daniel

I don't think there is. What would it be like to think in "units" of thoughts? Think Wittgenstein on this.

There is, however, fundamental units of sound and speech.