Free will as you describe it is indeed a precious gift. Our ability as human beings to remain steadfast even in the most extreme situations illustrates the strength of our will.

There are many different ways we can define free will. Your example might be defined as “to choose to engage in behaviors despite strong external pressure to behave otherwise”.
Another common definition might be “awareness of congruency between desire for action and action itself”. When we define free will in these and other ways, then – by definition – human beings are capable of or have free will.

But there is a more fundamental way of looking at the physical world. Existence is defined by it’s “rules” or “laws”. And all things in existence are constrained by the rules or laws of existence. If “freedom” means to be free of all constraints, then it isn’t possible for anything to be free. To exist is to be constrained. In this sense, freedom is an illusion. Free will, defined this way, is an illusion.

Dont get me wrong gibran2, i do like your posts and reactions.

But do you live with the illusion of free will?

It would lead me to apathy. like a victim of circumstances.

I completely agree with this. This 'metaphysical' definition of freedom as to be free of all constraints is such a total contradiction that i can hardly take it seriously.
I think that this is also what fractal enhantment meant when he spoke of how little sense to concept of free will makes to him.
As you see there are ways to speak of free will in other ways that do make sense though.
Nevertheless i think that we in the west have been so brainwashed with firstly platonic concepts and than later on with christianity that whenever we want to speak of free will, we first will have to clear our minds from all the rubbish.

The illusion is very strong, isn’t it?

The fact is, we make decisions and we make choices every day. Even if those decisions and choices are ultimately not free, we are consciously unaware of the underlying decision-making processes. The definition that works for me in a practical sense is the one I stated earlier: “awareness of congruency between desire for action and action itself”.

There is no apathy or victimhood resulting from the understanding that nothing is free. We are all part of and actively participate in a larger process – the mysterious unfolding of a very beautiful universe. The petals of a rose aren’t free, yet they participate in the creation of the bloom. So it is with us.

It is the participation – the participation in the divine mystery, and the understanding that I am a part of that mystery – that gives me joy.

Thats becaue you choose duality..if you dont accept free will, you instead choose to accept non-free will..either way, it's a mind trap. It bars you from a bigger picture.

I dont find either "free will" or "non free will" very empowering personally..its such a limiting level of awareness. When you reach the point upon which, conceptually, the whole arguement is rendered irrelevant, and can find peace in the acceptance of that insight..than you begin to turn your eyes away from the illusons of dicotmey and your gaze begins to fall upon the realm of elegance that permeates, as you navigate the space that lies between that of the waking and that of the dreaming..thats where I find empowerment.

The only way to bring that down, and fit it's less complex counterpart into the realm of duality..is for both free will and non free will to be invalid and true at the same time..never one or the other..at that point, one will cancel out the other..and again we are left with an irrelevant arguement.

You can the say that "free will"(if you include it' counterpart, "non free will" ) is an illusion. The HUGE mistake made by most is that they for some reason get the idea that that somehow marginalizes us, and our actions..

You have mentioned more than once that duality is a mind trap. I don’t understand what you mean. Could you explain?

A logical tautology is a statement that is always true and, because of the way it is constructed, it has two parts – a “dualistic” structure: “either X exists as defined OR X does not exist as defined”.

How can we generate true statements about the unknown without the use of a logical tautology?

I dunno, do you really believe that black can exist without white?..

Imgine that arguement..tryin say black is true but white isnt..or that the reality of one is more empowering thn the reality of the other..it makes no sense. And thats what is going on here with this whole "free will" thing.

Virola is saying that "non-free will" is disempowering..but that free will is empowering..becasue they like the idea of one, weather its rooted in reality or not..its a conceptual mind game.

For something liek free will to exist..its counterpart must exist as well..of course there is merit to the discussion of dulaity..but if you want to talk abotu duality, you will also have to adress the phenomenon of paradox, which will always come up. If you can aceppt the paradox, then what are you left with to argue?..both are true and untrue at the same time...so you can choose to belive in free will, or you can choose to believein non-free will..or you can accept the paradox and fall into that grey zone and instead focus your gaze elsewhere..

The whole notion of free will without contstraints is such a weird contradiction. Even if you reject materialism you would have to agree with this. How can you 'will' what you would never want to will? So even the 'platonic' free will would have to have constraints and an inner logic that to a certain extent determines it's course.

The free will that DOES exist though, and that like eagle said, has a limitless value, is the part of who we are (if you're a materialist you'd believe it's a neural mechanism, if you reject materialism you'd say it's the soul) that can alter it's own course, that can rewrite many of it's own laws.

Gibran2, you asked me in what sense i believe, the will is different from a machine. I think it is exactly thát: Our self awareness influences the mechanisms in our brain that generate that very sefl-awareness and through that proces it is able to change the course of it's own actions.

I understand your black vs. white analogy: if all colors exist at all levels of brightness, then both white and black must exist. But brightness exists on a continuum. Many things exist as discrete forms or concepts:

Suppose I give you a small sealed box, and I tell you that I may have put a marble in it. You can’t touch it, x-ray it, etc. What can you say about the contents of the box?

----- Here’s one of many true statements about the box: EITHER the box contains no marbles OR the box contains at least one marble.

----- Here’s another more general statement: EITHER the box is empty OR the box is not empty.

Do you see the difference between this and your analogy? Non-existence doesn’t require existence to be true. As another example, it is always true that “either Santa Claus (as I define him) exists or Santa Claus does not exist”. This is not a dualistic mind trap. The counterpart to Santa Claus existing is Santa Claus not existing. With discrete phenomena such as this, there is no paradox, no mind trap.

"Non-existence doesn’t require existence to be true."

I disagree. To have something defined as "non existance", we would first have to have the context of existance to make that contrast. If we dont have that contrast you cannot call it "non existance"..there is just no context at all for that. It would just be what it is..but it wouldnt be "non-existance".

I know that sounds like we are debating semantics..and in part we are..but its more than that. As soon as you make the leap from it being simply whateve it is inate to itself, and start to call it "non-existance" it becomes to us somethng more than what it really is, it becomes a concept of humn value and human interpretation..a concept of the mind..it becomes categoirized relative to the contents of that mind.

So are you suggesting that the statement “Santa Claus does not exist” requires the existence of Santa Claus to be true? (Of course not, I’m just making a point.)

However, I think what you’re suggesting is this: to state that Santa Claus does not exist we have to in some way define Santa Claus. So in that sense, I suppose that something of Santa Claus exists – namely, his definition.. But the definition of Santa Claus is a thing separate from the hypothetical being.

To deny the existence of something requires us to define or at least label that which is being denied. And although a definition of a thing is itself a thing, it is not the same thing as that which it defines. (I hope that makes sense!)

So back on topic, to deny the existence of free will requires us to define free will. The definition of free will exists, but free will does not.

Here is another way to look at it. Lets play a littel thought experiment and assume for a second that free will is a valid truth in the way we are talking about free will. So then..is free will itself a rigid preset?..can I decide to do anything outside of free will?..or is that simply another act of my own free will?..a free will which is only free to the extent that I must work within its confines?..and if so what does that ultumatily say about the nature of "free will"?

You see, there will always be a paradox..and what is paradox anyway? Is it a manifestation of objective reality attempting to incarnate into subjective experience?..Paradox seems to at first glance be a bi-product of the dualistic paradigm..yet when you really think about it..seems to be more a biproduct of the dualistic, subjective mind recievig "glimmers" of a level of reality that functions within unification..in that sense, the "Paradox" presents itself as such a mind fuck only within the spectrum of the dualistic mind..

Its like subjective reality flows so well into a higher objectve space..yet when objective reality then attempts to incarnate back into subjective existance, all that can manifest is the paradox..

We function within the dualistic mind subjectivly..I dunno how we can get around that. But we can stil catch little momentary thought-glimpses of a level beyond all that.

Yes – if we assume that free will exists then there are all sorts of paradoxes and other problems. But I haven’t been defending the existence of free will. To the contrary, my assertion is that free will does not exist. Where is the paradox in that assertion?

^ I was never debating what you said in the first place. I was referring origionally to this by Virola..


"But do you live with the illusion of free will?

It would lead me to apathy. like a victim of circumstances"

My point is and was that I dont find empowerment or anything like that in even adressing the debate reguarding free will anymore, or trying to embrace its validity or non validity..neither satisfy me. I accept the paradox becasue it hints at something larger than all that, and instead choose to focus on the elegance of the system I am a part of, a system which I do not feel marginalized within, free will or no free will.

I find it more relevant to discard the whole debate than to say one exists and one doesnt. You can say that free will doesnt exist I guess. I just find that statement sort of..open ended in a sense..not becasue it does exist..but because it simply it what it is.

We can talk and talk and talk and talk all day long about this free will thing..but the paradox will always remain and puzzlement and perplextion will endure. So at what point do we come to the conclusion that beyond what has already been touched on, we get nowhere?

The concept starts to fall apart and some other approach to the entire thing is required..thats about as far as I can possibly take it.

I have wanted to respond to this thread for a while - for me the reconciling of the freewill/determinism conundrum lies at the crux of existence itself. So here goes, a monkeymind's attempt at that reconciling:

The universe taught us about probability long before the advent of quantum mechanics, long before Schrodinger dreamed of a cat in a box. Throwing a coin in the air we can be certain, given enough throws, that it will fall 50% of the time heads and 50% of the time tails... How is this? Is this not a systemic form of determinism?

But wait - does the coin have freewill? It certainly appears so, in a sense - there is no predictable pattern to the falling of the coin, not even a given number of throws to achieving balance, yet given enough throws, heads will fall even to tails. So the coin (or the thrower, or the laws of physics) exert a freewill of patternless phenomena, but always toward the same point in the future - balance. But of course it's a coin, so it can't possibly have freewill..

Here's a simpler example: imagine an arithmetic system whose outcome is always a thousand. Now within this system you can add 500 and 500 to arrive at this outcome. Or 499 and 1. Or even multiply or divide or exceed 1000 and return through subtraction - but the system always ends at a thousand. Now subdivide the thousand system into smaller "markers": 50, 189, 386, 1011, 2549... In this new system, all arithmetic operations will pass through these points before arriving at and ending with 1000. You are free to CHOOSE any method of arriving there within the laws of arithmetic, but you MUST arrive at these points before ending at 1000. Now subdivide again, and again, and AGAIN! Many many points appear that must be met, but CHOICE, or freewill, is still present.

A second example for those less mathematically inclined: the system is a circle and you start in the centre. You can travel in a straight line, a curve, a zigzag or a spiral or any way you like, but eventually you must reach the edge of the circle - ANYWHERE on the circle. For ALL points on the circle ARE the circle. You may have the impression of arriving at a different point through choice, but in the system of a circle, you reach the border of a circle. Within the circle, exercise your freewill and choose a set of co-ordinates to pass through. And another. And another. Even choosing those co-ordinates will not change the outcome. And if those points, as in the example above, are predetermined, then your freewill lies simply in the choice of the path to arrive there. Again, subdivide the space enough, and freewill counter-intiutively, AUGMENTS, because you have MORE decisions to make, but DIMINISHES because the points you must arrive at are more numerous and predetermined. So a greater level of determinism provides a greater level of freewill. Strange...

This is how I explain my way out of the freewill/determinism boxbox paradox... I am sure reality is far more complex than this, but a simple model can demonstrate the principle. Hope this makes sense - its the first time I have actually written it down!!

Cheers,
JBArk

Here are a few questions to ponder:

----- How do you define free will (metaphysically, not pragmatically)?

----- What causes you to choose as you do?

----- Have any of your choices ever violated physical laws?

----- Do subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) and elementary forces have free will, or are they bound to conform to physical laws?

----- Are you physically more than a complex amalgam of subatomic particles?

----- Can an amalgam of particles which individually don’t have free will, have free will collectively?

I find the idea of a complete free will to be absurd. How can we have total free will if we are bound by several laws? We have to follow several physical laws, and we also obbey all sorts of cognitive/mental laws. So what we think, or will, is always limited, therefore calling our behavior as 'free will' is misleading, to say the least. Even in the more simple aspects of daily life where we think we have choices, psychology has shown over and over again how many of our actions may seem consciously to be a choice but in fact have unconscious reasons of all kinds behind it. We are more slaves than we'd like to admit.

Now, without getting into the discussion of how choices are made and how this relates to physics, I want to introduce another idea that I dont think has yet been discussed: When people talk about free will, they either discuss that there is, or that there isnt, or something in between, but the discussion follows in a way that generalizes between all humans. What about levels of choice that differ between different people and between the same person at different times? How does this relate to awareness/consciousness levels?

I feel that the more one advances in inner development, the more awareness one gains, one has a greater 'will'. This is not to say one can think or will anything, freely. I feel we are always subject to influences of all kinds, whether its physical laws, psychological functions, natural flow of emotions and associative unfolding, external influences of all kinds, metabolic aspects, etc. Many of these factors pass completely unnoticed by us, which turns us into automatons, unconscious slaves of those influences. Yet when we develop ourselves more and more, we begin to be aware, to notice the influences, and therefore be able to make (limited) choices inside of these possible influences. So a free will is, in this line of thinking, not an absolute idea, not a natural gift that all humans have, but rather the acquired skill, developed through effort, to be aware and choose between the different influences around us that are most beneficial, according to our potentials and the context surrounding us.

I dont know if im making any sense or if im being able to express myself as I want to, but Ill leave it at that for now.

-Free will - the ability to make choices without constraints. I see what you are getting at - the points are constraints, the destination a constraint. But if that be true, then determinism is proved with every death that transpires. and everyone dies. So even free will MUST have constraints in order to exist, if there is truly freewill. so my definition is simplified: the ability to make choices; and we are back to my explanation of freewill being proportional to determinism - the more of one, ironically, the more of another...

-What causes me to choose as I do? That is an unproveable loop. All answers are conjecture. Not to say uninteresting, but irrelevant in their unproveability. At least a model can be proposed for the freewill/determinism debate. Hows are answerable by logic. Whys require a different mechanism.

-none of my choices, to my knowledge have violated any physical laws. Except the time I transformed into a perpetual motion machine and flew across the atlantic.

-I have no way of knowing if subatomic particles or any of the elementary forces have free will, but i must suppose they do not. That supposition I am certain at the same time will bite someone in the ass somewhere down the line.

-physically, i do not believe i am "more than a complex amalgam of particles". By definition.

- i don't believe that a complex amalgam of particles which individually don’t have free will can have free will collectively. But I don't believe in strict materialism anyway.

So how does this refute my models? I am quite attached to them. Particularly the complexity correlation bit.

JBArk

This is a very relevant point. The more we're able to reflect upon ourselves, the more we can overcome all sorts of powers that normally constrain our 'free will'.
Logically you can argue that there is no difference in levels of constraint when we make the distinction between free or not-free, but that way of looking at it is seriously flawed. You miss out on another dimension when you don't take the several degrees of constraint in consideration and limit yourself to a one-dimensional yes-no picture.