Sorry to repeat myself so often but, SWIMfriend.. When you say "A preemptory "Free will means having a choice" statement is insufficient." , how does that definition of free will account for traumas and unconscious impulses that drive one's seemingly free choices? Isnt a person that is unconscious reacting not very free even if they seem to be making a conscious choice? Isnt it necessary to consider those differences? Should the talk of free will include these levels or is this some other subject ?

Hey joedirt,

When I ask about the unconscious choices, I dont mean the ones you take without noticing (like taking a step without thinking about it or whatever), but rather that a choice that seems conscious (like the choice between two plates in a restaurant after thinking well, but that for example you arent aware but the choice was because you had a trauma with one of those plates when you were a kid). So just thinking it was a weighed decision, no matter how self-evident and subjectively convincing, can be mistaken, right? That isnt a thorough enough criteria for me to base my view on.

So in this sense I dont go for that point of view either, that we are free because it seems we are, its unsuficient to me.

As I kinda explained before, to me it seems like there is no absolute free will, but that there are certain levels of semi-freedom that are related to the level of awareness/consciousness development. So I think I am more a free person now than I was some years ago because of all that i've became aware of, the psychological traits and complexes, how different things around me influence me in different ways, etc. So as much as I can predict/know, I choose to be around and therefore influenced by things that benefit my health and the world's wellbeing, still knowing I dont have a full freedom and never will be as a human being, but at least that step by step am becoming a bit more free/aware and influenced by healthy stimulus.

I dont know how this all fits in, in a universal sense. If its true, then why are there levels of freedom? Is there some purpouse to it for Existence ? Who knows, but I know that independent of this, the world view is very positively reinforcing for me, because it makes me be at the same time ever willing to develop myself and unsatisfied with the current level of awareness, but in an empowering way, that I can step by step and enjoy the path, not with an unrealistic ideal of complete freedom.

Not sure what you're asking. I listed ONE insufficiency in description--doing so doesn't exclude the possibility of others.

I dont understand, but maybe im too stoned?

You said free will = choice.. So im wondering if being a slave to one's unconscious desires isnt really freedom, even if it seems subjectively to be, then shouldnt the free will definition include some kind of disclaimer/thought on the different levels of choices (if we agree that there is such a thing as levels...)? Otherwise the definition is misleading and insuficient, right?

Yes.

I think for some people, this is exactly what the debate is about. They claim that something causes a choice to be made, and that this 'something' is free will itself.

The tautology is false therefore, because it only holds true for "either something or nothing causes a choice to be made". The conclusion that in both cases the choice isn't free is not a tautology.

I agree with the statement that choice isn't free in this sense, but it's not a tautology. It's a dogmatic proposition and as such a logical contingency.

To proof that it isn't a tautology:"Either something causes a choice to be made and in that case it isn't free, or nothing causes it and in that case it isn't free either" consists out of several words including 'free' and 'choice'.
'free', 'choice' and 'something' are therefore if the sentence is to be considered logically of any meaning, real words.

Therefore you could say 'freedom' falls in the category of 'something'
if 'freedom' is linked to the word 'free' in the way we use the words.

Therefore the sentence could now say "either something (like freedom) causes a choice to be made, in wich case it isn't free, or nothing causes a choice to be made and in that case it isn't free either".

Now the sentence has become a contradiction, claiming that freedom itself isn't free.

That is...if freedom is a word that can be used logically, wich using it would imply.

You improperly translated this as a ^ ~a which would be a tautology
I believe the proper translation of this would be:

(Ex)Cxy --> ~Fy ^ ~(Ex)Cxy --> ~Fy

or in loglish: if there exists an x such that x caused y, then y is not free or if there doesn't exist an x such that x caused y then y is not free.

this is not a tautological statement

I didn't. I said that others have said that.

That sums up exactly what i said. Except that i believe he translated it as ~(A^~A). A^~A isn't a tautology but a contradiction.

This problem emerges because of the meaning of the word free, since logic is nothing than a set of rules.
There is no logical rule about the use of this word or logical meaning of it.

Something and nothing are words that can be used to express a tautology, because nothing is a negation of something.

Being caused by something is on the other hand not a negation of the word free.

That's not a logical rule, people differ on that.
Like in my example you can say "there exists something (like free will) that causes a choice" wich would negate the proposition that it isn't a free choice.

Since using the word free in a sentence implies that it is a real word, you couldn't argue against the use of the word free in "there is something that is free, wich causes a choice to be made".

Endless I didn't say we have free will because it's obvious. I specifically used the words self evident. The foundation for all rational thought has to start with some truths that we hold to be self evident. The obvious one here is that we are aware. For me it's enough to say I'm aware because it's self evident to me.

Following those same lines I also feel the same about the ability to make a choice. Stop right now. Lay 2 quarters on the table. Meditate on which coin you will pick up first. Weigh all the options. Take a day or more if necessary. Then select a coin. Did yoy make a choice or was it just your neural wetware running a progam? For me the fact that I made a choice is self evident. I'm certainly not saying your wrong because none of us will ever prove our stance.

I do have a question for you though. Do you agree that we have to start with some self evident truths as our foundation for almost any endevour? If not can you think of an example?

Btw I agree with you. This is a fascinating conversation. The reason it went south for me is because a few people were essentially claiming they were right and everyone else was wrong. This is the mentality of religion and as you witnessed it had pretty harsh rebound effect to a community of highly self aware people.

Ok so you see, you say the self evident fact is that we are aware, and we can choose freely. Now to me, its self evident that we are to some extent or other aware, and are convinced subjectively we can choose freely.. To me that is very important difference, because it opens up to "ok, so how can we be more aware, and how can we see if our convinced subjective experience corresponds well enough to reality?". So yeah I do think we have to make some assumptions to live, but I guess the foundations I use do not include thinking choice = free will because it subjectively seems so. In my own experience this is often not the case and I try to be more aware of these things that influence me and that direct my behavior without me noticing.

Now, you used the "cold" example of a choice with the coin, and mentioned the neural wetware running a program.. I think we could discuss this, but just to go more simple first, what about traumas/psychological complexes? Do you agree they exist and influence one's decision without one's awareness? Like when we choose partners and are influenced by unconscious early sexual experiences, or phobias related to traumas, or when we do things to unconsciously fit in to a group even if it seems like its our neutral decision, etc.

So wouldnt that show how the self-evidence of awareness and choice isnt necessarily enough to base our whole world view on? Because at least in those cases it would be wrong, overly optimistic.

I think there's a big difference between choices being contingent on past events such as traumas, etc than a notion of total pre-determinism. If everything turns out to be pre-determined then there's no such thing as free will, but my educated guess would be that this isn't the case anyway.

but at the same time there's a big difference between free will, and making limited choices that are to dependent and unconsciously influenced by past events, conditioning, etc, right?

Right. There's a big difference between conditioning and the man in the sky telling you to take your next step to the left.

so where do we stand? We all agree that the definition "free will = choices (that seem free subjectively)" is insuficient definition because in the very least it doesnt account for conditioning/the unconscious?

But then some (gibran2, maybe others here?) consider that it is the opposite, that there is absolutely no freedom. So whether we have no freedom at all, or at least some but limited, why do we have the illusion of having free will all the time? What is the purpose of thinking we do, if its all pre-determined? Or if we can be a bit more free, how can we make sure that what we are feeling really correspondant to inner freedom and not subjective delusion and being influenced by unconscious things?

To say "we have no freedom" makes no sense. If we have "no freedom" than it implies that "freedom" does not exist ANWHERE, in ANY system, if you follow the holographic theory of the universe. "freedom" cannot exist in one place without it's analagous, or holographic counterpart in another. It makes no sense. If we have no freedom than we can more accuratily just say that the concept of "freedom" itself never really existed outside of human delusion. If that is so, than asking the quesion does it exist or not exist becomes irrelevant. Think about it, in a holographic universe, everything extends itself into every other level. Assuming the system is infinite(lets assume it is for now) than this whole topic makes absolutily NO sense.

When one states that we do not have free will, then what seems to always fill that gap is determinism. Yet, in an infinite universe or multiverse that seems to follow a holographic model, how are we to to then trace back the determined set of events to some sort of origion point? I dont see how we can. So determinism itself in that sense seems to be a function that is somehow born out of chaos. It seems to be deterministic only as far as it acts as a closed system which has appeared randomly...so it sort of crushes the idea that everything is determined. Yet, there is a paradox there if we are still to assume that holography is at play, since the holography would again imply deterministic behaviour..yet, if that same level of determinism seems to have been born out of chaos, and everything is subject to holography, than what does that background chaos transfer into as tangible analogy on our level?

Dont you see how none of this makes any logical sense? You can basically throw logic out the window here.

I can understand what people like polytrip and benzyme are saying though, and it makes perfect sense. The definition of "free will" they are applying here exists only within a closed system with limited parameters..and within that context what they have put forth fits perfectly. I really cant understand why people can not grasp what they have said. Beyond what they are saying though there is a deeper level to the discussion and it came up again and again in my college philosophy classes and again and again it got to the point where it makes no sense and is an entirely illogical conundrum. Logic only takes us so far, that's just reality.

A couple of points.

1) If it is self evident that you are aware then doesn't it follow that you woud have the ability to chose as well? I mean we know we are aware because we can freely chose to examine our thoughts right? At least this how the logic goes in my mind.

2) you bring up interesting points about trauma victims. I also think there are levels of awareness. The more aware person certainly is acting in a freer fashion and not just being idly blown around by the mind. Trauma cases and retarded cases etc are like broken tvs to me. The signal is fine, but the tv is broken...at least that is my best on the fly answer. I'll continue to give this more thought though. It seems to me as though the persons wet ware is not working in a fahion that allows them to execute higher cognitive function such as self reflection.

3). To me the self evident fact that I am aware is the only foundatiob to start from. Could it be that my awarenss is nothing more than a product of chemical reactions? Sure, but that leads directly back to a deterministic model which doesn't work for me because I do things like sit and meditate on the thoughs that go by. How, or why, would a set of chemical reactions self arrange themselves in this fashion? It doesn't increase my chance of survial or of mating? Because of this, for now at least, I do hold my awareness and free will to be the most fundamental self evident truths for which I then build a world view from. Being that I can only speak from my personal awarenss it is a challenging thought expirement to think about trauma victims or mentally retarded people....but you planted the bug in my ear and now I'll have to explore this further.

And lastly, I have no qualms about changing my views on this if I come to see it in a better light. I could honestly care less about being right or wrong. It's the truth I'm after and I'm perfectly ok shifting my views to fit new data as it comes in.

Hmmm, sort of... this also brings me to your point 2)... You mentioned the trauma, but what about other stuff that isnt so obvious and still influences a lot? So maybe we feel like we can freely imagine our thoughts but we arent examining it freely, we are being biased, we are avoiding some thoughts without noticing because they hurt us, etc... Hasnt it ever happened that you saw how you were avoiding looking at some personal mistake without noticing? Or think about the classic steps in mourning/grief, where first part is denial. You may think you are being very aware but your mind doesnt let you accept the fact that happened. Or what about when you cant avoid but to think of something, no matter how hard you try? etcetc, there are enough examples in psychology of how humans are not really in control of their minds/thoughts/decisions, at least not in many ocasions.

So I dont think its necessarily a huge obvious pathology in the "tv", I think its also some natural path of development and growing of awareness we all have to go through gradually, (maybe with different starting points, depending on...? reincarnation? luck? genetics?). It feels like certain automatic psychological functions are always forcing our consciousness and therefore it is a constant struggle to be aware and as free as possible within the limits.



Yes these are great questions, also related to what I was thinking in the last post.

Why is it that we have a feeling of free will? This question is valid in both cases, even if its deterministic universe, why would we have this, then? And if its not a deterministic model but accepting at times we are subjectively mistaken due to common mind tricks, why is it that we still have complete conviction we are totally free? How can we refine our subjective judgement regarding our own will and control over mental processes and content?

I have posted my guess on that a couple of pages ago that could have easily been kept unnoticed because of the quantity of posts in this thread.
I therefore will summarise again what i think the answer to this question would be:
I think the brain/counsciousness is a complex system that makes dozens of different decissions at the same time on different levels. You have uttered the aspect of the uncounscious mind, past experiences, etc, but you could easily think of many more complex factors.
Therefore, to organise decisionmaking in a structured way is a daunting task for mr darwin.
It would be the easiest thing if there would be one single program that would bring the relevant data of all these different levels of this multi-layered structure toghether in one single layered structure that is itself as simple as possible.
Instead of running a feedback program to check for errors etc, on all these different levels of decissionmaking, you can do it on just this single program and not only would that safe energy, but it would also lead to a more coherent synchronised result.

To have such a program that is as simple as possible, that brings all these different levels toghether and runs some kind of feedbackproces on it that organises behaviour (both physical as mental behaviour) of a social species, makes it likely that it would evolve to be eventually structured according to a concept of some kind of accounabillity.

Thinking you have free will, would therefore at some point become an innevitable part of a well functioning program because it allows for a high level kind of finetuning through both internal as external feedback without having to reflect on different layers and having to switch between them constantly.

In budhism, especially in vipassana meditation, overcoming the illusion of free-will, shedding the false image of the self is thought to be a way to a greater level of freedom, a bit like an alcoholic would become less enslaved by the booze, the moment he realises he is a slave to it (because that would be the nessecary first step to be able to quit drinking).

On the whole i would say that everything may be predetermined, but we will never know for sure, for there will never be a computer powerfull enough to compute the outcome of processes taking place in real life and even if there would be sucha machine, all the data that would be nessecary to even start calculating the future will never be available.

Furthermore, the proces of feedback in the mind allows for a new level of complexity that has so much possible outcomes that it is realy fair to say that it has a great degree of freedom.

We all know that simple linear functions don't have an organic feel to it, but fractals do have a great 'organic' kind of touch and that organic touch is caused by a feedbackloop that's part of the formula. So you see that something that is driven by determined mechanisms can have a highly organic and 'free' appearance because of this level of reflection created by a loop.

It's also important to realise that whether everything would be pre-determined or not, we wouldn't notice the difference because the 'computation' of all the data takes place in realtime.
This is a logical experiment to make that point:
If everything is predetermined then it would make no difference logically, if you look at a timeline with a forward or backward view:
If you would rewind time, the outcome would be predetermined for sure. Even if you would reject the notion of predestination you would have to agree on that one.
Now, would the fact that the outcome of 'running the timeline' is predetermined here, change your view on the level of freedom people (including yourself) in the past have had? Would the fact that history is 'solid' change your view and make everything that has happened suddenly appear 'mechanic'?

I think not. And IF everything is predetermined somehow (in a way we can never know), looking at the future or the past is in THIS sense essentially the same thing.

Of course I have reflex resposes and unconscious decisions all the time. I meditate on a regular basis and one of the exercises I often practice is simple mindfullness. I watch my breath and observe as thoughts arise and then i dismiss them and return to watching. Sometiems the thoughts are quite powerful and I find myself caught up in them. Our brain appears to serve up a constant stream of thoughts related to the past or the future. The more one meditates the more one learns to identify with the witness consciousness. It's this witness consciousness that I believe gives rise to true free will. So yes i certainly think that free will like awareness is something that beings grow into overtime...or perhaps learn to tap into more??

From my views the whole point of evolution and reincarnation is for the awareness to develop to the point of realizing it's true natue. Evolution appears to me to be nothing more than a race towards greater and greater awareness. It seems there is a huge survival advantage in self awareness.

So yes with out a doubt I think free will is developed, but I also think it's a fundamental part of the 'normal' human experience. We all, mostly, have the ability to be self aware and exercise true free will, but most of us chose not to most of the time. Instead of making decisions from a witness consciouness we often just make a decision based on other, perhaps outside, criteria.