Wouldn't they still be your choices - albeit unrecognized and unforced?
Choices that don't know or care about options — Shamshir

No, I don't believe they would be. Especially if you're not aware of options. Choice implies both having options and making a judgment call between them.

Wouldn't choice simply be 'one instead of the other'?
Well, you are what you are, instead of what you aren't.
That's a choice.

You don't have to be aware of what you could be and what you aren't, to be what you are.
You just are - it's a choice without intent.

Wouldn't choice simply be 'one instead of the other'?
Well, you are what you are, instead of what you aren't.
That's a choice.

You don't have to be aware of what you could be and what you aren't, to be what you are.
You just are - it's a choice without intent — Shamshir

Well, wasn't it Aristotle who observed that "everything is what it is and not some other thing"? Which is true, but it's a description of the basic law of non-contradiction, and not a choice. I cannot choose to be not me any more than a rock can choose to be a deer.

Technically, every desire bringing about discontentment with the self, sets one on the path to not be oneself.
Obviously, even during this process, you're you; of a sort.

But you being you is not a choice, the way you put it, because it's not a conscious choice.
But it's an unconscious choice; a free willed, spontaneous choice.
Which is to say it is both a choice and not a choice.

Pertaining to:

"everything is what it is and not some other thing" — NKBJ

That would mean everything is everything, which funnily enough makes it - everything it is and is not, so it amounts to everything.
They key to this predicament is the word is.

Technically, every desire bringing about discontentment with the self, sets one on the path to not be oneself.
Obviously, even during this process, you're you; of a sort. — Shamshir

Now you're starting with the voodoo buddhist lingo, which relies on confused terminology.

You are ALWAYS yourself, because you cannot be anything but yourself. The cliche about "I'm not myself today" for example is not actually saying you're someone other than yourself, but that you're not acting like you usually do, or according to your ideal self. You cannot choose to be anyone but yourself. You can choose to change, but then the moment you do, that change is part of who you are.

And when we're talking about freewill, an unconscious "choice" is definitely not a "freewill" choice, because it was entirely out of your control.

You are ALWAYS yourself, because you cannot be anything but yourself. — NKBJ

Technically not, because who I am is not who I was; and yet, who I was, when I was, is who I am.
The self is just a frame of many; in this sense there is no self - as there is no permanance to comprise a self.
And yet each self is permanent, so there is a self. One self being change.

And when we're talking about freewill, an unconscious "choice" is definitely not a "freewill" choice, because it was entirely out of your control. — NKBJ

Free will that is controlled, is bond; it is not free.
Free will is free from control, consciousness and things altogether.
Free will is going with the flow; it doesn't care.

Look, you're clearly into this whole mantra-like, cliche-riddled mystical jargon, but I'm not and I don't see us having a fruitful conversation since I prefer my interlocutors a little more invested in reason and sense-making.

But I do wish all of the you's all the best on your spiritual energy life journey voyage thing.

And then on what basis are you deciding things? If you make choices absent any good reasoning, or just absent any cause, are they really choices? Wouldn't that make them random? — NKBJ

Thanks for asking that question. I don't think denying determinism/causality automatically leads us to randomness. A non-determined system that isn't random. I can't explain it and that's the whole point of my OP.

As far as I can tell, the definition of "random" is "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern." So, an uncaused freewill would fall right in that category.

I'm afraid I cannot come up with a way to think about an entirely uncaused freewill that doesn't fit the definition of random. This is why I think it's necessary to rethink what we mean by the term "freewill."

As far as I can tell, the definition of "random" is "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern." So, an uncaused freewill would fall right in that category.

I'm afraid I cannot come up with a way to think about an entirely uncaused freewill that doesn't fit the definition of random. This is why I think it's necessary to rethink what we mean by the term "freewill." — NKBJ

Well, examining my own thoughts, whether it's real/illusory, I can choose to be illogical or deny myself the best option in a situation. In other words I'm not bound by reason. In such cases my choices aren't determined but they're not random either. Am I making sense? I think there's a third option between determinism and randomoness, the area where freewill can exist.

"Random" typically has a connotation of "equiprobable." If there are two options and a random selection on many iterations, theory has it that option A would be chosen about 50% of the time and option B about 50% of the time. Likewise, if there are three options, A, B and C would all be chosen about 33% of the time.

On the other hand, if determinism is the case, then there aren't really two options, and given antecedent state x, then immediately consequent state y must follow 100% of the time, and any other scenario is actually impossible--it has zero chance of occurring at any stage, even though we may believe or be able to conceive otherwise.

Well, there's another possibility. It could be the case that there are two options, but there's something/some way to bias things so that they're not equiprobable. That could involve anything from a 99-point something chance that one is chosen rather than the other (where the other still has a non-zero possibility of being chosen), to just over a 50% chance that one will be chosen over the other.

Free will could typically involve such biasing.

:up: Thanks. That comes very close to what I had in mind.

Am I making sense? — TheMadFool

No. But that's the consequence of trying to do away with reason, which I guess is your choice.

No. But that's the consequence of trying to do away with reason, which I guess is your choice. — NKBJ

I've done a lot of stupid stuff in my life. Even now, after reaching some form of mental maturity, I can still opt to be irrational e.g. I can say something incoherent like ''3 is the father of Obama''. You probably can do that too but, of course, you won't. Anyway what I'm saying is we ''seem to'' possess freewill of some kind. I want to know if it's true or just an illusion.

You probably can do that too but, of course, you won't. — TheMadFool

Aw, thanks, I take that as a compliment! :blush:



So, I think probabilistic predictions aren't necessarily indicative of choice.

Take randomness: yes, you may have a 50/50 chance of choosing A or B, but "you" don't choose either of them. The choice just happens irrespective of reason, experience, etc. Randomness wouldn't be under your control in the least. The moment there is any part of "you" choosing something, that becomes involving a predetermined entity. And if you posit some "uncaused" essence of yourself...well, I think that would be invoking some theological/mystical/magical concepts that I personally am not willing to concede.

In determinism, yes, you will choose, say, A with a 100% certainty. But you still chose A. You used reason and experience to inform your choice, and because those are created by a determined universe, you always were going to choose A, but you nevertheless were the agent making the choice.

Why are you not addressing the biasing idea?

Aw, thanks, I take that as a compliment! — NKBJ

Welcome.

And if you posit some "uncaused" essence of yourself...well, I think that would be invoking some theological/mystical/magical concepts that I personally am not willing to concede. — NKBJ

Astronomy (the science) evolved from astrology (the superstition). Flying machines were once mythical. I guess I'm saying the alternative to determinism, the uncaused, needn't be mystical/magical.

Why are you not addressing the biasing idea? — Terrapin Station

Because I'm not sure I follow what you even mean by it, how you think it would work, or that it's relevant. But if you elucidate more clearly what it is, I will do my best to address it.

Astronomy (the science) evolved from astrology (the superstition). Flying machines were once mythical. I guess I'm saying the alternative to determinism, the uncaused, needn't be mystical/magical. — TheMadFool

I concede that it is entirely possible that there is something we do not currently understand that seems mystical now but could be considered scientific fact someday. However, with the multitude of things that would fall into that category, I hope you'll understand that until that day, I will continue to think of them as mystical.

Because I'm not sure I follow what you even mean by it, how you think it would work, or that it's relevant. But if you elucidate more clearly what it is, I will do my best to address it. — NKBJ

Well, we don't know exactly how it would work, but we can describe what it would be. It's simply that there's not an equiprobable chance of each option occurring. Some options would occur more frequently than others. This isn't just hypothetical, by the way. We believe that it's the case with quantum phenomena, for example. Not every option is equiprobable.

So the idea is that there might be some way to bias probabilities willfully (where we don't know the exact mechanism for this yet), and that could happen dynamically, too. This biasing would be control over the decision.

I concede that it is entirely possible that there is something we do not currently understand that seems mystical now but could be considered scientific fact someday. However, with the multitude of things that would fall into that category, I hope you'll understand that until that day, I will continue to think of them as mystical — NKBJ

That seems reasonable.

So the idea is that there might be some way to bias probabilities willfully (where we don't know the exact mechanism for this yet), and that could happen dynamically, too. This biasing would be control over the decision. — Terrapin Station

Well, anything is (strictly speaking) possible, I suppose. My response to that would be the same as my response to madfool, in that until it is more thoroughly proven it remains, to me, just a fun hypothetical.

However, even if I entertain the hypothetical for a moment, I'm not sure how it answers my concern that being uncaused, this conception of "freewill" is actually not under our control, and as such may be "free" but has nothing to do with "will." It seems that it would lead to the idea that, whether the odds are 50/50 or 99/1, there is an uncontrollable "force" (I can't come up with a better word. Maybe you have suggestions?) that is directing my actions apart from what I may actually want or think is wise.

However, even if I entertain the hypothetical for a moment, I'm not sure how it answers my concern that being uncaused, this conception of "freewill" is actually not under our control, and as such may be "free" but has nothing to do with "will." It seems that it would lead to the idea that, whether the odds are 50/50 or 99/1, there is an uncontrollable "force" (I can't come up with a better word. Maybe you have suggestions?) that is directing my actions apart from what I may actually want or think is wise. — NKBJ

If you can bias the odds, you're controlling them, and as we make a decision, we'd push the bias to 100% (at the point of decision).

If you can bias the odds, you're controlling them, and as we make a decision, we'd push the bias to 100% (at the point of decision). — Terrapin Station

If you are biasing them, isn't that a cause?

You're causing it ultimately, yes, where that's not deterministic.

You're causing it ultimately, yes, where that's not deterministic. — Terrapin Station

On what basis are you causing it? I mean, why are you choosing A over B?

On what basis are you causing it? I mean, why are you choosing A over B? — NKBJ

Depends on the scenario. It's not as if it's just one way that we choose things, and sometimes we basically do it by whim or "randomly."

Depends on the scenario. It's not as if it's just one way that we choose things, and sometimes we basically do it by whim or "randomly." — Terrapin Station

If you're just doing it by whim or randomly, I don't see how you can call it "controlled" by anyone.

If you're just doing it by whim or randomly, I don't see how you can call it "controlled" by anyone. — NKBJ

It's controlled by you, since you're choosing it by whim.

It's controlled by you, since you're choosing it by whim. — Terrapin Station

We're going around in circles. I simply don't see how you could call something that's a random whim under your control. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.