I am not denying that I have a will. I am saying that my will is not free from determinants and constraints. — Truth Seeker

Well, that is a misunderstanding the concept free will, I am afraid. You have free will. If you didn't have free will, you would not have typed your posts. :nerd: I am sure that no one was forcing you to type your posts. You are typing your posts by your free will the now. And I am too.

Well, that is a misunderstanding the concept free will, I am afraid. You have free will. — Corvus

I am quoting the Merriam-Webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will

"noun
1
: voluntary choice or decision
I do this of my own free will
2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention"

Our choices can be voluntary but they are not free from determinants and constraints.

Our choices can be voluntary but they are not free from determinants and constraints. — Truth Seeker

Those are not related to philosophical idea of free will. Constraints and determinants are the properties of your own being. They are part of your essence.

Those are not related to philosophical idea of free will. Constraints and determinants are the properties of your own being. They are not directly related to free will. — Corvus

Yes, they are. The second meaning of 'free will' is the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes". Our choices are never free from prior causes such as our genes, our environments from conception to the present, our nutrients from conception to the present and our experiences from the womb to the present. While we make voluntary choices, no one chooses their genes, their early environments, their early nutrients and their early experiences. As older children and adults we have limited choices about our environments, nutrients and experiences but even these limited choices are never free from the variables of genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present and experiences from conception to the present.

For example, if I had the genes of a banana tree — Truth Seeker

Nothing can be illustrated by proposing a contradiction: 'if X was not X' is a contradiction. Unless of course you think there is a second thing that could 'be' either a person or possibly a tree or a shadow or whatever. Just trying to make syntactic sense of a comment like that. The wording implies a sort of bias of the existence of something that you are 'being', the same sort of implication of the lyrics "I wish that I could be Richard Corey" (Simon & Garfunkel), the latter of whom is a reasonably close neighbor of mine.

If aliens kidnapped me when I was a baby and placed on the surface of Venus, I would have died from the heat.

Better example. Not sure what it illustrates, but at least it's not a contradiction. The point being made is still illusive. Your choices are a product of those variables, yes. It is also a product of your reasoning, which is the variable that makes you responsible for them and doesn't make the shadow responsible for depriving a plant of sunlight.


Concerning your poll and why I didn't vote:

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

Unclear question. Are you asking if determinism is the case, and therefore the choice made (I don't believe there is a 'the past' as distinct from 'not the past') is an inevitability of some initial state of the universe? Or are you perhaps asking if the agent that makes a different choice is still considered to be the same agent as yourself? Or asking something entirely different?


About definitions: I have proposed a small list of definitions of 'free choice' as distinct from choice that isn't free. I've also claimed at least 4 different kinds of determinism, but have not listed them in this topic. You've not clarified which ones are what you're talking about or not.

Apparently many words only apply to humans and not anything else when doing the exact same thing. — noAxioms

No one can clearly state what they are doing when they claim to make a choice - it’s a few thousand year old debate. So how can anyone say this yet to be determined thing called “choosing” is “doing the exact same thing” as anything else?

In order for the program to make a move, it needs to have been given its programming; there need be no agent inserted into the program so that the chess pieces move. Once the program moves a piece, if you deconstructed the cause of that move, you could all the code and never see any agent influenced anything.

Maybe the same is true for people. But then there is no such thing as choosing (because there is no agency).

Calculating (pondering, whatever) is part of the process leading to the eventual choice. — noAxioms

Then you assert a dichotomy, a distinction, between calculating, which is a process before, and choice which would come after (eventually). So it’s not a false dichotomy by what you say. When a program is done calculating, it has no choice but to display the answer or make the move. Choice is something else than the calculations that might precede it.

The racists used the same tactic to imply that people not 'them' were inferior. — noAxioms

Why? Just why?

The OP doesn't mention the word 'free' at all, but does mention "could have done otherwise" which is an informal alternate definition of it. — noAxioms

I still don’t see a distinction between what a choice is, and what a free choice is. If something is determined by a prior physical state, it’s determined, so it can’t be the result of a choice.

Choice is a pickle. But if we have the ability to make a choice, we must be a free agent in some sense. Otherwise, we are playing word games to make ourselves think our choices (or programmatic choices) exist.

If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences that you have, would I not have typed your post and vice versa? — Truth Seeker

That is the question.

I have those genes, environments, etc.

So is it the same question to ask myself “given all that has preceded me, would I do anything else besides type this post? Could I do anything else besides repeat your words “would I not have typed your post…?”

So since I am the same as me, does it help me to understand a moment when I choose? It doesn’t. I still don’t understand how I am free to choose, nor how these words here are determined. Neither are clear.

My current answer is that, somehow, our brains kick out an awareness of awareness - we are once removed from ourselves (which gives us the concept of “self” to look back on). We can reflect. This happens outside of the normal causal chain, and builds a space for choice. This is such a fragile happening, environments and nutrients etc are suspended with it, and so our choice comes from this new space outside of ourselves (from nowhere). So we build the free agent we are in the act of asserting a “choice” in the causal chain. We are not free to choose until we just choose.

Am I making sense? To you? Because I’m barely making sense to me.

Yes, they are. The second meaning of 'free will' is the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes". — Truth Seeker

When you say making choices, it necessitates options.  In other words, you could have made choices because there were options or alternative decisions.

All the things you come up with as determinants and the prior causes don't allow you to have options.  Therefore they are irrelevant for making choices.

Genes, environments and nutrients are not philosophical concepts.  They are the concepts in Genetics, Sociology and Biology, which has nothing to do with philosophical ideas.

is that what your first reply did? It didn't look like it was looking at ANY possible answers

is that what your first reply did? It didn't look like it was looking at ANY possible answers — flannel jesus

I guess I was looking for clarification about where the OP wanted to go with the question. That's why I asked him what his thoughts were.

What are your thoughts?

Genes, environments and nutrients are not philosophical concepts.  They are the concepts in Genetics, Sociology and Biology, which has nothing to do with philosophical ideas. — Corvus

Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences are variables which determine and constrain our choices. They are real and their effects on our choices are real.

I have proposed a small list of definitions of 'free choice' as distinct from choice that isn't free. I've also claimed at least 4 different kinds of determinism, but have not listed them in this topic. You've not clarified which ones are what you're talking about or not. — noAxioms

We make voluntary choices (e.g. my choice to post on this forum was voluntary) but we don't make choices that are free from determinants and constraints (e.g. my choice to post on this forum was both determined and constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences). Do you understand what I have said?

Please tell me more about the 4 different kinds of determinism. Thank you.

Sure options are real. Have you ever been in a labyrinth?

Sure options are real. Have you ever been in a labyrinth? — MoK

I agree that options are real. I have been in mazes but not labyrinths.

I agree that options are real. I have been in mazes but not labyrinths. — Truth Seeker

Then you can always choose to do otherwise if you agree that options are real. The example of a maze is one. Think of a situation in which you have plenty of money but you are unsure about investing in the market. There are many examples in our lives in which we are unsure about the situations. This means that options in such situations are real so you can always choose to do otherwise.

We make voluntary choices (e.g. my choice to post on this forum was voluntary) but we don't make choices that are free from determinants and constraints (e.g. my choice to post on this forum was both determined and constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences). Do you understand what I have said? — Truth Seeker

I suppose. A frog (or a banana) would have made different choices, even if positing if some sort of 'I' was one of those things makes no sense at all.

Please tell me more about the 4 different kinds of determinism. Thank you.

I actually came up with six, but the first four are the important ones.

1) Philosophical determinism.
I googled 'determinism' and got this: "all events in the universe are caused by prior events or natural laws ". This is probably the primary definition used when asserting a dichotomy between determinism vs free will, the latter being defined as choices made by supernatural causes.
This sort of free will is required to be held responsible by any entity not part of the natural universe (God). It is in no way required for internal responsibility (to say society).


There are a couple that come from science, two from quantum interpretations, which is deemed deterministic if it doesn't involve fundamental randomness or 'god rolling dice' as Einstein put it.
2) Bohmian mechanics:
This is a hard deterministic interpretation that says that the universe is in a defined state at a given time (few other interpretations accept that), and that subsequent states yield one inevitable result. The state of the entire universe matters including future states since retrocausality is not ruled out. It posits hidden variables to resolve conflicts.

3) MWI
Everett's postulate is that a closed system evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, which is a fully deterministic equation. Thing is, this results in all possibilities existing, so technically an agent makes every possible choice, not just one.

4) Block universe
This view says that all events share the same ontology and thus there is no sorting into ontologically distinct categories of past, present and future. If all events exist equally, there is no way the evolution of events could be otherwise, thus every state is an inevitability.

5) Classical physics
Classical physics (Newtons laws, basic mechanics) is fully deterministic since all the equations are time reversible. There is no randomness to it anywhere. This one can be discounted because it has been proved that our universe cannot be fundamentally classical.

6) Omniscience:
If there is an omniscient entity, then what it knows is technically an inevitability or the entity wouldn't actually be omniscient. The church has a way to explain its way around their assertion of these seemingly contradictory concepts, perhaps very similar sort explanation that discounts your suggestion above that choices made via naturalistic processes constitutes them being constrained, something with which I do not agree.

how can anyone say this yet to be determined thing called “choosing” is “doing the exact same thing” as anything else? — Fire Ologist

But you're implying that it must be the case that it is fundamentally different when you say "I see calling what the program does “choosing” as personifying the program". That was what I was balking at. Empirically, if I cannot see my opponent, I cannot tell if I am playing a human or not (hence 'doing the exact same thing'), so the usage of the word 'choose' is appropriate in either case.

In order for the program to make a move, it needs to have been given its programming; there need be no agent inserted into the program so that the chess pieces move.

All true of yourself as well. Besides, most chess playing programs don't move physical pieces, and if they do, it's an add-on (a sort of assistant), not part of the process doing the choosing (wow, just like yourself again).

Maybe the same is true for people. But then there is no such thing as choosing (because there is no agency).

Ah, so 'agency' is another one of these anthropomorphic words that is forbidden to other entities. I cannot base logic on such biases.

When a program is done calculating, it has no choice but to display the answer or make the move. Choice is something else than the calculations that might precede it.

Agree. The choice seems to be the result, possibly the output of the process, especially when it is cleanly delimited such as a chess move. A machine could choose not to display its choice of move, but that would be a bad choice since it would lose, so it seems optimal in most cases to make the move quickly. I can think of exceptions to that, but they're rare. A human is more likely to make that choice than a machine. I even witnessed exactly that a couple days ago.

I still don’t see a distinction between what a choice is, and what a free choice is.

Of course. You chose your definition that way.

But if we have the ability to make a choice, we must be a free agent in some sense.

Ah, you use the word 'free' despite the word having no distinct meaning to you. Why didn't you just say "we must be an agent'? You already put that word on the human-only list above. Now you say 'free agent' like that is distinct from just 'agent'. Be a little consistent if you're going to take this stance

The choice seems to be the result — noAxioms

A choice is what I call the result of choosing. Not any result of a calculating process. Choosing, if it exists, entails an agent who makes a free, deliberate selection among variables.

The program is not able to generate any other results, because it is not an agent capable of choosing which variable result to generate. There is always, only one move the program can make. So there is either no variables to select, or there is no agent. In the case of a program, there is no agent.

I still don’t see a distinction between what a choice is, and what a free choice is.
Of course. You chose your definition that way. — noAxioms

Or you didn’t explain the distinction you see well enough for my thick skull.

The word “choice”, to me, entails a free agent presented with variables who acts by selecting one variable. So saying “free” choice is redundant, as freedom is a necessary component of any choice.

Above where you defined choice and then defined free choice differently, your definition of a mere “choice” was, to me, the definition of a deterministic outcome (so not a choice at all). You didn’t define “choice” versus a “free choice”, you defined a deterministic outcome versus any choice (which always includes freedom, if choice exists at all.)

my thoughts are, they could have made a different choice if they counterfactually had wanted to.

my thoughts are, they could have made a different choice if they counterfactually had wanted to. — flannel jesus

Do you think your view needs justification? If so, would you share it? If not, could you say why not?

Do you think your view needs justification? If so, would you share it? — frank

Probably, but I think it's pretty intuitive. Most people have some kind of model of causality. Counterfactual statements like mine are just the basic idea of applying the same kind of causality but changing some of the preceding conditions.

You can apply - and verify - those kind of counterfactual statements to physics simulations. "This happened this time, but if counterfactually I changed the simulation to have this bit instead, this would have happened." You could make that statement about a physics simultaion, and then you can test it. And sometimes, those statements will be right! And sometimes wrong.

Of course we don't have the straight-forward ability to test our counterfactual statements about this world, but it doesn't seem remarkably controversial to me. In fact it's part of every-day speech for most people. "That wouldn't have happened if such-and-such".

Of course we don't have the straight-forward ability to test our counterfactual statements about this world, but it doesn't seem remarkably controversial to me. In fact it's part of every-day speech for most people. "That wouldn't have happened if such-and-such". — flannel jesus

So your view is primarily founded on common sense, right? The free will thesis reflects the way we commonly think and speak. I agree that it does. Although, the deterministic view does also. You mentioned that when you think of alternative histories, you're imagining a change in preceding conditions. Such a change would appear to imply a chain of preceding changes until we've basically replaced our universe with a different one. How do you address that?

just imagine a universe that started last Thursday.

One could also imagine a godlike figure reaching in and changing a couple individual things

just imagine a universe that started last Thursday.

One could also imagine a godlike figure reaching in and changing a couple individual things — flannel jesus

The Thursday angle do much for the logic which says that if you'd done differently, the whole universe would have to be different from this one.

Or you could have a Sky Daddy intervene. :grin:

in either case, counterfactuals work for a causal view of the world.

See, you can view the world as 2 things: the way the world operates, and the facts (or state) on which it does those operations. So you can reasonably say, if the state were counterfactually like X instead of what it was, then Y would have been the causal result. As long as "the way the world operates" is treated as a constant, then you can treat the state as a variable.

Yes. I get that. I was basically handing you Schopenhauer.

I agree that options are real. I have been in mazes but not labyrinths.
— Truth Seeker
Then you can always choose to do otherwise if you agree that options are real. The example of a maze is one. Think of a situation in which you have plenty of money but you are unsure about investing in the market. There are many examples in our lives in which we are unsure about the situations. This means that options in such situations are real so you can always choose to do otherwise.
6 hours ago — MoK

I am not convinced. I have been carrying out experiments on myself for many years to see how choices are made. Every single experiment showed me that the choices arise as a result of the interactions of four groups of variables. These groups of variables are genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present and experiences from conception to the present. I am 99.(an infinite number of 9s)% certain that all our choices are inevitable.

I am 100% certain of the following:

1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
6. I know concepts e.g. what a square or circle or triangle is.
7. I know apparent facts about reality e.g. the Earth orbits the Sun, the Moon orbits the Earth.
8. I know how to walk, run, eat, drink, cook, shop, work, read, write, type, go to the toilet, cycle, swim, etc.
9. I can't do lots of things I really want to do e.g. go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things forever happy.
10. I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

I am almost 100% certain of the following:

1. I and all the other organisms currently alive will die. Every second brings all organisms closer to death.
2. My body, other organisms, the Earth and the Universe really exist and they are not part of a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion.
3. Other organisms e.g. humans, cows, dogs, cats, chickens, pigs, lions, elephants, butterflies, whales, dolphins, etc. are sentient beings who feel pain.
4. Being a non-consumer is more ethical than being an autotroph, being an autotroph is more ethical than being a vegan/herbivore, being a vegan is more ethical than being a vegetarian, and being a vegetarian is more ethical than being an omnivore or carnivore.
5. Gods do not exist.
6. Souls do not exist.
7. Reincarnation does not happen.
8. Resurrection does not happen.
10. Organisms evolved and were not created by God or Gods.
11. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth became extinct in 5 mass extinctions long before humans evolved.
12. Humans and other organisms make choices but they are not free from determinants and constraints. Our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The reason I have put this one in the almost certain category is that it is possible, albeit extremely unlikely, that bodies, genes, cells, stars, planets, moons, galaxies, universes do not actually exist. These things could be part of a simulation or dream or hallucination or illusion I am experiencing. It is impossible to know about this with 100% certainty. I could be a solipsistic soul experiencing the illusion of being in a human body on a planet in a universe or I could be a body without any soul - I don't know these things for sure, hence I am an agnostic. There are many hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. simulation hypothesis, illusion hypothesis, dream hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis, solipsism hypothesis, philosophical zombie hypothesis, panpsychism hypothesis, deism hypothesis, theism hypothesis, pantheism hypothesis, panentheism hypothesis, etc. Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false. It just means that it is currently untestable.

What are your thoughts about the above thoughts of mine?

Our choices can be voluntary but they are not free from determinants and constraints. — Truth Seeker

... and also not free of consequences. :100:

Thank you for telling me more about the different types of determinism. Quantum indeterminacy is irrelevant because at the macroscopic level, all the quantum weirdness (e.g. quantum indeterminacy and superposition) averages out.

Our choices can be voluntary but they are not free from determinants and constraints.
— Truth Seeker
... and also not free of consequences. :100: — 180 Proof

I agree. Thank you.

what does it mean to hand him to me?