rare argument against free will

[Eise]

On 11/17/2020 at 4:31 PM, empleat said:

So i need to explain mine: i was talking about kind of free will, which is worth of having in my opinion.

Funny: Daniel Dennett's first book about free will 'Elbow Room' has as subtitle 'The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting'. In this book he defends his compatibilist version of free will.

The libertarian version of free will is simply not empirical: we do not know that we 'could have done otherwise' (in the literal meaning), we do not know the physical causes of our feelings and thoughts simply because we are a 'higher level phenomenon' of the brain: we cannot access our neural level ("Gosh, my neuron LQ225-ZH-5,768,231,234" is firing again and again! I must be hungry."). The idea of libertarian free will is purely ideological, and so I do not see why it would be 'worth wanting'.

However, we do have an empirical concept of free will: the experience that when we want to act according my preferences and beliefs, I often can. I am thirsty, so I want to take a glass of water, and low and behold, I can act according to this preference! Only when somebody else blocks my way to the glass, e.g. locks the door to the kitchen intentionally to avoid I can take a glass of water, I am not free: I am standing before the kitchen door involuntary.

Simply said, my actions are free if I can do what I want. (Yes, without these 'metaphysical things' like flying in the air, as you rightly remark).

On 11/17/2020 at 4:31 PM, empleat said:

I follow orders explicitly from my origin and i had no saying in them! 

No. This is metaphorical speech. Nature caused me to exist as I am. So can it force me to do what I want to do? Doesn't that sound a bit absurd? Is a kind of free will that is like the Baron von Münchhausen pulling himself and his horse out of the quicksand by pulling himself at his hair a kind of 'free will worth wanting'?

On 11/17/2020 at 4:31 PM, empleat said:

1. At least adequate determinism must be true, otherwise truth and reason couldn't be established! And we wouldn't know what our actions will even do!
2. Person must have agency (acting freely according to his own preferences, in terms what is metaphysically possible).
3. One's decisions: must be free from external influences aka external factors!
4. Ultimate responsibility (UR) must be true: i am ultimately responsible for the way i am. And nothing else is! - (origination)
5. Determinism can be truth, depends on condition 4.

I think I only agree fully with Nr 1. I agree with Nr 2. except that you should not use the word 'freely', because that is exactly what we want to define. Nr 3 is nonsensical for me. What could free will be without external factors? The only thing I expect from a concept of free will is that I can 'move around through the external factors according my preferences'. Nr 4 is 'my personal enemy': ultimate responsibility is the empty companion of libertarian free will, which is just as empty. And then not just for what I do, but even for what I am!

On 11/17/2020 at 4:31 PM, empleat said:

To have free will, i would have to be ultimately responsible for the way i am!

So, no.

And with that the rest of your (or Kane's) argument fails. 

Responsibility does not mean being responsible for what I am: I must be responsible for what I do. And that means I can give the grounds for my actions (i.e. I can response, when others ask me for why I did something).

On 11/17/2020 at 4:31 PM, empleat said:

Because if i proven, our praxis doesn't bear weight.

No, not at all. Our praxis bears weight, because that is our concept of free will is at home in our daily concepts. If I lock you into a room, you very well know that you are not free to act according your preferences. But I forced that upon you: but there is no such force between you and your preferences and beliefs, these are elements that are you, that make up you. 

I do not base my concept of free will on responsibility: but it is a very good touchstone. Really, the whole basis of my concept of free will is that we can act according our preferences and beliefs, that we can act on what I recognise as my own grounds. 

[empleat]

Btw just so you know: i mentioned the second guy, these libertarian camps. Because i think he engages in QM and he said casually that: QM allows us hope for free will. But not that i would be particularly leaning to any of camps of free will.

2 hours ago, Eise said:

The libertarian version of free will is simply not empirical: we do not know that we 'could have done otherwise' (in the literal meaning)

Wait what? We don't know the same thing in case of determinism, if everything was pre-determined by origin of the universe. Than we could not have done otherwise, unless we determined that origin as well (by our free will) and that's the origination problem! How is compatibilism empirical, while libertarianism is not? If it was, science could prove free will exists, but it currently cannot!

Quote

adjective: empirical

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

All of these philosophies are ideological, logical and what not... I don't think any philosophical camp of free will, has very close to version of free will worth having.

E.g. PBS says he has - 3 possible requirements for free will (while he is physicist and materialist):

1. Choices are non-deterministic, creating brand new quantum information (which opposes to law of Conservation of Quantum Information)

2. Choices may be deterministic, but they are fundamentally unpredictable

3. Future not predefined and not singular

4. Choices independent of any underlying, non-free willed, mechanistic process - he says: if this is true, than free will is dead!

Full video from 20. October 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY7hjt5Gi-E While some of these requirements can be even from libertarian camp. This is as close to empirical as it's gonna get.

If compatibilistic account on free will (that i could do otherwise) would be empirical. Than we would have to: be able to prove it by observation, or an experiment. But we don't even know if determinism, or indeterminism is true...

2 hours ago, Eise said:

However, we do have an empirical concept of free will: the experience that when we want to act according my preferences and beliefs, I often can. I am thirsty, so I want to take a glass of water, and low and behold, I can act according to this preference! Only when somebody else blocks my way to the glass, e.g. locks the door to the kitchen intentionally to avoid I can take a glass of water, I am not free: I am standing before the kitchen door involuntary.

I agree, that's why i am depressed. I don't think any camp of free will comes close to defining, that "free will worth of having". Yeah this is another limitation of free will. We empirically know, that someone can take free will from us - e.g. slavery in middle ages. But "free will worth of having" could still probably allow that, most important is: that you can choose by your own free will - in the first place!

2 hours ago, Eise said:

Simply said, my actions are free if I can do what I want. (Yes, without these 'metaphysical things' like flying in the air, as you rightly remark).

So if you had pre-determined character, but you are free to make any decision based on that. Would that be free will? You just following programming! So lets say: we want to defend compatibilism: and "we are determined". There is still the origination problem. I would have to be responsible for that origin as well, to be ultimate responsible for my actions! But it cannot be currently solved Or how else would you prove, or other way determine that: this is not required for us to have "free will worth of having"?

Yes we can empirically observe this, we can also observe, we didn't choose our emotions. But at the end we decide by them - science says and even from our experience (but we don't really know, as higher level of brain activity are hidden to us). Still there is empirical evidence for this:

https://bigthink.com/experts-corner/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making

Even elon musk said: neocortex (abstract thinking part) is trying to satisfy a limbic system (emotion processing part) most of the time! But limbic system isn't able to understand complex abstract phenomena!

https://theconversation.com/feelings-whats-the-point-of-rational-thought-if-emotions-always-take-over-128592

E.g. one person during car accident, or something had pipe going through his brain. Severed connection between area, which processes emotions and  other parts of his brain. Then he had problems to do almost any decision at all! If pipe didn't cause this, it would be huge coincidence!

Also i linked, that escape of 2 convicts from a court. They couldn't say why they did that and i linked neuroscience page of free will on wikipedia for that matter. They found: sometimes people make impulsive decisions, even when trying to make them deliberately. If i could guess, if mortal danger is imminent: than perhaps reptilian part of a brain kicks in and performs an instinct. As funny example: i always asked my mother - why she stopped on the yellow traffic light, when it just flashed on and there was yet time to go. She could never answer me, why she did that!

In case of 2 convicts wouldn't you say, that they should know at least why they did that to have free will? It will add them years upon their sentence!

3 hours ago, Eise said:

No. This is metaphorical speech. Nature caused me to exist as I am. So can it force me to do what I want to do? Doesn't that sound a bit absurd? Is a kind of free will that is like the Baron von Münchhausen pulling himself and his horse out of the quicksand by pulling himself at his hair a kind of 'free will worth wanting'?

Yep it sounds absurd, that's one of reasons - why i think free will doesn't exist. Metaphorical speech eh??? But we know empirically - we didn't choose our preferences. How is that metaphorical, if premise is based on true empirical observation? And is true - that we didn't choose our preferences. If i do something, because of my preferences (i didn't choose) how is that free will?

I already linked this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

Again there is nothing, that would say this argument isn't valid...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will - search causa sui, or origination

So i will give you benefit of the doubt! Prove empirically, or else that - to have "free will worth of having" is possible: without me to have determine my origin. Because, as far as i tell, this logic is sound and it is based on empirical observations/facts!

 

3 hours ago, Eise said:

I agree with Nr 2. except that you should not use the word 'freely', because that is exactly what we want to define.

That's true - good point!

3 hours ago, Eise said:

Nr 3 is nonsensical for me.

I re-wrote it many times and than probably forget. For to write something make more effort, than to learn these things

I should only include this in more free definition of free will. As obviously humans can force their will on others! Although in case of parasites, some studies says: they cause suicidal behavior in women and more risky behavior in men and 80% of population have parasite, which is lowering their intelligence!!! Don't pet any kitties please!

3 hours ago, Eise said:

Nr 4 is 'my personal enemy': ultimate responsibility is the empty companion of libertarian free will, which is just as empty.

3 hours ago, Eise said:

I do not base my concept of free will on responsibility: but it is a very good touchstone. Really, the whole basis of my concept of free will is that we can act according our preferences and beliefs, that we can act on what I recognise as my own grounds. 

I it made you certainly sound so, as you said:

Quote

 

In order to refute my position, there are several options:

    1. Proof that determinism and free will (in my definition!) are contradictory 

    2. Proof that my definition cannot bear the weight of our praxis of blaming, praising, earning salary, assigning responsibility, taking obligations, etc.

 

But if i refuted point 2, that would mean your position is false and than free will as well! And you said several option, so even condition 2. would suffice. But no problem, it can happen to anyone I know this well

3 hours ago, Eise said:

Responsibility does not mean being responsible for what I am: I must be responsible for what I do.

Yeah, but sounds to me incomplete. How do i do that? How do i choose out of nothing?

3 hours ago, Eise said:

I can give the grounds for my actions (i.e. I can response, when others ask me for why I did something).

Yeah except sometimes, we don't know why we did something! What about crimes of passion, or accident during escalated debates? And how you can truly know, it was you who did that? Neurologists say: brain just replays what it already decided! That is the thing, i don't know how are you coming to these conclusions!

[empleat]

I want to add important info to this post, as no one replied long time and i found important information, which complements subject of this post:

In my first post i mentioned podcast with some philosopher articulating the origination problem in other way, than i was expressing it myself - i am 99% sure, this was G Strawson (British analytic philosopher) as his expression of the problem was very similar to the expression in podcast! I found his page on wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson This lead me to Arthur Schopenhauer's wiki page! And that G Strawson's argument:

1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
2. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects.
3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.

resembles Arthur Schopenhauer's position in On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason

This lead me to 28th reference about Albert Einstein on Schopenhauer's wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer which says he doesn't believe in Free Will in Schopenhauer's words:

"Albert Einstein in Mein Glaubensbekenntnis (August 1932): "I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants,[Der Mensch kann wohl tun, was er will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er will]' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper." Schopenhauer's clearer, actual words were: "You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing." [Du kannst tun was du willst: aber du kannst in jedem gegebenen Augenblick deines Lebens nur ein Bestimmtes wollen und schlechterdings nichts anderes als dieses eine.] On the Freedom of the Will, Ch. II."

So even Albert Einstein though same: "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants". Which is equivalent of the origination problem, or causa sui, or ultimate responsibility, or how you like to call it! Just expressed differently!

So i still stand on my position. And that this problem is pertinent to the question, whether or not, we have free will. It is not metaphorical speech! It is based on logic and empirical observations/facts, that everything comes from something. "Ex nihilo nihil fit" or "Nothing Comes from Nothing". With possible exception of the universe itself, but how were you responsible for that? And since from that point everything is pre-determined, or random... Or if you existed forever, that still doesn't answer the question, how do you choose your own preferences in that scenario? Also we have empirical proof that genes determine our personality traits. And evolution is taken as fact in biology! So could you be responsible for your genes, before you was even born?! Even while using dualism and similar philosophies, this is still a problem. And that's all i was saying, that this is a problem!

[Eise]

On 12/7/2020 at 7:44 PM, empleat said:

So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.

Bold by me. Why is normal responsibility not enough? Why should it be 'ultimate'. We are also not 'ultimate free'.

On 12/7/2020 at 7:44 PM, empleat said:

Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he want

That is exactly my point: we cannot, formulated a bit more absurdly 'want what we want'. But surely we can do what we want, and that is more or less all what free will is. Really, a concept of free will that requires we should be able to want what we want is a theoretical and a practical absurdity. I think this has to do with the Christian background of our culture: that God, as our perfect creator does no evil, so it must come from humans alone. I.e. by being able to what they want, they are ultimate responsible. (When it was not 'ultimate' He would also be a bit responsible' for our evil deeds.)

This is bad theology, and even worse philosophy.

[Eise]

On 11/20/2020 at 8:33 PM, empleat said:

On 11/20/2020 at 4:45 PM, Eise said:

The libertarian version of free will is simply not empirical: we do not know that we 'could have done otherwise' (in the literal meaning)

Wait what? We don't know the same thing in case of determinism, if everything was pre-determined by origin of the universe. Than we could not have done otherwise, unless we determined that origin as well (by our free will) and that's the origination problem! How is compatibilism empirical, while libertarianism is not? If it was, science could prove free will exists, but it currently cannot!

If I have a choice between A and B (say I take the bus or a taxi) these are clearly two options. Now I choose A. Then I am justified to say that 'I could have done B'. Say option C is not open (e.g. by train, because the nearest railway station is even further than the destination where I want to go to). So it is in exactly the same way that I can say 'I could not have done C'. To say it a bit more technically: modal sentences can make just as much sense in a determined world as in a not (completely) determined world, and they have a truth value, just as any other empirical sentence. 'I could have done C' is false, 'I could have done B' is true.

On 11/20/2020 at 8:33 PM, empleat said:

E.g. PBS says he has - 3 possible requirements for free will (while he is physicist and materialist):

<snip>

2. Choices may be deterministic, but they are fundamentally unpredictable

I've seen that PBS video. Predictability has nothing to do with free will. 

On 11/20/2020 at 8:33 PM, empleat said:

So if you had pre-determined character, but you are free to make any decision based on that. Would that be free will? You just following programming! So lets say: we want to defend compatibilism: and "we are determined". There is still the origination problem. I would have to be responsible for that origin as well, to be ultimate responsible for my actions! But it cannot be currently solved Or how else would you prove, or other way determine that: this is not required for us to have "free will worth of having"?

Get that 'ultimate' out of your head. Nobody needs 'ultimate responsibility'. It is a chimera, just as libertarian free will. 

On 11/20/2020 at 8:33 PM, empleat said:

On 11/20/2020 at 4:45 PM, Eise said:

No. This is metaphorical speech. Nature caused me to exist as I am. So can it force me to do what I want to do? Doesn't that sound a bit absurd? Is a kind of free will that is like the Baron von Münchhausen pulling himself and his horse out of the quicksand by pulling himself at his hair a kind of 'free will worth wanting'?

Yep it sounds absurd, that's one of reasons - why i think free will doesn't exist. Metaphorical speech eh??? But we know empirically - we didn't choose our preferences. How is that metaphorical, if premise is based on true empirical observation? And is true - that we didn't choose our preferences. If i do something, because of my preferences (i didn't choose) how is that free will?

You don't take 'orders' from your 'origin'. That is metaphorical speech.

On 11/20/2020 at 8:33 PM, empleat said:

On 11/20/2020 at 4:45 PM, Eise said:

Responsibility does not mean being responsible for what I am: I must be responsible for what I do.

Yeah, but sounds to me incomplete. How do i do that? How do i choose out of nothing?

You choose according to who you are, what is your character, your knowledge, your motivations, wishes, visions; and according to what you observe, anticipated possible reactions of others etc etc.

[empleat]

On 12/17/2020 at 2:35 PM, Eise said:

Bold by me.

Not at all, asking is great, as an answer to a question eliminates uncertainty

Quote

Why is normal responsibility not enough? Why should it be 'ultimate'.

I don't even know what normal responsibility would mean in this case! As you know Ultimate Responsibility means: that you have to be Ultimately Responsible for the way you are - to be truly responsible for your actions.

How would you even define normal responsibility? Either:

1. You and only you are truly responsible for your actions and nothing else is!!! (aka Ultimate Responsibility)     = condition for free will

2. You are not truly responsible for your actions and something else is!                                                                        = free will worth of having is false

You are either responsible for your actions, or you aren't! I can't see any middle ground!

NOTE: for point 1. to be true, doesn't require following to be true:

- the notion of free will where you can do everything, even that what is not metaphysically possible! 

- the version of free will which is immune to external influences. As we know: people can take free will of others away!

Ideally my definition of free will would include latter. Yet I am benevolent to notions of less free will! As obviously our free will is limited greatly by countless factors, which is apparent, just by an observation of every day life! Like:

- what if someone someone takes you into slavery

- also some people have much less control of their lives: people with diseases, financial problems etc.

If you defined some limited version of free will e.g: you follow a programming, which was given to you by your genes/environment, before you was even born! Let's say you can choose 35% of your decisions freely somehow... still these decisions would have to come from somewhere! Then this version of free will would still have - the problem of Origination!

Casual people usually say something like this: there is limited free will. We cannot control everything, but there are some things we can control!

Are there? When everything is either: pre-determined, or random. Your decisions couldn't come from nothing! If so: how were they decided by your own free will? If they didn't come from nothing, everything that exists is either pre-determined/random. How are you responsible for that? And here we go: the problem of Origination again!

Quote

2 hours ago, Eise said:   We are also not 'ultimate free'.

I think you are mixing apples with oranges and by that i mean:

We are not ultimately free to do everything.  VS  We are not ultimately responsible for our actions.

In exactly what sense we are also not "ultimate free" you meant it?

 

BTW this is what your best libertarian friends say :

"Some forms of libertarianism assert that human actions do not have causes and are chosen consciously – i.e. are not random. This assertion raises the question: what are these conscious decisions based on? Since they can't be based on nothing." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

Oh sorry they are not your friends and whole libertarian philosophy is just metaphorical speech (I AM JUST JOKING)

So if anything: i am against some forms of libertarianism! I don't think currently: any camp of free will can prove free will worth of having is real! If anything i would be an incompatibilist! Unless something changes.

On 12/17/2020 at 2:35 PM, Eise said:

That is exactly my point: we cannot, formulated a bit more absurdly 'want what we want'. But surely we can do what we want, and that is more or less all what free will is.

I disagree. It is like to say: a terminator (which is a machine) has free will, because he can do what he wants, while he cannot choose his own programming (to want what he wants)!

Sure you have to acknowledge: we can't do anything without a reason! This can be anything from an instinct to a logical reason! Imagine being a body without a brain, you have no reason to do anything! After you are born, where did any reason come from - to be also decided by your own free will? It couldn't come from nothing right? Because if you are nothing, you can't choose between anything, because you have no preferences yet! So if you want to stand on your position. You need to explain origin of this decision and how it is decided by your own free will from nothing!!! Which is currently impossible! Therefore it is a problem!

On 12/17/2020 at 4:53 PM, Eise said:

You choose according to who you are, what is your character, your knowledge, your motivations, wishes, visions; and according to what you observe, anticipated possible reactions of others etc etc.

Then again: how do you explain origin of these things? As they had to come from something!!!

On 12/17/2020 at 2:35 PM, Eise said:

Really, a concept of free will that requires we should be able to want what we want is a theoretical and a practical absurdity.

LOL a theory is based on scientific facts! You keep saying it is absurd, yet you didn't provide any evidence/counter arguments!!! You only posted your definition of free will, which doesn't disprove my definition, or my logic! As you can't explain currently origin of your decisions, but they had to come from somewhere right? If they came from nothing, still doesn't explain how they are free...

We are on scientific forums, i think it is fair, that you give proof why my arguments are not true, or why my logic is illogical! You gave no proof so far, so...

Don't you think, that Einstein and Schopenhauer would be smart enough to avoid practical and theoretical absurdity??? Also Tesla and Goethe (one of biggest geniuses who ever lived) didn't believe in free will too!

Prove my empirical observations/facts are wrong, prove my logic is illogical! Even better prove Einstein was wrong!!!

It can seem absurd, but it isn't really! It is logical! Honestly (if think about it) it can sound absurd, i have to give you that! How could I be responsible for my origin? I couldn't, it is impossible, which is logical. But if I say: I could - it sounds absurd! As currently, there is not even way to imagine - how?! Or if I say: I would have to be able to do that - in order to have free will! But then it would be logical, that we don't! But absurd having to do that, in order to have free will! I should have specified this sooner, as it created confusion for you, but to me it is logical.

Do you know what is amazing, i realized - i saw so many remarks to free will/fate etc. in TV shows. Yet it never occurred to me, before existential crisis: that free will could be false! People take free will for granted, as our brains play illusions on us! It is one of these simple problems, which are so complicated, that they created (over 2000 years) countless philosophical disputes! Some concepts are hard to grasp even for people like Einstein!

On 12/17/2020 at 4:53 PM, Eise said:

You don't take 'orders' from your 'origin'. That is metaphorical speech.

I don't understand, why you picked this sentence! Which was only an analogy (so i don't have to rewrite whole definition of Origination in each sentence) and you read already full definition of the Origination problem! You had to know this! Then why would you call me on this sentence, that it is metaphorical speech? Yes this sentence alone is metaphorical speech! But not the Origination problem to which i am referring, which is logical and based on empirical observations and facts!

You just keep saying that: this is metaphorical speech. But you give no arguments/proof

I would gladly listen to some counter-arguments! I don't care about being right, i just want to know the truth!

On 12/17/2020 at 2:35 PM, Eise said:

Really, a concept of free will that requires we should be able to want what we want is a theoretical and a practical absurdity. I think this has to do with the Christian background of our culture: that God, as our perfect creator does no evil, so it must come from humans alone. I.e. by being able to what they want, they are ultimate responsible. (When it was not 'ultimate' He would also be a bit responsible' for our evil deeds.)

This is bad theology, and even worse philosophy.

This is not true! Many philosophies like compatibilism conditioned free will on moral responsibility. Which is a logical fallacy! It doesn't mean yet that: all ideas from this area of philosophy are all bad! It is like to say: your philosophy is bad, because you inadvertently gave me 2 options to refute your position that free will is true. If i refuted one, it would lead to conclusion that free will is false. Because of the option: moral responsibility being false! Then it would mean: free will is also false! Just because some compatibilist was once wrong: it doesn't mean his whole philosophy is bad!

Many philosophies were linked with god and different things, which were not necessarily relevant to idea, or logically sound! But usually at least some basic premises, or something was correct. Some philosophies used logical fallacies for sure!

 

Perhaps it would help to consider real world scenarios to understand this better!

As Nikola Tesla said:

Quote

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

Lets go through these points to better understand this problem:

1. If we had no preferences: we couldn't decide anything right?
2. We didn't exist forever, if so: how does that help to a cause of free will? (currently beyond human understanding)
3. We didn't appear from nothing to the state: how we are now! And if so: how were we responsible for that? How did we choose that freely?
4. Otherwise we had to come from something!
5. Before you existed as a conscious being, or as particles scattered across the space: how could you choose anything by your own non-existent free will?!
6. Something has to be given to you first, before you can decide/choose anything!
7. Everything is either pre-determined/random
8. When you was born, everything you was: were things you didn't choose!
9. You didn't choose environment as well!
10. From this point it is interaction between genes and environment, which will determine each of your future actions!
11. If points (7,8,9,10) are true, then how is it possible you can decide freely, without influence of any of causal chains from the past?
12. If points (7,8.9,10,11) are true, how can you decide freely, without anything prior, which would cause that? How does free will come from nothing?
13. If it did come from nothing, we can't even know nature of a such phenomena. As it is past of singularity!
14. Else how do you explain free will, for which to be true: doesn't matter where your preferences came from?

As scientific method is to observe the reality, make assumptions, test them by an experiment and if these assumptions differ from result of an experiment. Scientists will change their theory: based on what they discovered! And do experiment again! We should take real world scenarios and make theory how it would be possible to have free will in any case! And we should ask same question in every permutation that exists! I can't even imagine how free will could exist! I agree with Compatibilism until the point of our preferences, where did these come from to be free (chosen by us)? It is just unimaginable!

Let me give you some real world examples, as it all becomes easier to understand with them:

- I wanted to be a big philosopher, because my dad is (how often we can see influence of parents on kids e.g. their pressure...)

- if I had a higher IQ, I could perhaps see something in a situation, I would miss otherwise!

- a parasite invaded my brain and caused a risky behavior, or a suicide!

- we have first time proof genes increase risks of developing ADHD about 75%, you realize as person with a ADHD will behave dramatically in a distinct way, than person with no ADHD? I didn't choose my ADHD! https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181128115024.htm

- i played game called Diablo 3, there was an action house, where you could literally make thousands of $, without any risk and depositing any currency! I wouldn't think at that time: you would make money on a PC game, because usually you can't! You can make like couple cents... If I knew that, you can make 10ths of thousands $ by playing that game, I would play it 24/7!!!

- if I prefer to pick vanilla over a chocolate, ultimately - I didn't choose I want to pick vanilla, but my genes/environment did! Of which I had no control! I picked vanilla, because i have appetite for it, but i didn't choose that appetite!

- why someone prefers spicy food, over food without a spice?

- i am on a hike and bear attacks me: i am going to run, because i am not a NAVY Seal and i don't have any weapons on me! I didn't choose that bear will attack me and couldn't predict that on 100%. In this case "i run" is: what i want to do. But i didn't chose what i want. I can only choose between flight, or fight. But since i can't fight a bear. So i have only 2 options left: run, or to die. But who would choose to die?

Let me give you an another example:

1. prefer to shop in Lidl

2. there are 4 shops in my area: wallmart, tesco, globus, lidl

3. lidl, wallmart, tesco were closed at day, i decided - i need to shop on

4. my only option left, is the globus

Therefore i go shop there because:

A. i need to shop

B. i have no other options in area

Note: i could go shop elsewhere further beyond this area, but for sake of argument, lets say you are lazy for 2 hour drive!

Lets say: i am pre-determined to want to go shop to lidl, but I didn't choose that I want to do that in that situation! That's my preference and out of my control! Perhaps they have better sortiment, but i didn't choose that! Logically you go where they have best foods, depends on your personality - you didn't choose. And even idea to change personality, had to come from somewhere... Other shops at that day were unexpectedly closed! Let's say: i couldn't predict that by any means (also out of my control). Then I went to shop to the globus, because it was my only option left! Not because i would wish to go there! While I am hungry and i want to go shopping for food!

I saw over 10ths of thousand TV shows and i read 10ths of thousands articles about psychology. If you consider everything that exist, it doesn't seem we have free will on 99% As i tried to look at this from all angles!

Give me practical example how we are free in any situation and i can try to explain why we are not! You can give question without external influences, as these affect us for sure!

On 12/17/2020 at 4:53 PM, Eise said:

If I have a choice between A and B (say I take the bus or a taxi) these are clearly two options. Now I choose A. Then I am justified to say that 'I could have done B'. Say option C is not open (e.g. by train, because the nearest railway station is even further than the destination where I want to go to). So it is in exactly the same way that I can say 'I could not have done C'. To say it a bit more technically: modal sentences can make just as much sense in a determined world as in a not (completely) determined world, and they have a truth value, just as any other empirical sentence. 'I could have done C' is false, 'I could have done B' is true.

Yeah but libertarianism is based on empirical observations/evidence too! E.g. event-causal camp, which asserts: nature is causing our brains and there is inherent randomness/uncertainty! Which is empirical fact: everything is either pre-determined/random. But claiming that uncertainty is needed for free will is not! As we don't know, if there is uncertainty, or everything is just random. Also we don't know, if free will is incompatible with determinism on 100% and by an empirical experiment! Some libertarian camps are less empirical, but whole libertarianism isn't just metaphorical speech for sure! Also some forms of libertarianism are compatible with adequate determinism.

To address one of your older points, which is related to this:

On 11/20/2020 at 4:45 PM, Eise said:

The libertarian version of free will is simply not empirical: we do not know that we 'could have done otherwise' (in the literal meaning), we do not know the physical causes of our feelings and thoughts simply because we are a 'higher level phenomenon' of the brain: we cannot access our neural level

Yeah but we don't know empirically, if we could done otherwise. This is just an assumption. If compatibilism was purely empirical, it would be probably in an area of science! Almost no philosophy is completely empirical!

On 12/17/2020 at 4:53 PM, Eise said:

I've seen that PBS video. Predictability has nothing to do with free will. 

Yeah i think i agree with you on that. E.g. in Compatibilism: maybe it doesn't. If you knew someone from 100% and state of an environment from 100%. Then you could predict everything he will ever do. But if he is ultimately responsible for his actions and nothing else is! And he could have done otherwise! Then he has free will, even if you could predict his behavior! But besides that: this would allow other people to abuse other people more, which could result in less free will overall for people! Because not everyone would have this technology! It depends, if this is acceptable for you.

He said: only one of possible requirements for free will (not necessary)!

He mentions it, because it could have implications for free will: https://youtu.be/RY7hjt5Gi-E?t=524

Another important consideration, if future is singular (what it could mean for free will): https://youtu.be/RY7hjt5Gi-E?t=594

See he is not trying to overstep, merely provided insight from a physicist perspective!

Some argue: unpredictability of decision is important for free will. There is paradox in this: if you could predict from 100% your behavior, you would change at least some of your decisions right? But if you changed them, that means they would never happened in the first place!!! So how could you predict: they will happen? This would be a paradox - if future was already set!

But if future was not set in stone, then perhaps: knowing where your current state will lead you, it would make you to change your behavior in future! And because future doesn't exist yet, it wouldn't lead to a paradox, just to possible future. Woah! Perphaps we could make ourselves more free, if we could predict future! E.g. people, when they get older, regret some of their decisions (because they didn't know any better in past) but if they knew what they will do and implications of their actions, some would change them for sure!

You could say: if future is singular and pre-determined. I am not sure, but perhaps: you could still done otherwise, as you will do only 1 thing at any point in time. And what you will do: will be determined by your decision at each point in time! Again problem is Origination, where did your initial state come from to be free??? Which will then determine all your future states!!! Also how can you be free from an environment, which you didn't choose? Science says: who we are is always dependent on our environment: https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/body-switching

Also i see a problem: if freely decided something, you should know reasons for your decision right? Yet i already sent proof, that people sometimes can't tell - why they did something. As their unconscious processes are not visible to them. There is a debate what this could mean for free will. As this is related mainly to rash decisions, if not only to them. But as I listed perfect example: some prisoners escaped from a court, when they had a lucky opportunity. And they had very small amount of time to make a decision, which will affect their lives greatly. After they did catch them, they couldn't explain why they did that! But it could add years in prison to their sentence and affect their life in main way! Shouldn't they know - why they did such important decision, if they are free?

You can expect someone born into rich family and someone born in Africa to lead very different life, even if they were the same person! This could be actually tested on AI, once it will become smarter! Once we eliminate free will from every permutation, what's left?!

 

This is also backing up my claims: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/#FreeWillProbCausDete

Quote

Nor are we in any meaningful sense the ultimate causal source of our actions, since they have their causal origins in the laws of nature and the state of the world long ago. Determinism therefore seems to prevent human agents from having the freedom to do otherwise, and it also seems to prevent them from being the sources of their actions. If either of these is true, then it’s doubtful that human agents are free or responsible for their actions in any meaningful sense.

These lines of argument, which have been regimented in the work of Ginet (1966), van Inwagen (1975, 1983), Wisdom (1934), Mele (1995), and Pereboom (1995, 2001), among many others, present a real problem for those who are inclined to think that we are free and responsible for our choices and actions and that the natural world might operate as a deterministic system (or if not completely deterministic, one in which an indeterminism is merely stochastic noise that is causally irrelevant at the level of human agency).

I don't know what else to tell you... Origination is empirical and logical! Again Stanford states: this is a real problem! That's what I was saying, this is indeed a problem!

Quote

As a result, these compatibilists tell us, the truth of causal determinism poses no threat to our status as morally responsible agents (notice the enthymematic premise here: the freedom to do otherwise is sufficient for the kind of control an agent must possess to be morally responsible for her actions).

Again you are suppressing the premise, that we didn't choose our initial state. And you said:

On 6/26/2020 at 9:21 AM, Eise said:

I on the other hand say that the question of free will or not can completely be answered by looking at relationship 2. If you can act according your preferences, then it was a free action. Simply said: if you can do what you want, you have free will. That has nothing to do with where your preferences came from.

Which is logical fallacy in my opinion! And empirically not correct, as we know everything comes from something, once the universe exists! Which begs the question, where did your preferences come from? E.g Quantum information cannot be destroyed, nor come from nothing. Macroscopic information can be destroyed, but not the energy, or the matter. Which also couldn't come from nothing. Except the universe - some theories say!!! I don't know, if something could come from nothing once the universe pops into the existence. There are some virtual particles, which constantly pop into existence and vanish. But even they are possibly caused by some existing particles, or something in QM, if i remember that correctly! And how could you be responsible for origin of the universe, before anything even existed? Or for something, which comes from nothing? Doesn't make sense and is currently unintelligible to the humans. You would have to get past singularity too!!! And as PBS said, if that came from another universe, there would be same problem of Origination. As he said in order to generate new information in close region is only by randomness and how is that free?

Edited December 18, 2020 by empleat

[empleat]

18 hours ago, empleat said:

NOTE: for point 1. to be true, doesn't require following to be true:

- the notion of free will where you can do everything, even that what is not metaphysically possible! 

- the version of free will which is immune to external influences. As we know: people can take free will of others away!

Sorry mistake, I meant: if external factors affect our behavior and change it in some way, then there could be only limited free will!

I wanted to say that: if you are truly responsible for your own actions (ultimately responsibility). And other conditions required for free will being true, then you have free will - at least until some external influences affect it, or take it away completely!

Because if there ought to be free will, it would have to be apparently some limited version! E.g. external factors, which affect us and can literally change our decisions!

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, empleat said:

Because if there ought to be free will

We would chose it...