Jump to content

Free Will


romansh

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

Quite often people have asked does it matter if free will exists or not.

And for me, the answer is a very definite perhaps. Recently, the Nobel prize for physics was awarded where a particular aspect (locality versus non-locality) was awarded for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science jointly to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger. Also, there was a recent Nature editorial perpetuating a misconception and a (one page) rebuttal article was written.

The conclusion can be taken as:
Contrary to what is often stated, these observations do not demonstrate that “spooky action at a distance” is real and nature therefore non-local. Rather, the observations show that if nature is local, then statistical independence must be violated.

Interestingly, whether we think we have free will or not affects the interpretation of how the universe ticks. Does this matter? 

Does anything matter?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2023 at 10:13 PM, romansh said:

Quite often people have asked does it matter if free will exists or not.

And for me, the answer is a very definite perhaps. Recently, the Nobel prize for physics was awarded where a particular aspect (locality versus non-locality) was awarded for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science jointly to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger. Also, there was a recent Nature editorial perpetuating a misconception and a (one page) rebuttal article was written.

The conclusion can be taken as:
Contrary to what is often stated, these observations do not demonstrate that “spooky action at a distance” is real and nature therefore non-local. Rather, the observations show that if nature is local, then statistical independence must be violated.

Interestingly, whether we think we have free will or not affects the interpretation of how the universe ticks. Does this matter? 

Does anything matter?

 

If free will doesn't exist, then one would have no cause to question if anything matters, I think.  If there was no free will, then why would anything occurring matter - we have no genuine say in the occurrences (even if we think we do) so what's the point in thinking it matters?

If one did believe in at least some degree of free will affecting the decisions of our brain, then indeed things do matter as we would have an opportunity to influence them perhaps. I guess one could ask if it matters if we can or can't influence matters through free will, but that's probably another question.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked up some other Free Will threads here as the subject came up on another forum. I posted the following, which incorporates a few words of JosephM, which I trust he does not mind.

My post:-

Is God free? Has God got freewill? Or are His acts determined by His having a particular nature? Or, as I prefer to think about it, is Reality-as-is predetermined, or is it more radical freedom, a constant advance into novelty?

Often it seems that any answer we give to this whole question (i.e. do I have freewill) is simply determined by our own predisposed conditionings and beliefs. Our "answer" - yes or no - "justifies" us, it's suitable for purpose.

On another forum there has often been various discussions of this whole subject, with no conclusion ever being reached. One such thread began with these words (not mine), which I find bear repeating:-

The majority of human beings are mostly convinced that they are the author of their thoughts, choices and therefore their destiny. There is no doubt human beings make choices. The question is: Are those choices free choices or inevitable choices that are not free but predisposed by a limited context? If they are limited, then by definition, the choice is not free choice, but an inevitable choice that is bound or enslaved by ones present level of consciousness and the circumstances by which that event occurs.

I find that the whole subject of our "level of consciousness" is a better starting point for the subject of freewill. It seems to me that often the accidental conditions of our birth and up-bringing are what determine many if our choices. We certainly do experience "choice" and yet the parameters surrounding those choices are surely there - thus we are not radically free. The question then becomes, just how far, how wide, can we extend the parameters of our freedom?

This also involves what we find to be what can be willed and what not. We can will "knowledge" but not wisdom, and we cannot will happiness. Of what does radical freedom truly consist?

There are some words of Thomas Merton, found in "New Seeds of Contemplation" that speak of the Gift of Freedom:-

The mere ability to choose between good and evil is the lowest limit of freedom, and the only thing that is free about it is the fact that we can still choose good.

To the extent that you are free to choose evil, you are not free. An evil choice destroys freedom.

We can never choose evil as evil: only as an apparent good. But when we decide to do something that seems to us to be good when it is not really so, we are doing something that we do not really want to do, and therefore we are not really free.

Perfect spiritual freedom is a total inability to make any evil choice. When everything you desire is truly good and every choice not only aspires to that good but attains it, then you are free because you do everything that you want, every act of your will ends in perfect fulfillment.

Freedom therefore does not consist in an equal balance between good and evil choices but in the perfect love and acceptance of what is really good and the perfect hatred and rejection of what is evil, so that everything you do is good and makes you happy, and you refuse and deny and ignore every possibility that might lead to unhappiness and self-deception and grief. Only the man who has rejected all evil so completely that he is unable to desire it at all, is truly free. God, in whom there is absolutely no shadow or possibility of evil or of sin, is infinitely free. In fact, he is Freedom.


Words worth our own contemplation, and I see them as corresponding to some other words by the Zen Master Caoshan:-

When studying in this way, evils are manifest as a continuum of being ever not done. Inspired by this manifestation, seeing through to the fact that evils are not done, one settles it finally. At precisely such a time, as the beginning, middle, and end manifest as evils not done, evils are not born from conditions, they are only not done; evils do not perish through conditions, they are only not done.


Freedom seems to imply spontaneity, what in the East is called "wu wei", effortless action. Myself, I think such a state of being (or non-being!) can be known. It involves surrender of "self", more a realisation than an attainment. Grace, gift. Never "ours" as such.

The Christian mystic Meister Eckhart speaks of our "union" with God, obviously in theistic terms:-

In giving us His love God has given us the Holy Spirit so that we can love Him with the love wherewith He loves Himself.

D.T.Suzuki, the "zen man", translates this into Zen terms: “one mirror reflecting another with no shadow between them.”

It is my trust and faith that such a "union", and therefore such a "radical freedom", can be known. Meanwhile I simply seek to see my own chains. I find any "advance" is more a stripping of knowledge than an accumulation.

 

 

Edited by tariki
Correct download error!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think another aspect of 'free will' is the purely physical chemical reactions of our brains.  Can we as humans control how much dopamine our brain emits for instance?  If dopamine is influencing what we find pleasurable, but we can't control how much our brain produces or when it produces it, how much control do we actually have over 'our' own decisions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 5/21/2023 at 9:08 PM, PaulS said:

If free will doesn't exist, then one would have no cause to question if anything matters, I think.

I don't think this follows. The universe unfolding and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, romansh said:

I don't think this follows. The universe unfolding and all that.

The universe may be unfolding, but as for us and our 'decision', surely if we don't have free will then there is no point being concerned about the decisions we or others make.  Nobody can influence them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

Nobody can influence them.

Do you believe in cause and effect? Many people and events have influenced me. These influences have shaped me. In turn, I am a shaping cause for other bits of the unfolding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, romansh said:

Do you believe in cause and effect? Many people and events have influenced me. These influences have shaped me. In turn, I am a shaping cause for other bits of the unfolding. 

Yes, but if there is no free will then 'you' have no influence over any of those influences.  'You' may still be shaped by them, but none of those influences 'matter' because none of them, yours included, are in your control (if there is no free will). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Yes, but if there is no free will then 'you' have no influence over any of those influences.  'You' may still be shaped by them, but none of those influences 'matter' because none of them, yours included, are in your control (if there is no free will). 

If you argued there is no intrinsic "me" then I might agree with 'you'. I don't influence my influences, but my influences are influenced. I am not claiming anything "matters". Saying something matters is like saying a stop light is red. Useful up to a point but philosophically "inaccurate". 

Like Carl Sagan said "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself," I might quibble over the word "know", but I agree with the sentiment.

 

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, romansh said:

If you argued there is no intrinsic "me" then I might agree with 'you'. I don't influence my influences, but my influences are influenced. I am not claiming anything "matters". Saying something matters is like saying a stop light is red. Useful up to a point but philosophically "inaccurate". 

Like Carl Sagan said "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself," I might quibble over the word "know", but I agree with the sentiment.

 

I guess I was only responding to you asking if anything 'mattered':

On 5/18/2023 at 10:13 PM, romansh said:

Interestingly, whether we think we have free will or not affects the interpretation of how the universe ticks. Does this matter? 

Does anything matter?

What I am saying is that if there is no free will, then our choices or the choices of others do not matter, as we have no influence over them.  We might think we can change somebody's mind through artful debate, but with no free will then we cannot.  So why should what you or I think or do, matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in part, I am responding to your optimistic nihilism exploration.

On 6/25/2023 at 8:42 PM, PaulS said:

The belief that life has no inherent meaning or purpose can free us from the constraints of societal expectations and allow us to create our own meaning and purpose.

For example, if you embrace the optimistic views of nihilism, you may find that the freedom and uncertainty that comes with the philosophy allows you to explore new ways of living and thinking for yourself.

You will think of life as an experiment in progress and explore different lifestyles, hobbies, and careers to find what brings you the most fulfilment and satisfaction.

No free will, for me, is coherent with what is described as optimistic nihilism. I think in both philosophies suggest much of what we encounter can be labelled "not as it seems"  or illusory. Including the "you" and "I" that may or may not believe in free will.

I think we might be a little circumspect about things labelled as meaningful, purposeful and mattering.

Edited by romansh
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I filched this from Gus's Facebook

 
Quote

 

“The evidence from Josephus and Ben Sira suggests, rather, that the ancient Jewish theological debate was focused on the narrower question of whether one’s individual actions are freely chosen or foreordained, limited by a fixed divine plan.”
-Johnathan Klawans, 2012
The evidence is sound that the primary debate among first century Jews was over free will or determinism. This is evidence enough to support exploring whether the Jesus movement leaned on determinism. In fact, the main free will believers, according to Josephus, are the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the primary opponents in the New Testament.
The overlap between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament is significant and corresponds to a deterministic Jewish sect. There is significant connection with the Gospel of John particularly with the light and dark dualism.
This is not some anachronism, but historical evidence pointing to Jesus’s insights into nonjudgment as derived from a deterministic cosmology, not the free will on held universally by the church today.
It is this historical data that connects modern deterministic science with ancient deterministic judaism.

 

 
 
 
 
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service