Free Will

[romansh]

A trailer for a discussion coming near you soon:

 

[romansh]

This young man, I think, does a god job against compatibilist free will.

 

[romansh]

This could have gone in many threads.  Here Gus talks about how the Bible might be interpreted as being a determinist document at least in places.

 

[romansh]

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?

 

[PaulS]

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.

 

 

[tariki]

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 May 27, 2023 by tariki
Correct download error!

[PaulS]

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?

[romansh]

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.

[PaulS]

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.

[romansh]

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. 

[PaulS]

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). 

[romansh]

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 June 27, 2023 by romansh

[PaulS]

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?

[romansh]

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 June 28, 2023 by romansh

[romansh]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[Davidsun]

Well, there hasn't been a post here since November, 2023. Maybe this post, quoting what I wrote about 'free wlll' in my treatise :titled "What Did Jesus REALLY Mean?". will stimulate re-engagment with the topic:

Unlike those soul configurations which inhabit and pursue Life’s objectives using more constitutionally ‘hard-wired’ (and therefore less capable of elective information processing) bodies, we (we, in this case, referencing souls ensconsed in more advanced kinds of physiological platforms; and advanced, in this case, referencing greater ‘bandwidth’ accommodating information-reception, information-processing and information-transmission capabilities) can and so may cognitively appreciate and apprehend the functional significance(s) of and so operationally elect to relate to the constellational configurations of our own and others’ existential gestalts (or aspects thereof) in ways of our own choosing (hence the phenomenon known as ‘free will’).

We have the potential to learn from and choose to change the patterns of our thoughts, feelings and behaviors based on the ‘feedback’ of personal experience so as to become more knowing and adept at creatively executing Life’s Love and Joy maximization aimed Source-code, which (as postulated and argued in Chapter 1) is the imperative that ubiquitously operates within all Being. Hence our development of keener discernment and the capacity to be more functionally discriminating (I don’t mean by way of stereotyping, of course!) and, consequently, our increasingly selective execution of possible choices such as acceptance, trust, devotion, wariness, rejection, banishment,* etc. in relation to others and increasing degrees of wisdom in terms of the ways in which we choose to deploy our ‘will’ in such regards.

* Note: This is just a categorical list of conceptually black-and-white thought-feeling-and-behavior options which I have compiled to illustrate the point I am making. The  ways which Mind and Spirit may choose to flow, and consequently ‘act’, in are spectrumatically infinite, both in terms of variety and admixtural combination.

The learning and consequent wisdom-development I speak of is in the ‘direction’ of more fully appreciating the functional commonalities and connections between one’s ‘self ’ and other ‘selves’ and so of relationally engaging with others as well as Life-at-Large in ways which, more and more so in the long term, synergically augment and improve the quality of both our own and others’ experiences and expressions of Love and Joy, thereby increasing the likelihood that not just our own but others’ wishes and desires to experience and express Love and Joy will be optimally fulfilled as well in  the process (except of course if, when and as said others are so other exploitive and self-aggrandizing that they sully and diminish the potential for conjoint experience and expression of Love and Joy, in which case non cooperation and counteraction may be our choice, for the same aiming-to-maximize the experience and expression of Love and Joy in relation to and with others in Life’s Flow ‘reason’).

All of which explains our gradual progression (albeit, as a result of their still self ishly biased calculus in the foregoing regards, not in every soul’s case, and, even in the cases of those who do progress in this regard, often in periodically regressive, learning the ‘hard’ way, fashion!) from completely self ish, to familial, to clannish, to tribal, to ethnographic, to anthropocentric, and, finally, to cosmically all-inclusive, completely self-transcendent psychospiritual ‘i’dentifications and corollary allegiances, meaning that, with experience and education, over the course of time, folks increasingly think, feel and believe and so more and more conscientiously act knowing that, though each and every individual and group is unique and so differs from  others in significant ways, one’s ‘self ’ and all other ‘selves’ are really integral aspects of Life’s Flow and so, despite apparent differences, we are all relationally connected aspects of the same (pertaining to the Universe we are in, at least) Cosmic Being-Doing, which is Life Itself in action!*

* Hence the historically resonant, exhortative declarations by ‘fully awakened’ souls, such as: “Put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him  that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [i.e. an ‘owned’ slave or ‘indentured’ servant] nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.” (Colossians 3:10-11); “As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we  be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” (I Corinthians 12:12 13); and “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ.” (Galatians 3:28).

Edited May 3 by Davidsun
correcting spelling errors

[romansh]

Thank you ... but what are you trying to say in plain English please.

The Bible seems to be silent on the subject of free will. Lots on choice etc.

There seems to be some evidence that Jesus was an Essene ... they did not believe in free will.

[tariki]

Welcome back Davidsun, having served your term and I assume now having gained parole. (Sorry, I seem to remember that you never shared my sense of humour) But yes, welcome back. To be honest, as Rom has implied, I can't really understand much of what you are saying. You might try some more "philosophical" Forum that shares your own particular projectory and interests and deal in words of more than two syllables.

I see that I did post my own contribution to this thread (27th May, 2023) and reading it through it still represents my own way of seeing things, such as it is. Maybe you didn't agree with any of it, but that seems to be the way of it. Maybe you never understood it? What was there to understand? Who knows.

Basically I am of the "try to keep it simple" camp (unlikely as that might appear at times.......😀 )

i.e. "Love one another as I first loved you".  We can't - so the trouble starts. 

Again, the Buddha, who said that irrespective of whatever "position" or "view" we take regarding any metaphysical interpretation of Reality, suffering remains. Yes, it does. And so our feeble attempts to understand and plot a course out of the maelstrom continue. Suffering certainly remains.

But all the best, sincerely. Welcome back.

 

[Davidsun]

14 hours ago, tariki said:

as Rom has implied, I can't really understand much of what you are saying.

 

I spoke/wrote in English. Sorry, it seems to be incomprehensible to you.

My main point regarding our free will is: "We have the potential to learn from and choose to change the patterns of our thoughts, feelings and behaviors based on the ‘feedback’ of personal experience so as to become more knowing and adept at creatively executing Life’s Love and Joy maximization aimed Source-code."

Regarding such Source code, at an earlier point in the treatise, I said: "it has more recently struck me that developments in the field of modern computer systems may provide us with an even more illustrative model for the universally creative, feedback-loop based interfusion of The Essence of Creativity and the Life of every individual and amalgamated aspect of Its expression. To explore this proposition, imagine if you will that the main aim or goal of said Essence’s ‘program’– the primary motive (i.e. desire) ensconced in its ‘source code’ – is to maximally express and thereby experience Love and Joy, to Joyfully express and experience Love and Lovingly express and experience Joy to the greatest possible degree in every possible way, or something like that."

Maybe ? if you read the whole treatise you would be able to catch on, but I doubt you would  be inclined to ...

Edited May 4 by Davidsun
adding material

[romansh]

I certainly am not .... as yet you have not mentioned where will from and what it is free from.

Just out of curiosity what texts/philosophers have you read on the subject? 

Regarding creativity ... is it not from an ability to hide one's citations from oneself or others?

Edited May 5 by romansh

[tariki]

6 hours ago, Davidsun said:

"We have the potential....

I can understand that. And why is it fulfilled in some and not others?

Me, I'm feeling better at the moment because a local soccer team, Ipswich Town, have gained promotion to the Premier League. The Tractor Boys, so called, have now gained double promotions after languishing in League One, the third tier of English Football. 

A fine old club once supported by a guy we knew and loved as "Daz", uncle to my grandson. Daz would take my Grandson to a few games, passing on the tradition. Sadly Daz died a couple of years back, far too early, of cancer. So it goes. 

 

Above, a photo of my daughter and grandson. 

We love you Daz.....and the Tractor Boys!

Anyway, are you inclined to "catch on" to all this, or does it merely make you yawn or, perhaps, irritated? Bored? Your choice or not? Freewill of not? 

All the best. 

 

[Davidsun]

10 hours ago, tariki said:

\Above, a photo of my daughter and grandson. 

We love you Daz.....and the Tractor Boys!

Great! The perspective I shared about the flowering of Love and Joy is a tad more 'inclusive', however.


And re you asking: "Why is it [said potential' fulfilled] in some and not others?

My comments about 'free will' imply that is because most people don't choose to rigorously exercise their 'will' with such desire and purpose in heart and mind.

Jesus' characterization of such folks is contained in thee parable about the Sower sowing seeds, I think:  "Some [seeds] fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: And when the sun was up, they were scorched;  and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them."

Their souls (their mind-and-spirit 'constellations') hadn't yet developed enough to be make completely 'free' choices in said regards. maybe(?).

Edited May 5 by Davidsun
to correct typose and grammar errors

[romansh]

12 minutes ago, Davidsun said:

make completely 'free' choices

If you think about it for one moment ... this is a completely incoherent concept.

[tariki]

1 hour ago, Davidsun said:

Great! The perspective I shared about the flowering of Love and Joy is a tad more 'inclusive', however.
 

Love must be specific. 

Again, its "flowering" for me is pure grace and miracle, a cause for gratitude. Looking for its genesis in any "work" of my own I associate with the way of the Pharisee.

[tariki]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

If you think about it for one moment ... 

Please don't demand such things.....

😀