At Mind Matters News: John Horgan at Scientific American: Does quantum mechanics kill free will?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 16, 2022

Intelligent Design, Mind, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Physicists take sides: Sabine Hossenfelder thinks superdeterminism enables quantum mechanics to kill free will; George Ellis disagrees:

One of the most interesting science writers of our era is John Horgan, who has managed to infuriate so many of the right people (to infuriate) while giving the rest of us something to ponder. In a recent column in Scientific American he takes on the question of whether quantum mechanics (quantum physics) rules out free will.
…

Einstein’s suggestion that the moon “would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord” doesn’t really resolve anything because the moon isn’t thinking anything at all. For that matter, few ponder whether particles, viruses, or termites have free will. The problem is making arguments against free will coincide with human experience. Nor can we simply say, “People just want to believe they have free will”. Sometimes we want to believe that. But other times (when we are looking for excuses).

We don’t want to believe that.

Horgan sides, somewhat tentatively, with free will. He notes that humans are more than just heaps of particles. Higher levels of complexity enable genuinely new qualities. What humans can do is not merely a more complex version of what amoebas can do — in turn, a more complex version of what electrons can do. Greater complexity can involve genuinely new qualities. A philosopher would say that he is not a reductionist.
But that also means that mental phenomena are a reality. Materialists won’t stay comfortable with that for long. We haven’t heard the last of this debate.
News, “At Scientific American: Does quantum mechanics kill free will” at Mind Matters News (March 16, 2022)

Takehome: Horgan’s arguments against superdeterminism work quite well but they require a world in which the human mind really exists. Is he prepared to go there?

Mind Matters News offers a number of articles on free will by neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Egnor including

Can physics prove there is no free will? No, but it can make physicists incoherent when they write about free will. It’s hilarious. Sabine Hossenfelder misses the irony that she insists that people “change their minds” by accepting her assertion that they… can’t change their minds.

Does “alien hand syndrome” show that we don’t really have free will? One woman’s left hand seemed to have a mind of its own. Did it? Alien hand syndrome doesn’t mean that free will is not real. In fact, it clarifies exactly what free will is and what it isn’t.

But is determinism true? Does science show that we fated to want whatever we want? Modern science—both theoretical and experimental—strongly supports the reality of free will.

Comments

FWIW, I get what you're saying, dogdoc.Viola Lee_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

SA,
You need to show how the use of the law of non-contradiction violates free-will.
No, I really don't. I don't even see any connection between these two things.
That law is the fundamental first principle that rationality requires.
My argument is simply that free choices must be reason-responsive, not perfectly logical or rational.
So, you need to demonstrate free-will rationality that can function in violation of that law.
I don't understand what this means, but I'm certain it has nothing to do with my argument, for reasons I just gave.
If you cannot do it, then free will reasoning is not possible without that first principle – so citing that as a destroyer of free will is falsified.
What I am arguing is that deliberative free will requires a self-chosen self, or causa sui, which is not possible. My argument has nothing to do with people being logical or perfectly rational.
Again, your challenge is to show that the laws of logic destroy free will. That’s basically your claim – you just need to demonstrate it.
Nope, you misunderstand my argument. That's ok, I've tried my best :)
If the logic is flawed then it’s an irrational choice – of the sort you said is not free will.
Ok, I'll try just one more time: I did not say irrational choices were not free will. Rather, I said that the sort of free will that I am arguing against is the type where people deliberate over reasons, rather than decide for no reason at all. This is called reason-responsive deliberation, and it does not imply the use of formal laws of logic or rationality, nor does it entail any particular level of intelligence or accuracy or validity of one's reasoning. As long as people are reasoning - imperfectly as it may be - about their choices, their reasons are the things I've been talking about: beliefs, desires, values, and so on (you may add anything you want to this list, it doesn't matter, it's anything that one might invoke as a reason for their choice). But they cannot freely choose those reasons because of the infinite regress that I have explained ad infinitum here :-) Therefore, we cannot make free choices except for those we make for no reason at all. And that is not the sort of free will worth wanting.
The laws of logic are essential to your argument.
Nope, not relevant in the least.dogdoc_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Vivid,
I would classify the above as what makes up my “self” and consequently my “self” determines my choices, my choices are self determined.
Yes that is also a good term for this, but unfortunately some will still identify "self" with a concept more like "soul" - an essential thing associated with us at birth. I think "the way we are" might be the best way to describe it; it is, I believe, what Galen Strawson usually calls it.dogdoc_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

DogDoc
No, the law of non-contradiction has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument.
You need to show how the use of the law of non-contradiction violates free-will. That law is the fundamental first principle that rationality requires. So, you need to demonstrate free-will rationality that can function in violation of that law. If you cannot do it, then free will reasoning is not possible without that first principle - so citing that as a destroyer of free will is falsified. Again, your challenge is to show that the laws of logic destroy free will. That's basically your claim - you just need to demonstrate it.
It makes no difference to my argument if people’s logic is valid or flawed. This is all just a red herring.
If the logic is flawed then it's an irrational choice - of the sort you said is not free will. So, the logic must enable a rational choice. The laws of logic are essential to your argument.Silver Asiatic_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Dog “I mean nothing more than “the way you are” – your beliefs, desires, values, priorities, commitments, hopes, fears, etc etc; in other words, any aspect of your being that may affect your deliberative choices, and which can continuously change as you learn, experience, and see the results of your previous choices.” I would classify the above as what makes up my “self” and consequently my “self” determines my choices, my choices are self determined. Vividvividbleau_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Dog “Yes you have it generally correct, but let me clarify the way I’m using “our nature” here.” Thanks for the clarification that was going to be my next question. “Instead, they insist that they do things they don’t want and refrain from doing other things that they do want because of things like God’s commandments or other moral imperatives – not realizing that it is simply that they want to follow those things more than the temptations they resist!)” Total agreement. “I could not agree more. I believe this may be what VividBleu is getting at as well” Yes I am equally fine substituting “prefer” instead of “want” Vividvividbleau_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

SA,
You’re using the term “based on” as if it means “equivalent of”.
No, it means "entailed by".
But we can act counter to our “beliefs, desires” or we can adhere partially to them.
If you act counter to or partially counter to your beliefs, desires, etc, then you are either doing that for a reason or for no reason at all. If for no reason, you are not making free and rational choices. If for a reason, then your reasons are, once again, your beliefs, desires, etc. We can do this all day, but the answer is always the same.
Your challenge is to show how, for example, the Law of Non-contradiction eliminates free will.
No, the law of non-contradiction has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument.
To say “we’re not free to contradict a point we’ve affirmed and still maintain rational thought” does not eliminate free-will.
I've said nothing remotely like this. I have no idea where you would have gotten this from anything I've said. Can you find a quote in any of my posts that you think might have suggested this?
It only says “there are rules within which our freedom must act.” No, we do not need to create the rules of logic in order to use logic in free-will decision making. Again, you need to show how logic destroys our free will.
I'm afraid you've taken a turn here that I can't follow. I'm not talking about formal logic at all. People do not reason by formal logic (unless they are actually doing math or using other formal languages). It makes no difference to my argument if people's logic is valid or flawed. This is all just a red herring.
You have to show how free will is completely destroyed.
For the sort of free will I'm talking about - that is, free deliberative choices - I believe this argument I've presented has done exactly that.dogdoc_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

DogDoc, Your examples are merely showing limits to free will. You have to show how free will is completely destroyed. Using contradictory statements "I will believe what I don't believe" is not a destruction of free will. It's just irrationality. Nor is the idea that we have to have rules of logic in order to think rationally. Those are merely limits, within which our free will operates.Silver Asiatic_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Dog
Therefore we need to be able to freely choose our reasons. But that leads to an infinite regress. So we can’t.
Again, I pointed out that we do not need to freely create the first principles of reason, without which a rational thought is not possible. Those first principles are given and are merely the logical structures. Those structures do not eliminate freedom. Your challenge is to show how, for example, the Law of Non-contradiction eliminates free will. You haven't done that. To say "we're not free to contradict a point we've affirmed and still maintain rational thought" does not eliminate free-will. It only says "there are rules within which our freedom must act." No, we do not need to create the rules of logic in order to use logic in free-will decision making. Again, you need to show how logic destroys our free will.Silver Asiatic_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Dog Here's another problem:
I have shown that it is not possible to freely choose one’s beliefs, desires, etc because all free choices need to be based on beliefs, desires, etc.
You're using the term "based on" as if it means "equivalent of". But we can act counter to our "beliefs, desires" or we can adhere partially to them. So, we are free to choose how we use those prior beliefs and desires and that is not an infinite regress. We make that decision at the point of the free choice.Silver Asiatic_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

SA,
Those limits include the Law of Identity, the Law of Excluded Middle, etc. We didn’t create those first principles, but they are the beliefs we use for choices.
There are inumerable beliefs, desires, etc we use for our choices, like "I love dogs" or "You shouldn't eat meat" or "Jogging is boring" or "I hate brussel sprouts" or "It's not okay to cheat at poker"...
They do not eliminate free will but make rational thought possible.
Beliefs, desires, and all of the other aspects of our mentality make rational thought possible, yes. (Most people do not attempt to explicitly use propositions like "The Law of the Excluded Middle" in their everyday deliberations, but sure).
So yes, we don’t have unlimited freedom – we cannot violate the First Principles of Reason and still maintain rational thought – that’s just the way reality works.
We cannot do things for no reason and still make free choices - we've already agreed about that. Therefore we need to be able to freely choose our reasons. But that leads to an infinite regress. So we can't.dogdoc_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

One other thing to ponder about the impossibility of free will: I have shown that it is not possible to freely choose one's beliefs, desires, etc because all free choices need to be based on beliefs, desires, etc. , and so you have an infinite regress (or at least a regress from the moment you come into existence). But there are other reasons to doubt that we can freely choose our beliefs and desires. Just try it! Right now, try and choose to believe something you don't believe, like "Paris is the capitol of Italy" or "God is a ham sandwich" or "My name is Pablo Escobar". You can't actually do it, can you? The name for this is doxastic voluntarism, and there is certainly debate on the matter, and I don't really need to debate that to make my argument against free will here, but I would encourage you to think about it.dogdoc_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Dog
No, we can’t ultimately and freely choose our reasons. This is because in order to choose, say, belief A, you would already have to have some other belief B that was the reason for your choice.
All this is saying is that our choice is limited by the structure of reality. To make a rational choice, we have to have "some other belief" at the beginning - yes, the First Principles of Reason. We don't choose those beliefs, but they are not "our nature" - they're part of the reality that God has created. But saying that the First Principles of Logic eliminate free will is like saying being a contingent being limits our freedom. Of course it does - we depend on many things. But we have free will within the limits of our being. Those limits include the Law of Identity, the Law of Excluded Middle, etc. We didn't create those first principles, but they are the beliefs we use for choices. They do not eliminate free will but make rational thought possible. So yes, we don't have unlimited freedom - we cannot violate the First Principles of Reason and still maintain rational thought - that's just the way reality works. But those laws do not eliminate our capability to choose freely - they merely put our choices within limits.Silver Asiatic_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

SA,
You seem to be saying that having a reason for your choice thus eliminates freedom.
Yes, since we cannot ultimately choose our beliefs, desires, priorities, etc.
A free choice requires a reason.
Unless you consider random choices to be free, then yes, a free choice requires a reason (or reasons).
We can freely choose any number of reasons, for any number of reasons. There’s nothing deterministic about it.
Again, let's not talk about determinism. Instead, let's just talk about reason-responsiveness. If you do something for a reason, then it is reason-responsive, whether or not physical determinism is true. And if you do something for a reason, then that reason has to be some aspect of your nature - some set of beliefs, desires, etc. In order for your choice to be free, then, you must have be ultimately responsible for your beliefs, desires, etc. But you cannot be. Look at my previous example: Let's say I desire to do God's will, and believe that He wants me to feed the poor, so I decide to feed the poor. You would say I could have that desire and belief and still not choose to feed the poor. I would answer that your choice not to feed the poor would also be based on your (other) beliefs and desires and so on. There is nothing inside you that can possibly choose your beliefs, desires, etc. except other beliefs, desires, etc.
But the choice is not “caused” by beliefs, desires, emotions.
Again, my argument is orthogonal to issues of determinism and causality in general. I'm just talking about reason-responsiveness. If you do something for no reason, then you can act freely in that sense - perhaps even violating the laws of physics, if that's what you believe. But if you do act for a reason (or many different reasons), then your choices are not free, because you cannot ultimately choose your reasons.
You’re grouping every human characteristic under the concept “nature” and saying that’s the mechanism for the choice.
No, this is not correct. One's "nature" is simply what I've called the sum total of all of your beliefs, desires, priorities, values, commitments, etc etc etc etc etc at some given moment.
So in that view, the only way to make a free choice is to have no reason for it, since a reason would supposedly violate freedom.
You can act for no reason, and if you'd like to call that "free" then I won't argue. But to choose for some reason and still be free, you would need to freely choose your beliefs, desires, etc. ...and that is a logical impossibility...
But we freely choose reasons. They’re not given at birth. We actually freely create our own reasons.
No, we can't ultimately and freely choose our reasons. This is because in order to choose, say, belief A, you would already have to have some other belief B that was the reason for your choice. And before you chose to hold belief B, you would need to have chosen some other belief C, and so on, and so on. At no point could you freely choose, unless you chose for no reason at all.
The creative act can be spurred by, for example, a divine insight -the light of grace in answer to prayer. This transcends our “nature” entirely with an input beyond that.
If you choose to receive and follow - or not follow - this insight, your choice (like all of your choices) would necessarily follow from your beliefs, desires, etc.dogdoc_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Dog
We are not discussing determinism here, but rather reason-responsiveness.
What happens, however, usually we would have to say that if we don't have free will, then we have determinism. As you explained, we were born with a nature. We didn't choose our nature, it was just determined. Then every choice we made from that point was sourced in our nature (and in all subsequent choices), so we never had free choice. That's determinism.Silver Asiatic_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

SA
But if you do have a reason, then you are making that choice because of some belief, desire, preference, etc.
You seem to be saying that having a reason for your choice thus eliminates freedom. But I explained this already - it's a tautology. A free choice requires a reason. We can freely choose any number of reasons, for any number of reasons. There's nothing deterministic about it. You seem to be saying our "nature" causes the choice and therefore the choice is not free. But the choice is not "caused" by beliefs, desires, emotions. The choice is a free action of our rational intellect. We freely select from options. Of course we have reasons for selecting; whatever reasons we may want. We select the reason and then we select the option. You're grouping every human characteristic under the concept "nature" and saying that's the mechanism for the choice. So in that view, the only way to make a free choice is to have no reason for it, since a reason would supposedly violate freedom. But we freely choose reasons. They're not given at birth. We actually freely create our own reasons. The creative act can be spurred by, for example, a divine insight -the light of grace in answer to prayer. This transcends our "nature" entirely with an input beyond that. People invent things and create things through this freedom of will and choice. The fact that we have a "why" for the choice does not mean we weren't free to choose. The why is just part of the act of choosing. We were completely free to choose whatever for whatever reason.Silver Asiatic_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

KF, Unfortunately you seem to still be missing the point. We are not discussing determinism here, but rather reason-responsiveness.dogdoc_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

SA,
I’m facing a choice between A, B or C. The fact is, I can pick any one of them for any number of reasons. We cannot reduce the reason to one thing, such as the determined outcome of my background, desires, “nature” or whatever.
No, please read what I've written here. It is obviously NOT "one thing" that determines our choices; as I've said over and over again it is many many things - beliefs, desires, values, priorities, and on and on and on.
If we could, then we could predict what I would choose. But we can’t. In fact, even I can’t predict it.
I've already responded to this, but you've ignored my response. My view does not at all entail predictability, I don't even understand why you would say that.
I can choose the option I want the least.
If you decided to choose the option you wanted the least, you would either be making that choice for a reason, or for no reason at all. If you choose for no reason at all, then your behavior is random and not rational, and if you want to call that "free" then I won't argue. But if you do have a reason, then you are making that choice because of some belief, desire, preference, etc.dogdoc_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

WJM,
If I understand your argument correctly, your position is that no matter how far you go up the river of what self and “will” are, there is some reason we, in our mind, choose X and not Y. If there is no reason for that choice, it can only be a random occurrence.
Pretty much, yes.
As you point out, we are fully contextualized beings. We never find ourselves at some tabula rasa without any context, internal or eternal.
Yes, well said.
I’ve made the case some time ago here that what actually exists at the core of “self” and “will” is preference. Whether for direct or abstract preference, free will is indistinguishable from preference. Preference is directional; it is always points to enjoyment, whether direct or abstract; whether in the now or in the future; whether it is increased enjoyment or reduction of unenjoyable experience.
I could not agree more. I believe this may be what VividBleu is getting at as well.
IMO, free will is indistinguishable from preference, so the ultimate reason for all free will choices is preference, for all possible sentient beings because, ultimately, free will = preference. Preference is not generated by context; preference is discovered through context. It is the universal, fundamental reason for all free will choices, at least at the level of our mental intentions. Preference even drives the behavior of newborn children. It doesn’t even have to be a conscious decision. Preference drives us all.
Again this is exactly what I believe, all of it. However, I think that this is at odds with what most people believe that free will entails. For example, your view (and mine) is compatible with physical determinism.dogdoc_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Vivid,
It is our nature that determines our choices and since we did not choose our nature we do not have free will. I hope I am understanding you correctly.
Thank you so much for paraphrasing and testing your understanding, Vivid! Yes you have it generally correct, but let me clarify the way I'm using "our nature" here. I should not have used that word, I see, because it's being interpreted by some (despite my efforts to clarify) as some immutable, defining characteristic that we're born with. That is not at all what I mean. Rather, I mean nothing more than "the way you are" - your beliefs, desires, values, priorities, commitments, hopes, fears, etc etc; in other words, any aspect of your being that may affect your deliberative choices, and which can continuously change as you learn, experience, and see the results of your previous choices.
I much prefer what I consider to be a more precise description which is free choice.My definition of a free choice is the ability to choose what I MOST WANT at the time the choice is made given the options available to me when the choice is made.
That's fine. Given your definition of "free choice", I believe we all exercise free choices. (In fact, it is my belief that our choices always and inevitably follow from what we most want, but let us not go off on that tangent, because people have a very hard time accepting that. Instead, they insist that they do things they don't want and refrain from doing other things that they do want because of things like God's commandments or other moral imperatives - not realizing that it is simply that they want to follow those things more than the temptations they resist!)
Now you IMO rightly point out that what determines what I will most want is determined by my nature and since I did not choose my nature my choices are not free. So far so good?
Yes, given the clarification about "nature" above, that is exactly my argument. Thanks again for your clarity.dogdoc_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

DD: You need to define what you mean by “it” (free will) before you decide what can or can’t be proven.
My idea of free will is that we are free to make a decision independent of any precursor input that would dictate that choice. Since it would be impossible to control for all possible inputs I don’t see how we could prove that it exists. Conversely, For the same reason, I don’t think we can prove that it doesn’t exist. We all certainly believe that we have free will in the choices we make, but it is possible that this is just a delusion.Scamp_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

WJM
Preference is not generated by context; preference is discovered through context.
I would support that as long as we're not saying "we are pre-determined to choose what we prefer". Through free-will, on the other hand - as you say, we discover our preference. That's where the freedom comes in. We can even choose the things that we are least attracted to.Silver Asiatic_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

I'm facing a choice between A, B or C. The fact is, I can pick any one of them for any number of reasons. We cannot reduce the reason to one thing, such as the determined outcome of my background, desires, "nature" or whatever. If we could, then we could predict what I would choose. But we can't. In fact, even I can't predict it. I can choose the option I want the least. If we said, "your choice will always be what you desire", that doesn't add much. It's just saying "whatever you choose, you wanted to choose that, even if you didn't want what the choice provided". We have free will because there's no absolute hierarchy of values that we must use to make the choice. If you could tell me now which I would pick: A, B or C and for what reason - that would be evidence of determinism.Silver Asiatic_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

I think the fact that we conceive arrays of possible choices for any given situation seals the deal for some free will. Andrewasauber_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Dogdoc, If I understand your argument correctly, your position is that no matter how far you go up the river of what self and "will" are, there is some reason we, in our mind, choose X and not Y. If there is no reason for that choice, it can only be a random occurrence. As you point out, we are fully contextualized beings. We never find ourselves at some tabula rasa without any context, internal or eternal. I've made the case some time ago here that what actually exists at the core of "self" and "will" is preference. Whether for direct or abstract preference, free will is indistinguishable from preference. Preference is directional; it is always points to enjoyment, whether direct or abstract; whether in the now or in the future; whether it is increased enjoyment or reduction of unenjoyable experience. IMO, free will is indistinguishable from preference, so the ultimate reason for all free will choices is preference, for all possible sentient beings because, ultimately, free will = preference. Preference is not generated by context; preference is discovered through context. It is the universal, fundamental reason for all free will choices, at least at the level of our mental intentions. Preference even drives the behavior of newborn children. It doesn't even have to be a conscious decision. Preference drives us all.William J Murray_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Vivid (& attn DD et al):
“3) In order for one’s choice to be free, therefore, one must have freely chosen one’s own nature.” “5) Since we cannot freely choose our natures, and our deliberative choices depend on our natures, we do not have free will”.
A contrived, fallacious rhetorical gambit, designed to try to stir a faux objection to the gift of responsible, rational freedom. Indeed, guess what, that in 3 it is identified that one wishes to CHOOSE -- here, one's nature -- the argument is instantly self referentially self defeating. Guess what endowment, embedded in our nature, enables us to make the sort of free, real choice being put up? If you guessed, responsible, rational freedom, you got it in one go. So, 5 pivoting on a self defeating 3, the argument not only fails, it collapses. How it does so, draws out the branch on which we sit antecedent nature of our responsible, rational freedom. KFkairosfocus_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT}

DD, the point applies to any species of determinism even if softened by stochastic phenomena. Indeed, it applies to hypercalvinism. Determinism locks out the freedom to freely choose, including, going with a responsible judgement on pondering evidence, logic and comparative assumptions etc. Further to which, responsible, rational, conscience guided, morally governed significant freedom of the self moved person is not proved. It is antecedent to proof, being a matter of branch on which we all sit. KFkairosfocus_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT}

Dog “3) In order for one’s choice to be free, therefore, one must have freely chosen one’s own nature.” “5) Since we cannot freely choose our natures, and our deliberative choices depend on our natures, we do not have free will”. The above seems to be the heart of the argument, everything else is pretty much agreed by all. It is our nature that determines our choices and since we did not choose our nature we do not have free will. I hope I am understanding you correctly. I would first disclose that I do not like the term “free will” as I think it is an oxymoron. I see the will somewhat like a steering wheel on a car with myself as the driver of the car.Sometimes the car is in park and the will is inert , when in drive mode I turn the steering wheel this way and that. However if I don’t do anything the will is inert. At no time is the will, (the steering wheel) free from me , if not free from me the term free will is more like unfree will. I much prefer what I consider to be a more precise description which is free choice.My definition of a free choice is the ability to choose what I MOST WANT at the time the choice is made given the options available to me when the choice is made. Now you IMO rightly point out that what determines what I will most want is determined by my nature and since I did not choose my nature my choices are not free. So far so good? Vividvividbleau_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

KF,
DD, if your arguments are predetermined by non rational forces...
You have read none of what I've written; you are not even remotely close to understanding my position.dogdoc_{March 17, 2022
March
03
Mar
17
17
2022
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

Scamp,
I find that arguments about free will are pointless. You can’t prove that it exists and you can’t prove that it doesn’t.
You need to define what you mean by "it" (free will) before you decide what can or can't be proven. Some compatibilist definitions describe free will as something that uncontroversially exists, for example, such as "reason-responsive choices".
Free will is something we either take on faith, or we don’t. It can no more be proven that the existence or non existence of God. All of the ridiculous claims of “warrant” don’t change this.
My argument doesn't invoke any notion of warrant; it's a logical argument. Essentially, I'm just pointing out that our decisions result from our selves, so in order for choices to be free we must freely choose our selves. But we can't do that, since before we choose our self we would have to have some self to make the choice, based upon reasons over which we had no control.dogdoc_{March 17, 2022
March
03
Mar
17
17
2022
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply