Free Will Is An Illusion, But Freedom Isn’t

[Philosophy Now]

Ching-Hung Woo says freedom is compatible with choices being determined.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/112/Fr ... eedom_Isnt

[Dalek Prime]

Free will within limited choices that are somewhat determined externally (and to some extant, internally, based on our makeup and predispositions). And within that framework, 'freedom' is quite compatible, yes.

[jayjacobus]

The universe formed and operates under many, many conditions making determinism impractical. To make it more difficult many animals interpret conditions before they act. In other words they control their own actions with certain constraints. To make it more difficult people behave selectively to their conditions. In other words they control their own actions by intent.

[A_Seagull]

Ching-Hung Woo writes: "All the events in the world, however, obey the law of physics, including those that happen inside a brain."

This is an entirely speculative assertion. Events in the world do NOT obey the laws of physics. The known laws of physics are no more than a description of the empirical data received from some events. There is no evidence nor valid logical argument for the assertion that events "obey" the laws of physics.

[JSS]

Ching-Hung Woo writes: "All the events in the world, however, obey the law of physics, including those that happen inside a brain."

This is an entirely speculative assertion. Events in the world do NOT obey the laws of physics. The known laws of physics are no more than a description of the empirical data received from some events. There is no evidence nor valid logical argument for the assertion that events "obey" the laws of physics.

That is merely a trite semantics issue. The word "obey" in that context merely refers to "conforming to the description". It is a common and valid usage.

[A_Seagull]

Ching-Hung Woo writes: "All the events in the world, however, obey the law of physics, including those that happen inside a brain."

This is an entirely speculative assertion. Events in the world do NOT obey the laws of physics. The known laws of physics are no more than a description of the empirical data received from some events. There is no evidence nor valid logical argument for the assertion that events "obey" the laws of physics.

That is merely a trite semantics issue. The word "obey" in that context merely refers to "conforming to the description". It is a common and valid usage.

Well, you may not grasp the difference, but the distinction is highly relevant to this thread.

[JSS]

Well, you may not grasp the difference, but the distinction is highly relevant to this thread.

Not legitimately.

The whole "free-will" issue is just a mind game anyway (best ignored).

[Obvious Leo]

Ching-Hung Woo writes: "All the events in the world, however, obey the law of physics, including those that happen inside a brain."

This is an entirely speculative assertion. Events in the world do NOT obey the laws of physics. The known laws of physics are no more than a description of the empirical data received from some events. There is no evidence nor valid logical argument for the assertion that events "obey" the laws of physics.

Nicely put. There's no such thing as the bloody "laws of physics", merely models of physics which are nothing more than mathematical tools specifically designed to codify theories about the physical world which are based on observations of it. To define such a codification procedure in terms of physical laws is completely tautologous.

Ching-Hung Woo writes: "All the events in the world, however, obey the law of physics, including those that happen inside a brain."

This is an entirely speculative assertion. Events in the world do NOT obey the laws of physics. The known laws of physics are no more than a description of the empirical data received from some events. There is no evidence nor valid logical argument for the assertion that events "obey" the laws of physics.

That is merely a trite semantics issue. The word "obey" in that context merely refers to "conforming to the description". It is a common and valid usage.

Well, you may not grasp the difference, but the distinction is highly relevant to this thread.

Too bloody right it is. It makes the difference between being mindless automatons and puppets in a Laplacian nightmare or autonomous living beings.

[attofishpi]

In my opinion, the ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form. The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.

[Obvious Leo]

In my opinion, the ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form. The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.

You misunderstand the true nature of determinism, atto, by conflating it with the pre-determinism which a law-mandated universe suggests. If we regard matter and energy as SELF-determining into embedded hierarchies of complexity then cause and effect operates both top-down and bottom-up between these causal domains. For example two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen will produce a water molecule and under certain precisely prescribed external conditions an aggregate of these molecules will display the EMERGENT property of wetness. We can say that the behaviour of the constituent atoms under these conditions has CAUSED the water to be wet. However this property of wetness then becomes a causal agent in its own right which in turn CAUSES the hydrogen and oxygen atoms within the molecules to behave in a specific and particular way. Gaseous water and solid water are also caused by the behaviour of the same constituent atoms operating under different external conditions and these different phase states of the emergent molecules are causal agents which in turn cause their constituent atoms to behave differently from the way they would in wet water. The behaviour of the constituent atoms of water thus CAUSE the emergent properties of the molecule to emerge and these emergent properties of the molecule then determine the future behaviour of the atoms in a continuous top-down and bottom-up causal loop which defines the molecule as being a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

This general principle of emergence applies throughout all the various hierarchies of physical reality, including those hierarchies which operate within human consciousness. We can say that our emergent mental states are determined by the behaviour of the matter and energy which embodies our cognition but this emergent property of consciousness then itself becomes a causal agent which in part determines the future behaviour of the matter and energy which encode for it. It's the same deal as the water molecule. Consciousness is both causER and causEE in a continuous cause and effect dynamic.

[attofishpi]

In my opinion, the ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form. The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.

You misunderstand the true nature of determinism, atto, by conflating it with the pre-determinism which a law-mandated universe suggests. If we regard matter and energy as SELF-determining into embedded hierarchies of complexity then cause and effect operates both top-down and bottom-up between these causal domains. For example two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen will produce a water molecule and under certain precisely prescribed external conditions an aggregate of these molecules will display the EMERGENT property of wetness. We can say that the behaviour of the constituent atoms under these conditions has CAUSED the water to be wet. However this property of wetness then becomes a causal agent in its own right which in turn CAUSES the hydrogen and oxygen atoms within the molecules to behave in a specific and particular way. Gaseous water and solid water are also caused by the behaviour of the same constituent atoms operating under different external conditions and these different phase states of the emergent molecules are causal agents which in turn cause their constituent atoms to behave differently from the way they would in wet water. The behaviour of the constituent atoms of water thus CAUSE the emergent properties of the molecule to emerge and these emergent properties of the molecule then determine the future behaviour of the atoms in a continuous top-down and bottom-up causal loop which defines the molecule as being a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

This general principle of emergence applies throughout all the various hierarchies of physical reality, including those hierarchies which operate within human consciousness. We can say that our emergent mental states are determined by the behaviour of the matter and energy which embodies our cognition but this emergent property of consciousness then itself becomes a causal agent which in part determines the future behaviour of the matter and energy which encode for it. It's the same deal as the water molecule. Consciousness is both causER and causEE in a continuous cause and effect dynamic.

You are very concise Leo, and i appreciate your time in explaining the different considerations of 'determinism'.
My statement perhaps should not have been placed in this thread as i have not had a chance to read the article and barely a paragraph on WIKI on 'determinism', but i am not actually talking about determinism...that was Hobbes's thread.
Here i am merely stating that ...well, does cause and effect result in a Toshiba laptop, or is that beyond a 'natural' agent of cause and effect? That the things that an intelligent species such as us create become lesser identified as natural outcomes of cause and effect.
And i think this is the point of the thread regarding free-will being an illusion, ultimately everything has a cause and effect thus ultimately our endeavours and creations as sentient beings, are a natural result of causality....however, as per my statement...i consider them 'less' natural.

[Obvious Leo]

Atto. You seem to have understood the distinction quite well. There are two different kinds of determinism, Linear determinism is where a physical system behaves in a particular way because that's the way it's been designed to behave, and your Toshiba laptop is a good example. A laptop computer needs a mind to design it and cannot evolve naturally in the physical universe because it confers no survival advantage on itself by doing so.

Non-linear determinism doesn't work that way. Non-linear determinism is more commonly known as CHAOTIC determinism, which is an unfortunate choice of language because many people conflate chaos with randomness. Chaotic systems are anything but random, the weather being a good example. Chaotic systems are entirely deterministic but they are exclusively self-determining according to no pre-defined plan or blueprint. A chaotically determined system quite literally makes it up as it goes along but the signature feature of ALL such systems is that they evolve from the simple to the complex through the agency of no physical law whatsoever beyond the universal doctrine of causality. As long as effects are always preceded by causes in an orderly and generative fashion then the universe will continue to evolve ever more complex physical structures within itself for the simple reason that it cannot do otherwise. Life and mind must therefore be regarded as mandated outcomes of such a process but that such a mandated outcome should express itself in the form of US is just an accident of circumstance. If it wasn't homo sapiens who managed to clamber his way to the top of the tree of sentience on our planet then some other species would have, OR NOT.

"Complexity from chaos" is a very well understood principle in philosophy and I would highly recommend some further homework on this subject to your interest. However it may not be to your conceptual taste because it's a god-killer which completely obliterates the notion of a creator as a necessary being to account for either your own existence or the existence of the universe itself.

[julia7694]

Chance, in physics, is a mathematical construct. We call it probability.

Physics has as much to do with defining philosophy as chemistry. Sodium bicarbonate explains the human condition as effectively as the observation effect or, ya know, baking soda. And quantum anything.... a simple, abridged dictionary should make that misuse of language obvious.

If you must be all intellectual and use physics in your free will philosophy then use real physics. If you do not have a mathematical equation you do not have physics. Physics is math. The words you use are very much neither.

[attofishpi]

"Complexity from chaos" is a very well understood principle in philosophy and I would highly recommend some further homework on this subject to your interest. However it may not be to your conceptual taste because it's a god-killer which completely obliterates the notion of a creator as a necessary being to account for either your own existence or the existence of the universe itself.

Regardless, once one actually knows there is a God\'God' the only thing understanding such a principle could therefore address is an alternative to our actual reality.

[Obvious Leo]

"Complexity from chaos" is a very well understood principle in philosophy and I would highly recommend some further homework on this subject to your interest. However it may not be to your conceptual taste because it's a god-killer which completely obliterates the notion of a creator as a necessary being to account for either your own existence or the existence of the universe itself.

Regardless, once one actually knows there is a God\'God' the only thing understanding such a principle could therefore address is an alternative to our actual reality.

Ultimately this is so. Either the universe is eternal and therefore sufficient to its own existence or it is an artefact created at the whim of an external causal agent. Neither proposition is provable according to the rules of formal logic and since empirical evidence can only be obtained from within the universe itself neither is either hypothesis scientifically testable. Therefore it's one of those questions which lies beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry, atto, so I guess we just pays our money and takes our choice.