neuro » August 23rd, 2017, 8:19 am wrote:I have the impression that thinker4life takes any objection to his "proof" of free will as an argument against free will.
I think this should be made clear to him: if one finds a flaw in his reasoning, that does not mean they do not believe that free will is possible; they simply do not believe thinker4life has "proven" it.
not my impression at all. Mitchel had concerns with my proof but believes in free will. I understand someone could believe in free will and still find fault in my proof, and welcome them to try. Anyone trying to shoot holes in my proof will only either make it stronger or prove me wrong, either result I'm happy with because I've learned something. If I didn't want criticism I wouldn't share it openly.
In addition to this, I would like to offer two considerations:
1. The (B) part of thinker4life's definition of free will ("B) A being’s conscious effort to make one of them more likely has a statistical impact on the likely outcome of which possibility the being experiences. In layman’s terms, if you choose to try to do something, it's more likely to happen.") is not a definition of "free will", it simply is a definition of "will": a conscious agent has the possibility to change the probabilities of the outcomes of a situation. This has nothing to do with their "will" being "free".
So, the definition begs the point: "free(?) will is based on the fact that will can change the set of probabilities".
If the "effort" actually arises from an internal fight among physiological and neurological processes and drives, then the "choice" is caused by something that cannot be called "free" will.
The "conscious effort" may simply be a feeling that arises from the fact that some of the drives that are in conflict are more "elevate" or "moral" or "noble", and therefore appear to be (more "mine" and) heroically struggling against more instinctual drives.
Neuro - I think what you're saying is that my proof may be right, but people could dispute whether my definition of free will really is a definition of free will at all. They may call what I've proven something other than free will. Specifically you say: "If the "effort" actually arises from an internal fight among physiological and neurological processes and drives, then the "choice" is caused by something that cannot be called "free" will."
I would say my definition not only does not preclude that there is a fight amongst physiological and neurological processes and drives, I'd argue that to preclude them would be silly, we know that physical and neurological processes and drives influence at the very least the probability cloud of what is possible, and in turn at the very least what free will decisions can be made within the probability cloud of what's possible. Whether they influence the will or not itself I have neither proven nor pretend to know. I don't understand why you say that "neurological and physiological processes and drives" being involved would preclude free will. If those processes are non-deterministic, my proof and definition are sound... and you can call a non-deterministic self-perceiving entities "decisions" something other than "free will" if you choose, I've just defined it as free will because it seems like a logical definition to me.
if you agree that I have proven the world is non-deterministic, and you agree I have proven that "something" "non-deterministic" "causes" probabailistic outcomes to be more likely or less likely, I honestly don't care if you want to call it something other than free will. That was all I have proven. If you'd like to take my definition of free will and define it as "illusion of free will," you're more than welcome to call it that. For me, the definition I provided is how I define free will. Its possible that you will interpret the findings of the two statements I've proven true have some other definition you prefer to attach to them other than free will. You have the free will (by my definition) to call it whatever you want :-)
2. The scepticism of most people here on thinker4life's "proof" is not a negation of free will, but rather a feeling of uncertainty and inconsistency that goes back to Schopenauer and any moral philosopher or psychologist after him. I believe it is important to understand the anguish that hit him in considering that:
Everything presses and strives towards existence…Let any one consider this universal desire for life, let him see the infinite willingness, facility, and exuberance with which the will to live presses impetuously into existence under a million forms everywhere and at every moment… In such phenomena, then, it becomes visible that I am right in declaring that the will to live is that which cannot be further explained, but lies at the foundation of all explanation… (Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation)
and that this same will can be felt inside ourselves as an irresistible force, which however we can not and could never win, because man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.
Studies of Buddhist monks show that they can cultivate their thoughts so that they actually control what thoughts arise... Which I believe would refute your claim that a man can't will what he wills. If you want me to look up studies because this is unfamiliar territory to you let me know and I'll do some internet crawling to support my claims.
I can do what I will: I can, if I will, give everything I have to the poor and thus become poor myself—if I will! But I cannot will this, because the opposing motives have much too much power over me for me to be able to. On the other hand, if I had a different character, even to the extent that I were a saint, then I would be able to will it. But then I could not keep from willing it, and hence I would have to do so.
In conclusion, thinker4life, either you prove that you can will what you will, or you won't have proven FREE will.
And this is the reason why I believe the title of this thread makes a lot of sense: I do not believe it is an all-or-none matter.
I agree with you Neuro, I don't think its an all or nothing matter. I believe free will is limited to:
A) A choice amongst a set of probabilistically likely outcomes made possible by nature and nurture (the laws of physics) (The idea of unlimited free will (I believe called liberatarian free will?), is easily discarded if you realize you can't bend a spoon with your mind)
B) Those who believe they have it (those who don't simply do what comes most naturally to them, they don't exhibit the force of will and simply choose the most probabilistically likely decision in any given situation)
The reason I wrote the proof is I don't like to see people doing B... Sometimes it can result in people being satisfied with a less happy life because they haven't put forth their best effort. My goal in sharing the proof with people is to inspire people to use the strength of their will to do good in the world, for themselves and for society. I think if people know they can significantly shape their own future, it is empowering. My primary goal in life is to empower others, so this paper is right on point with that goal.
To address the quandary you mention, you're sort of evaluating the person after the fact and saying they must have made that decision. That's not quite a logical way to approach it. Let me explain:
Many people have acquired large amounts of wealth. Some have chosen to donate even as much as billions of dollars of their wealth, to the point that they have a modest few hundred million left (the founder of the Duty Free stores we see in airpots donated almost all of his wealth to charity, for example). Was he born a saint, or did he choose to be giving? I'd argue my proof says he had both the option to be like the people who have earned considerable wealth and don't make donations, or to make the donations, he chose to make the donations. Once he's made that decision you can call him a saint because he gave up much of his wealth, but society shows us not everyone makes that choice. So there are two possibilities:
1) Either the choices people make are ultimately pre-determined by the laws of physics (determinism)
or
2) The choices people make are non-deterministic decisions made by sentient beings.
I think I've proven that #2 is true. But again you're welcome to refute any part of my proof if you'd like. I will patch up any holes you shoot in it that I can, or admit it's wrong if I can't patch it up. I'm not afraid to be wrong, I've been wrong many times in my life and will be many more... Its just that on this particular topic, no one has given a convincing argument as to why free will doesn't exist flat out that Mitch or I were unable to clearly refute, and I have what I think is a very logical (albeit slightly complex, requiring a little linear algebra knowledge) proof of the two statements that I use to define my version of free will. So for now I stand by my claims, but I welcome any and all arguments to the contrary.
I like our conversations much better when I don't take things personally... Its a personal goal to take criticism less personally, and I think I got caught up in that earlier... Trying to do better let me know if I'm succeeding.
Kind regards,
Thinker4Life