FREE WILL FROM THE GROUND UP

Humanism
81
GdB, it may be irritating but I get more out of you every time. :) thanks
Glad to hear.
But this undeniably active, self-modulating self, a powerful causal influence in its own right, is all traceable back to non-self factors {Wait a moment, we exert a powerful causal influence, that effects factors that feedback to us. If I influence situations that are then deterministic in my life and future - isn't that a valuable exercise of free will? }
Of course it is. But incompatibilist determinists will say here that all you do is caused in its turn, and therefore does not count as free will. But in that sense nothing causes anything: every cause has a cause again. However, if you allow to identify causes (the bush fire was caused by a thrown away burning cigarette), then why should you not identify a decision as a cause?
– it isn’t literally self-creating in a way that owes itself to my choices.{When we live in a universe where nothing is immune from outside influence what good is such a statement? It informs nothing, imho - What does it inform?}
Nothing. It is just boring. But we must see that there is definitely a huge difference e.g. between a log of wood floating down the river, and a fish swimming upstream. The fish has some control on his environment. My CFW contrahents fail to differentiate between this just being caused, like the log, and having complex causal structures, like a fish, that allows for much more complicated reactions. Humans are very conscious of the possible immediate effects of their actions, and therefore are able to very complex behaviour. If their actions reflect their own wishes and desires they are free; if their actions are coerced they are not free. But both kind of actions are of course completely caused.
{Why does being a participant in a huge causal web negate free will?}
No idea. Ask Lois, or VYAZMA. They take it for granted that being a participant in a huge causal web, i.e. being determined, means there is no free will. An interesting view point might be the following: the log of wood is part of the same huge causal web as we are. However, we have a much greater and more complex part of this huge causal web in our selves. We can recognise them as desires, feelings, motives, reasons, belief, wishes etc etc. And these express themselves as causes for actions. Lois refuses to differentiate between all these causes and its complexities, to see that we can speak of control, even when wishes and beliefs are caused in themselves. She has not answered any of these questions that I, or Stephen asked her, e.g. how Lois distinguishes between a 'gun-point' wedding and a wedding based on mutual love; or my question ho she distinguishes between and old woman giving money to a robber or to her grand child. Or the question why being determined and being in control exclude each other (example of a thermostat).
82

Thanks for the comments I’ll chew on them, but don’t have anything to add there. …. but looks like I had plenty to ramble on about.
Well I finished one project, then on the way to another (to me) important writing project I been needing to finish,
I found myself listening to another guy’s take on determinism / free will

Determinism and Free Will Part (1/3) tumbleweedjoe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e13avJ0djgc
Looks like the cosmos forced me back to these considerations, or as Flip would put it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kaiLcwHXB4 But seriously, it struck me that my issue might have more to do with my "frame of reference" than anything else. I'm getting the feeling that perhaps what's irritating me when I heard terms like "forced" - is that it's such a totally ego-centric perspective, still trying to explain or justify "my" place in this universe. When I got past that in my twenties. Being quiet, introspective I was always sort of a freakster, on the outsider looking in - but more than that, the world I was looking in on seemed off to me, not quite right in the head so to speak. It had priorities that made no sense to me, as I grew I watched it repeat mistakes, and whereas mechanical disasters are examined and learned from our religious and political and ecological mistakes have been repeating themselves generation after generation without any disasters being examined and learned from. Back to the early years when I was developing into a man, while the world around me sort of repulsed me, I also had to navigate it just like everyone else, and being fully on my own financially with zero bank roll, it was work and succeed or be a bum and die … ...while striving to stay true to myself {way later J. Campbell's "follow your bliss" with bliss equaling perfecting your particular being - rang like bell when I heard it}. Here it got interesting for me, being blessed with fitness and presentability and my need to work and earn money I wound up in positions and situations that aren't usually open to most of my introspective disposition/nature, or my cash bracket. To keep a long story short, I became familiar with the deterministic nature of life and events because I dwelt on it and observing myself (behavior, emotions, good and bad), others and life's situations as they flowed on by. One early helpful insight was that the notion that we should date around a lot because "anyone could be that 'right girl" - was wrong. I recognized that only a certain small spectrum of gals would truly mesh with me. I really do love women, always have, and that realization helped free me and allow me to early on develop and enjoy friendships with woman on all sorts of levels - because from the onset I recognized the difference between a friend, a sister, or a partner and tried not to kid myself. By recognizing and working with those determining factors I was able to experience a richer all around fulfilling constellation of personal experiences - way more than I could have focusing on my shyness and frustrations in frantic efforts to overcome it. Somehow I knew it would work itself out and it certainly did. In later decades I came to realize I been doing a thing I call "strategic shyness." Another way of forcing my free will onto a forced deterministic world, thus bending it towards my desires. ;-) Finding freedom within your shackles. Now with 60 knocking on my door I can't look out from myself as though I were a point in space with the world around me. I'm on a continuum that goes way beyond my person, and when I hear stuff like "forced" and "if everything were exactly the same you would do the same thing" it feels like contrived kids talk, and when I stop to take all this really seriously, the various arguments still rings flat. Like why are we still struggling with this? But then most the world's population believes in Mr. Big Eyes looking down on them and that this planet's not worth any sacrifices, so who am I kidding.
83

OK here’s a question,
If my deliberate actions has influences the direction of the future deterministic universe and choices it opens up to me,
haven’t I exercised my free will upon the background deterministic universe?

84
{Where does all this leave the person who believes free will is the exercise of our influence over deterministic factors} I leaves that person in the irrational beliefs category. He or she has lots of company. Irrational beliefs love company. Lois
If you have no influence over your determining factors your nothing but a machine. And what if we are? What then. Will you kill yourself for having that knowledge? Well, no, you couldn't unless you are determined to do so. Mind you there is a difference between "influencing" and "controlling". Actually there isn't. We can't know if our conscious sense of influence has any impact on our determing factors. Another thing we can't know and have no control over. We can consciously try to have influence, but if our determining factors won't accept the influence, nothing will happen.
Living creature who are machines and are determined in 100% of their reactions no differently than their chemical reaction will be when we are rotting in the ground.
Right the complexity of human anatomy and human life is no different than a chemical reaction. Like that's going to help anyone understand anything. It won't. And what of it? Is there some "rule" of humanity that says we have to understand anything? We have no control over "understanding," any more than we have control over anything else. We can think we understand something but we are just as likely as not to have it all wrong. What then? Who are you going to complain to?
85
OK here's a question, If my deliberate actions has influences the direction of the future deterministic universe and choices it opens up to me, haven't I exercised my free will upon the background deterministic universe?
You actually have no deliberate actions because they are all determined ahead of time. You just think you do. If your actions happen to influence the future deterministic universe and what you think of as "choices" open to you, you will never know it. Your actions may or may not influence the deterministic universe. The point is you have no control over which actions are going to influence the future universe and which are not. You're just blowing into the wind. We all are. Think of it this way. You are watching a movie (life). You think that if you clench your fists really hard every time the hero is in trouble, he will get out of the trouble unscathed. Sometimes it seems to "work," so you decide that your fist clenching is "influencing" the unfolding of the "movie." Only the "movie" has already been made and nothing you do can change anything. But you want to think your actions have influence so you continue clenchimg your fists and the hero keeps on getting out of trouble sometimes. You don't want to be told you have no influence because you have decided that would be depressing, so you continue to believe you have it. Now in the real unverse some of your actions may have some influence on tomorrow's "movie" because it hasn't been made yet, but you can't know whether your actions are going to influence it, which ones might influence it, how they will influence it, or how much. Lois
86
You actually have no deliberate actions because they are all determined ahead of time. Lois
This doesn't follow Lois. It makes as much sense as saying the rain doesn't make the grass wet because it's determined ahead of time.
87
OK here's a question, If my deliberate actions has influences the direction of the future deterministic universe and choices it opens up to me, haven't I exercised my free will upon the background deterministic universe?
It's difficult to know what you mean. Here are a couple of definitions of free will: Libertarian free will is: Could have done otherwise without the need for circumstances beyond our control to have been different. Compatibilist free will is: Able to do what we want. 1) is impossible and there is not enough information to know about 2) It's all about how you could have deliberately acted differently. So I suggest starting with the basics. Back to the golf ball is the best approach. The meaning of 'could have' won't change between you and the golf ball. So what did Dawn mean by "that golf ball could have killed me" ?
88

Hi CitizensC.pm,
It is difficult for me to flesh out the philosophical questions you have in your life stories. Maybe we should go somewhere for a beer (or coffee) and have some longer dialogue. Poor enough I assume there are a few thousands of miles between us…
I give just a few reactions on some points risen by you and Lois.
In one point Lois is right: we are machines. The problem in this however is not ‘machine’ but what is in front of it. In your case ‘nothing but’. (Others add ‘just’ in front of it.) Yes, we are machines: but incredible complicated, and very, very subtle machines. It is true, we are acting and moving according the same laws of nature as anything is. But for that reason, are e.g. a steam engine and a computer in fact just the same? Can you run a cosmological simulation on a steam engine? Compare it with a falling stone and a falling person. Both fall exactly according the laws of free fall. Does that mean we are just stones? Lois (an VYAZMA and others) make abstractions of the world exactly so that what is relevant drops out: our incredible spectrum of behaviour and consciousness. And the spectrum of behaviour of a steam engine is small, very small.
But, interesting enough, even a steam engine has some control on its ‘determining factors’: the centrifugal governor ]regulates the incoming energy of the steam engine, so that it will not run too fast. This is true for every servomechanism]. By negative feedback it takes control on its own input. So maybe I should revise my viewpoint in this respect, and take Lois’ cookie away. There are many examples of systems that have control over their determining factors. Living organisms are full of it. Self-moving organisms (animals) are even more full of it. Animals that can reflect on their internal states are even more full of it. We have an astonishing influence on our determining factors. We can avoid them (coldness): we can create them (warmth). We can runaway for them, or go for them.
But: all these feedback loops are just as determined as everything else, and, it is true, we have no direct influence on their workings. But that we have no control over them does not mean we have no control at all. Having at least some control is everything about being an organism.
Now let’s take the Lois’ movie example. I choose for a little bit more boring movie (it is an art house movie :smirk: ). Scene: a man sits in a restaurant. We’ve seen him in some previous scene, he is allergic on peanuts. Now the man chooses something to eat, and he takes some Asian dish, unaware that there are peanuts in it, but we know that. Of course, it is a scene in a movie, so we can’t do anything. But in reality, we can: if we are there with him we can say to him: “But there are peanuts in it”. So our action has influence. Our intention to avoid harm for him, has influence.
What Lois’ describes in her movie example is fatalism: whatever you think feel or do, it will change nothing. And in the radical philosophical sense this is just not true. Our decisions change the course of events. And our wishes and beliefs determine our actions. Lois’ example falls apart completely. When our actions are determined by our own wishes and beliefs, we are free. Said otherwise: when my will is determined by my own wishes and beliefs, then it is my free will.

89

I didn’t have time for this, but heading out the door, the cosmos smacked me in the head yet again and another U-turn.
(GdB haven’t had time to read any of that, later) I just need to spit this out while it’s in my head.

My life is a creative act and I am an active participant in forming the arc of that act.
I may not know the result of my actions, but I can set the tone and direction, and if I live in each day, as true to the ethics and standards I have set for myself,
I always figured tomorrow would take of itself.
And now with six decades behind me I'm looking back thinking holy poop who'd have ever imagined what a wonder adventure it turned into.
But, it's what I wanted and strove for and now realize I received in spades.
I am an active creative force in that/my pageant.
I didn't "control" anything, I influenced everything.
Determinism isn't forced on me any more <span style="color:green">(or less)</span> than water is forced on a fish.
<em>Does any of that make sense,</em>
<span style="color:green"><span style="font-size:.75em">{edit - kicked myself all day for leaving out that detail}</span></span>
90
I didn't have time for this, but heading out the door, the cosmos smacked me in the head yet again and another U-turn. (GdB haven't had time to read any of that, later) I just need to spit this out while it's in my head. ~~~~~~~~~~ My life is a creative act and I am an active participant in forming the arc of that act. I may not know the result of my actions, but I can set the tone and direction, and if I live in each day, as true to the ethics and standards I have set for myself, I always figured tomorrow would take of itself. And now with six decades behind me I'm looking back thinking holy poop who'd have ever imagined what a wonder adventure it turned into. But, it's what I wanted and strove for and now realize I received in spades. I am an active creative force in that/my pageant. I didn't "control" anything, I influenced everything. Determinism isn't forced on me any more than water is forced on a fish. Does any of that make sense,
That all makes sense as long as its in the spirit of you might have had appropriately different determinants and if you had you would be receiving mysery as a result of your choices. Bottom line is you didn't radically make yourself, every step of the way youve been lucky or unlucky to be who you are and therefore act as you do.
91
I didn't have time for this, but heading out the door, the cosmos smacked me in the head yet again and another U-turn. (GdB haven't had time to read any of that, later) I just need to spit this out while it's in my head. ~~~~~~~~~~ My life is a creative act and I am an active participant in forming the arc of that act. I may not know the result of my actions, but I can set the tone and direction, and if I live in each day, as true to the ethics and standards I have set for myself, I always figured tomorrow would take of itself. And now with six decades behind me I'm looking back thinking holy poop who'd have ever imagined what a wonder adventure it turned into. But, it's what I wanted and strove for and now realize I received in spades. I am an active creative force in that/my pageant. I didn't "control" anything, I influenced everything. Determinism isn't forced on me any more than water is forced on a fish. Does any of that make sense,
No. Lois
92
You actually have no deliberate actions because they are all determined ahead of time. Lois
This doesn't follow Lois. It makes as much sense as saying the rain doesn't make the grass wet because it's determined ahead of time. No, it does make sense. Your analogy is all wet, if you'll forgive the allusion. ;) When rain makes the grass wet it IS determined. Without determining influences, the rain would not exist or it would not fall on the grass or it would have no effect on the grass. You might as well say that the rain, using its free will WANTED to fall on the grass and the grass using its free will WANTED to be wet. Lois
93
Think of it this way. You are watching a movie (life). You think that if you clench your fists really hard every time the hero is in trouble, he will get out of the trouble unscathed. Sometimes it seems to "work," so you decide that your fist clenching is "influencing" the unfolding of the "movie." Only the "movie" has already been made and nothing you do can change anything. But you want to think your actions have influence so you continue clenchimg your fists and the hero keeps on getting out of trouble sometimes. You don't want to be told you have no influence because you have decided that would be depressing, so you continue to believe you have it. Now in the real unverse some of your actions may have some influence on tomorrow's "movie" because it hasn't been made yet, but you can't know whether your actions are going to influence it, which ones might influence it, how they will influence it, or how much. Lois
Life is not like a movie! By any stretch of the imagine. Can't you do better than ad hoc constructions… that's the realm of creationists and climate science denialist?
94
I didn't have time for this, but heading out the door, the cosmos smacked me in the head yet again and another U-turn. (GdB haven't had time to read any of that, later) I just need to spit this out while it's in my head. ~~~~~~~~~~ My life is a creative act and I am an active participant in forming the arc of that act. I may not know the result of my actions, but I can set the tone and direction, and if I live in each day, as true to the ethics and standards I have set for myself, I always figured tomorrow would take of itself. And now with six decades behind me I'm looking back thinking holy poop who'd have ever imagined what a wonder adventure it turned into. But, it's what I wanted and strove for and now realize I received in spades. I am an active creative force in that/my pageant. I didn't "control" anything, I influenced everything. Determinism isn't forced on me any more, or less, than water is forced on a fish. Does any of that make sense,
Bottom line is you didn't radically make yourself, every step of the way youve been lucky or unlucky to be who you are and therefore act as you do. Where have I said I have radically made myself… or remade myself. That where the Joseph Campbell quote "Follow Your Bliss" comes in - it's about recognizing who you are, where your "talents" lie, and the daily struggle to stay true to it and develop that.
That all makes sense as long as its in the spirit of you might have had appropriately different determinants and if you had you would be receiving mysery as a result of your choices.
sorry that doesn't make sense, in fact, it sounds like you are having a joke here.
95
Where have I said I have radically made myself… or remade myself. That where the Joseph Campbell quote "Follow Your Bliss" comes in - it's about recognizing who you are, where your "talents" lie, and the daily struggle to stay true to it and develop that.
You didn't say you radically made yourself, I was just pointing that out.
That all makes sense as long as its in the spirit of you might have had appropriately different determinants and if you had you would be receiving mysery as a result of your choices.
sorry that doesn't make sense, in fact, it sounds like you are having a joke here.
Did it not make sense because of the spelling mistake? Anyhow I wasn't joking, you might have made different choices that led to misery and you were merely fortunate that you didn't. This is the point about not having LFW, which choices you make depends upon circumstances not of your choosing.
96
No, it does make sense.
No it doesn't :-)
When rain makes the grass wet it IS determined.
Yep.
Without determining influences, the rain would not exist or it would not fall on the grass or it would have no effect on the grass.
Yep.
You might as well say that the rain, using its free will WANTED to fall on the grass and the grass using its free will WANTED to be wet.
Nope. Saying there are no deliberate actions because they are determined is like saying rain doesn't make the grass wet because it is determined. That is because deliberate actions are those you do because you've calculated what the result will be and want that result. So you acted that way because you made those calculations and were motivated to act as a result. Which is in principle the same as the grass got wet because it was rained on. To be consistent you really would have to deny that the rain makes grass wet.
97
No, it does make sense.
No it doesn't :-)
When rain makes the grass wet it IS determined.
Yep.
Without determining influences, the rain would not exist or it would not fall on the grass or it would have no effect on the grass.
Yep.
You might as well say that the rain, using its free will WANTED to fall on the grass and the grass using its free will WANTED to be wet.
Nope. Saying there are no deliberate actions because they are determined is like saying rain doesn't make the grass wet because it is determined. That is because deliberate actions are those you do because you've calculated what the result will be and want that result. So you acted that way because you made those calculations and were motivated to act as a result. Which is in principle the same as the grass got wet because it was rained on. To be consistent you really would have to deny that the rain makes grass wet. No, to be consistent you would have to agree that no one can make calculations and be motivated to act without being determined to make calculations and to feel motivation. Making calculations and feeling motivated do not happen in a vacuum. They don't happen as a result of free will, either. LL
98
No, to be consistent you would have to agree that no one can make calculations and be motivated to act without being determined to make calculations and to feel motivation.
I do agree so I am being consistent. And that is just the same as the rain can't make grass wet without being determined to do so.
Making calculations and feeling motivated do not happen in a vacuum.
Quite right they don't, just like rain doesn't. But your point is as equally empty re deliberate actions as it would be if you made it re rain making grass wet.
99
No, to be consistent you would have to agree that no one can make calculations and be motivated to act without being determined to make calculations and to feel motivation.
I do agree so I am being consistent. And that is just the same as the rain can't make grass wet without being determined to do so.
Making calculations and feeling motivated do not happen in a vacuum.
Quite right they don't, just like rain doesn't. But your point is as equally empty re deliberate actions as it would be if you made it re rain making grass wet. How is that? Lois
100
No, to be consistent you would have to agree that no one can make calculations and be motivated to act without being determined to make calculations and to feel motivation.
I do agree so I am being consistent. And that is just the same as the rain can't make grass wet without being determined to do so.
Making calculations and feeling motivated do not happen in a vacuum.
Quite right they don't, just like rain doesn't. But your point is as equally empty re deliberate actions as it would be if you made it re rain making grass wet. How is that? Lois Because of what it is to act deliberately. It is to make calculations and be motivated to act as a result. Being determined to make the calculations and be motivated to act as a result can't change the fact that we do it, anymore than it can change the fact that rain makes the grass wet.