Board index ‹ Free Will

[Book Mitten]

A quick note on Bergson: He believes in free will, funnily enough I don't. What I agree with him on is that existence is a moving thing that cannot be reduced to simplistic parts. He uses an example of making a choice between two paths, to demonstrate that the decision cannot be isolated and cut up metaphysically. What I take from this in my own view is that there is a mixture of elements that make up consciousness and the world that cannot be divided up/reduced to simple points, like I believe the kalam argument does as a predicate.

To explain, I'll use an example of me throwing a stone into a lake. Part of the cause of that event is me. Part of the cause of it however is the nature of the world that leads me to do so out of curiosity or interest. There are other factors that "trim away" (so to speak) at outcomes. If I believed that throwing the stone would cause harm, I'd be much less likely to do so. I'd be compelled by my conscience, I guess. This is an example of me making a choice without having free will. The idea of choice implies a lack of fatalism, and the steering of something indeterminate into solidity. I also have an influence on my environment. I cannot however change who I am as a creature however, and that has nothing to do with chemicals or reductionism. It has to do with reality as a whole, as far as I can see.

[jimwalton]

> I'll use an example of me throwing a stone into a lake

Thanks for the explanation. I get that many factors are part of everything we do. We are a complex agglomeration of causality. I perfectly agree. But at some point I choose to give into curiosity (throw the rock) or I choose to hold back (might cause harm). My free will is the "deciding factor" so to speak. I can overrule either my conscience or my curiosity as I wish. The last play in the deck lies with me making a choice. That's the way I see it. Ultimately I choose to do or not do something with the rock, amid all the nudges of experience, curiosity, fear, conscience, environmental impact (get a study from the EPA before I throw the rock ). Despite all, I get to choose.

But I'm not sure any amount of conversation will change either of our minds. It has been an interesting discussion. You'll have to choose whether or not to respond to me.

[Book Mitten]

> You'll have to choose whether or not to respond to me.

Good one I am compelled to do so, as my experience leads me to believe discussions like these are important. I can't choose to think that such is not the case.

> My free will is the "deciding factor" so to speak. I can overrule either my conscience or my curiosity as I wish.

Can you? Why then do you throw the rock? (Or don't throw it)

[jimwalton]

There could be any number of reasons to throw or not throw it.

• I have an awesome rock in my hands and i want to hear the plunk.
• I see a fish in the water and want to scare it.
• I'm with friends and we're goofing off.
• I'm too lazy to bend over and pick it up.
• I choose to do something else instead.

This list could go on for a while.

[Book Mitten]

I think the difference between us is that the things you list here are, to me, factors that compel you one way or another, and not free will. If none of those things existed (the friends being there, the awesomeness of the rock, etc) you would be less likely to throw it.

Another example is the novel "The Stranger" by Albert Camus.

SPOILER ALERT

The main character shoots a man that was hostile to an aquaintance. The character doesn't do so out of hate or even some mistaken idea of a greater good. Rather, he doesn't have much of an agenda compelling him at all. The most he could think of is "the sun was too bright". The action is condemned by society (rightly in my view) but I still don't think the character has free will. It's more that his lack of an agenda, and lack of certain emotions, mean he will be inclined a certain way. The authorities later in the story act with a sense of self righteous indignation, desperate to pin some kind of agenda to the man, when none really exists. The lack of agenda doesn't mean nothing happens however. It just means something happens by default. He doesn't have something compelling him not to shoot, which influences the outcome.

What I take from this is that we can still judge things as objectively good or bad, but it's important to know the factors that lead to a bad outcome. With serial killers (there are many that are far worse than the character in the novel, killers that do have an active agenda to cause harm and evil) they have a horrible nature, but believing they do doesn't require me to believe in free will. I can condemn them the same way I condemn a state of affairs in which people are hurt by fire. I could give examples of people being angry with (ostensibly) non conscious objects. Some might see such people as irrational. But I think they still experience genuine anger. Anger towards killers and rapists is likely more rational as it can spur the person on to deal with the criminal.

There's a lot of ideas here, and I aim to expand, but I think it would be best to do so in discussion, rather than figuring it out in one post.

[jimwalton]

> If none of those things existed (the friends being there, the awesomeness of the rock, etc) you would be less likely to throw it.

You mean, if there were no real external world???

> Camus

I see inclination as distinct from action. I may be inclined to one action or another, but still must make a choice.

Camus, in general (if I am remembering right), believed that everything is finally chaotic and irrational, which leads to no surprise, then, that his anti-hero has no agenda. But people who are irrational are selective about where they will become irrational, which I see as free will. If I'm remembering right, Camus, as an existentialist, argued that life has no meaning. Interestingly, though, Camus said we should honestly recognize life's absurdity, and despite that, to choose to live in love for one another. It seems a logical incompatibility to me.

Sartre (differing from Camus and yet sharing the same concepts) believed that despite the absurdity of all things, one could authenticate oneself "by an act of the will." For Sartre, the content was unimportant (similar, I assume, to Camus apathetic agenda), but the choice was real. In Sartre, and perhaps also in Camus, you authenticate yourself by a valid act of choice (even that was perceived by them as anti-rational). Neither Camus nor Sartre can live with the conclusions of their own philosophy because it's logically incompatible with real life.

Of course factors (environmental, experiential, visceral, emotional, etc.) affect our decisions, but we are not bound by any of them. Alas, I am repeating myself.

[Book Mitten]

> Of course factors (environmental, experiential, visceral, emotional, etc.) affect our decisions, but we are not bound by any of them. Alas, I am repeating myself.

I would argue you are not. This is new ground connected to previous ground. I'm sorry to hear if you are getting bored, but I still see this as a fruitful discussion.

> I see inclination as distinct from action. I may be inclined to one action or another, but still must make a choice.

Sure. I'm saying that inclination is turned to action.

> Camus said we should honestly recognize life's absurdity, and despite that, to choose to live in love for one another. It seems a logical incompatibility to me.

It is not. The idea that the universe begins and ends in chaos does not detract from the fact that a good life is good, and that so is living in love for one another. In fact, the lives of living things are made more important by the fact that, to paraphrase Camus, "the universe has no master". We are not throwaway cogs in God's plan, and neither are other living things. Life is the goal itself, in its many forms. It doesn't have to have a higher goal to another world. What would be the purpose of that world? Another world after it?

> If none of those things existed (the friends being there, the awesomeness of the rock, etc) you would be less likely to throw it.
You mean, if there were no real external world???

No, I mean those things alone. The friends being there, the awesomeness of the rock, etc. If you take those things away you still have a world, just a slightly different one.

[jimwalton]

>> Camus said we should honestly recognize life's absurdity, and despite that, to choose to live in love for one another. It seems a logical incompatibility to me.
> It is not.

I find that I agree very little with existentialists. It seems to me that if life is meaningless, then love has no meaning, either. To ascribe meaning to love, then, is to declare that your initial declaration was false. And one can't say that the good life is good, because "good" has no meaning in a meaningless and absurd life. It has no reference point to give it stability, definition, or meaning.

> Life is the goal itself, in its many forms.

I would observe that Camus subscribes to a non-goal, for life has no meaning. That which is irrational and meaningless can't provide any nobility to that perception of humanity. If life is meaningless, then the only consistent elements of life can be resignation fueled by despair, not any positive view of a goal. Sartre writes of the "nausea" of existence. Camus, in The Stranger, concludes that life and the universe have no meaning. How is that a goal?

[Book Mitten]

> Camus, in The Stranger, concludes that life and the universe have no meaning. How is that a goal?

What do you mean by "meaning"? Do you mean purpose? Definition?

> It has no reference point to give it stability, definition, or meaning

Again, "meaning" here must be clarified by you if I'm going to comment much further, but lived experience would generally be the reference point, I would imagine.

Camus never said that life had no value, so I would guess he wouldn't say the same thing of love either. This is why it's important to expand upon what we mean by "meaning".

[jimwalton]

By "meaning" I mean that there is some kind of purpose in it. To me, just "live the life I have to live" is utilitarian, not teleological. It's not meaning, but rather bare pragmatism. If we are just chemicals that have evolved to our level of complexity, then ultimately our value is only chemicals + whatever we ascribe to ourselves for value. But there's no real value there, only fabricated. I could just as well say, "This key fob on my desk is worth $1 million!" My subscription to and fabrication of that value doesn't give it worth and meaning.

So I guess by "meaning" I mean some kind of intrinsic purpose, value, and significance. Anything else is fabricated, contrived and only feigned meaning.