Does free will exist, or are our choices predetermined by prior causes?

[SocratesJr]

What is Ayn Rand's proof that free will exists? Or any other Objectivist's proof? To say "Ayn Rand defined it" is not an answer, since it is possible to define things that don't exist such as "Martian": extraterrestrial beings originating from the planet Mars.

[necrovore]

If there's no free will, how do you define "proof"?

[SocratesJr]

Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of something.

[necrovore]

What does it mean to "establish" a fact or truth? As opposed to the fact or truth simply existing.

Why does it matter whether a fact or a truth is "established" or not?

[tadmjones]

Truth is to fact as meaning is to definition? 
I suspect agreement on that question is needed before unpacking either the definition or meaning of the concept and /or qua concept that there is a discernible referent.

Edited April 25 by tadmjones

[necrovore]

I suppose I should skip to the end: the whole purpose of "proof" is to establish truths for the purpose of guiding people's decisions, which presupposes that people make them. So without free will there is no need of "proof."

[Boydstun]

4 hours ago, SocratesJr said:

What is . . . proof that free will exists? . . . To say ". . . defined it" is not an answer, since it is possible to define things that don't exist such as "Martian": extraterrestrial beings originating from the planet Mars.

How do you know there are no Martians? Must you have proof to know that? How do you know that there cannot both be and not be Martians at the same time and in the same sense? How do you know that is true? By proof?

How do you know you have typed some questions? Do you need a proof to know that is so?

I'd say one does need memory, working and semantic, to think anything up at this level of posting, and one needs thinking to know anything. But surely we know lots of things without proof of them. To know that the sum of the angles of any triangle is 2R requires proof. But to know that any triangle is trilateral does not require proof. To know I'm writing this does not require proof. To know I selected to do this instead of not doing it does not require proof. To know, to the contrary, that I did not freely select between those two options would require proof.

What is the proof that I don’t have free will? where free will is exemplified by my having the ability to make this post or not and choosing to make it.

What is the proof that humans have no free will? If there is no such proof, then what is plain is true: they have some free will.

 

Edited April 25 by Boydstun

[SocratesJr]

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

What does it mean to "establish" a fact or truth? As opposed to the fact or truth simply existing.

Why does it matter whether a fact or a truth is "established" or not?

I used an AI Chatbot to define Martian, just to show that free will isn't necessary to define it.

I also used it to answer your next two questions:

Here's a breakdown of "establishing" a fact or truth, and why it matters:

Facts vs. Truths (Nuances):

• Facts: Facts are generally considered objective observations about the world that can be verified through evidence or experimentation. They are often phrased as statements that can be proven true or false. (e.g., "The Earth revolves around the Sun.")

• Truths: Truths can be a bit more subjective and encompass broader concepts or ideas that may not be definitively proven but widely accepted. They can involve moral principles, cultural beliefs, or existential questions. (e.g., "Love is important for a happy life.")

Establishing Facts and Truths:

• Evidence and Verification: "Establishing" a fact or truth involves providing evidence or justification for it. For facts, this might involve scientific experiments, historical records, or reliable data. For truths (especially those with a subjective element), establishing them involves building consensus, providing strong arguments, or appealing to shared experiences.

• The Process of Discovery: Facts and truths often pre-exist their establishment. We discover them through observation, exploration, or critical thinking. The process of establishing them makes the knowledge more reliable and widely accepted.

Why Does Establishing Facts and Truths Matter?

• Reliability: Established facts and truths provide a foundation for building knowledge and making informed decisions. They help us understand the world around us and navigate complex situations.

• Communication and Agreement: Establishing facts and truths allows for clear communication and shared understanding. It sets a common ground for discussions, debates, and decision-making processes.

• Progress and Innovation: Established facts pave the way for new discoveries and innovations. When we know something is true or false, it helps us direct our research and development efforts.

Example:

Imagine a new archeological discovery. The artifacts themselves exist (fact), but their significance and meaning need to be established through research, interpretation, and comparison with existing knowledge (establishing a truth about their historical context).

Overall:

While facts and truths might exist independently, establishing them through evidence, verification, and reasoning strengthens their credibility and allows us to use them effectively. It's an ongoing process that contributes to the advancement of knowledge and understanding.

Edited April 25 by SocratesJr

[SocratesJr]

21 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

How do you know there are no Martians? Must you have proof to know that? How do you know that there cannot both be and not be Martians at the same time and in the same sense? How do you know that is true? By proof?

How do you know you have typed some questions? Do you need a proof to know that is so?

I'd say one does need memory, working and semantic, to think anything up at this level of posting, and one needs thinking to know anything. But surely we know lots of things without proof of them. To know that the sum of the angles of any triangle is 2R requires proof. But to know that any triangle is trilateral does not require proof. To know I'm writing this does not require proof. To know I selected to do this instead of not doing it does not require proof. To know, to the contrary, that I did not freely select between those two options would require proof.

What is the proof that I don’t have free will? where free will is exemplified by my having the ability to make this post or not and choosing to make it.

What is the proof that humans have no free will? If there is no such proof, then what is plain is true: they have some free will.

 

Are you asking me to use free will to prove that free will doesn't exist?

[Boydstun]

State your proof that free will does not exist.

Just as you would state your proof that Martians do not exist. 

Or that the sum of angles in any triangle in a Euclidean plane is 2R.

Edited April 25 by Boydstun

[SocratesJr]

30 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

State your proof that free will does not exist.

Just as you would state your proof that Martians do not exist. 

Or that the sum of angles in any triangle in a Euclidean plane is 2R.

If I can't prove that free will doesn't exist, does that mean it does exist?

[EC]

6 hours ago, SocratesJr said:

What is Ayn Rand's proof that free will exists? Or any other Objectivist's proof? To say "Ayn Rand defined it" is not an answer, since it is possible to define things that don't exist such as "Martian": extraterrestrial beings originating from the planet Mars.

It's an axiom that one uses in "denying" its very existence by choosing to type out that question. Read Peikoff's OPAR to understand the answers to your questions. 

[Boydstun]

7 hours ago, Boydstun said:

How do you know there are no Martians? Must you have proof to know that? How do you know that there cannot both be and not be Martians at the same time and in the same sense? How do you know that is true? By proof?

How do you know you have typed some questions? Do you need a proof to know that is so?

I'd say one does need memory, working and semantic, to think anything up at this level of posting, and one needs thinking to know anything. But surely we know lots of things without proof of them. To know that the sum of the angles of any triangle is 2R requires proof. But to know that any triangle is trilateral does not require proof. To know I'm writing this does not require proof. To know I selected to do this instead of not doing it does not require proof. To know, to the contrary, that I did not freely select between those two options would require proof.

What is the proof that I don’t have free will? where free will is exemplified by my having the ability to make this post or not and choosing to make it.

What is the proof that humans have no free will? If there is no such proof, then what is plain is true: they have some free will.

 

 

7 hours ago, Boydstun said:

State your proof that free will does not exist.

Just as you would state your proof that Martians do not exist. 

Or that the sum of angles in any triangle in a Euclidean plane is 2R.

 

6 hours ago, SocratesJr said:

If I can't prove that free will doesn't exist, does that mean it does exist?

Correct. Just as: If it cannot proven that thinking does not exist, then it does exist.

And thinking does exist, and some of thinking is our ability to formulate definitions and to construct proofs. Proofs that free will does not exist, proofs that when we experience making a free choice, it is not really free have been offered by others. Which one do you think correct? What is your proof, specifically? If you find no proof up to your standards and if you have the experience of freely choosing to reply to this post or not, then you should accept that you have that freedom. At least you should accept it until such time as you formulate or see a good enough proof that it does not exist, despite appearances.

[StrictlyLogical]

18 hours ago, SocratesJr said:

What is Ayn Rand's proof that free will exists? Or any other Objectivist's proof? To say "Ayn Rand defined it" is not an answer, since it is possible to define things that don't exist such as "Martian": extraterrestrial beings originating from the planet Mars.

You ask:

"Does free will exist, or are our choices predetermined by prior causes?"

"Free will" defined properly, exists.  Our choices are influenced by prior causes, primarily and importantly the chooser's identity/nature.

Rand's philosophy of "being" is wholly predicated upon identity, and as such no action or cause in nature proceeds in contradiction with identity.  No thing is supernatural, everything is natural, including people, brains, and yes minds.  As a property of mind, one of the things a brain "does", any proper definition of free will must take that (identity, non-contradiction) into account. 

You are who you are at a time of choice, all your memories and tendencies, your mood, your body, everything is part of your nature/identity of what you exactly are at the time of choice, and one cannot evade these important facts when thinking about free will.  Free will and the choice made by it of course depend upon and are influenced by one's identity/nature. 

If one defines free will as simply (and properly) "one could have chosen otherwise" then that freedom becomes bounded ... the different possible outcomes are specific (otherwise you would not be you... you would be able to be anyone), and moreover, in order to not be deterministic the actual outcome cannot be pre-determinable or even theoretically knowable with certainty.  Without fully understanding why or how, identity plus "freedom" to choose, is functionally describable in probabilistic terms... a probability function of all possible choices (which probabilities all add up to 1) describes the outcome of the system.

 

Proof is not necessary to embrace free will.  It is an introspective truth.  Moreover, it would be pointless to assume free will does not exist... i.e. nothing is gained from it.

There are two possibilities, either free will does not exist or it does. (Assuming you choose to ignore introspection) you NOW have a choice to reject or embrace free will.  IF free will does not exist, in a very fundamental way whether you "choose" to reject it or not is meaningless, not only is it not up to you in that your choice was not free and was predetermined anyway, in such a universe all choices are morally and existentially inconsequential, we and all things being tinkertoys of mechanistic certainty.  IF free will DOES exist, choosing to reject it risks abdication of (or negligence in the use of) your ability to choose in very important and meaningful or otherwise morally and existentially important moments in your life and the lives of those around you, potentially causing suffering when you could have chosen otherwise creating happiness/peace, or pursuing your values etc. and of course IF free will DOES exist and you choose to embrace it, really exercise your ability and responsibility to guide your actions and affect your life and the lives of those around you, then you maximise your potential for meaning, happiness, and attaining your values in life.

In essence one does not "prove" free will exists.

One understands, accepts, and "proves" it would be utterly pointless (in academic philosophy and in life) to choose to believe and act as though free will does not exist.

 

Edited April 25 by StrictlyLogical

[SocratesJr]

19 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

it would be pointless to assume free will does not exist... i.e. nothing is gained from it.

Okay, one does not prove that free will exists. However, arguing that free will has to exist or there will be consequences, sounds like a proof. A bad proof, but definitely a proof.

[StrictlyLogical]

26 minutes ago, SocratesJr said:

Okay, one does not prove that free will exists. However, arguing that free will has to exist or there will be consequences, sounds like a proof. A bad proof, but definitely a proof.

"arguing that free will has to exist or there will be consequences"

That is not the "argument", and even if it were, it would NOT be any kind of proof of the existence of free will.

Edited April 25 by StrictlyLogical

[SocratesJr]

1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

"arguing that free will has to exist or there will be consequences"

That is not the "argument", and even if it were, it would NOT be any kind of proof of the existence of free will.

That's true; it would not be a proof of the existence of free will. But it is still an argument: the argument from introspection. It is a libertarian argument toward a personal belief in the existence of free will, at least in oneself.

You are arguing for the idea that one does not prove free-will ('In essence one does not "prove" free will exists'), and that one has to believe in it if one wants to maximise their potential for meaning, happiness, and attaining values in life.

It's a pragmatic argument stating that nothing would be gained from disbelieving in free will. It has no "cash-value," as James would say.

'"Free will" defined properly, exists.' That is called the method of the 'persuasive definition.' But I find that such statements as 

Quote

"your ability to choose in very important and meaningful or otherwise morally and existentially important moments in your life and the lives of those around you, potentially causing suffering when you could have chosen otherwise creating happiness/peace, or pursuing your values etc."

is almost like an attempt to persuade, rather than to define terms.

All in all, I find that moving from '"Free will" defined properly, exists' to 'In essence one does not "prove" free will exists' utilizes the strategy of the 'persuasive definition.'

I'm not for arguing against free-will. But my counter-argument is that, if free will is an introspective truth, then it is only true for oneself.

Question: how does one engage in the search for introspective truth, specifically, free will? And how can one trust the introspective process when there is much unconscious activity going on in the mind that may, perhaps, create only the feeling one has free will?

Edited April 25 by SocratesJr

[StrictlyLogical]

34 minutes ago, SocratesJr said:

Question: how does one engage in the search for introspective truth, specifically, free will? And how can one trust the introspective process when there is much unconscious activity going on in the mind that may, perhaps, create only the feeling one has free will?

The totality of self-experience, all of it, from your earliest moment to your experience of being and choosing in the very moment, all of it amounts to an understanding of your subjective experience and your free will.

 

Some philosophers have said do not trust that existence exists, perhaps it is all illusion, but they fail to see they are asking you to ignore everything you have ever perceived, experienced, felt, indeed everything you know.  The answer is to reject such a call to complete and utter ignorance with no evidence forming the basis for such abandonment, as groundlessly silly.

Just as denying existence runs contrary to everything you know, so too attempting to deny the introspective truth of free will is an attempt to persuade you to choose not to believe in free will.  Such is asking you to evade everything about your life...  morality, choice, meaning, without providing any real reason or evidence to do so, simply put we do not understand nearly enough about the universe to come anywhere near proving free will does not exist, and in the absence of said evidence, entertaining such a notion is tantamount to a groundless, baseless abdication of life... all of it.

Knowing this full well, how could anyone take such musings, such an invitation to self abdication, self immolation... seriously?

 

As for the unconscious, it seems odd that an unconscious would evolve to create a feeling of free will.  Such a mechanism would imply something like an attempt (by the unconscious) to cause the self or consciousness to act or refrain from acting a certain way, but if the self or consciousness was already determined wholly, such an additional urge by feeling... to feel choosy... would be wholly superfluous, and in the end ineffectual.  In a predetermined universe the unconscious would not ever need to create a feeling of free will.  

 

Edited April 25 by StrictlyLogical

[SocratesJr]

27 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

denying existence runs contrary to everything you know, so too attempting to deny the introspective truth of free will is an attempt to persuade you to choose not to believe in free will. 

This is sliding into solipsism.

 

27 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

As for the unconscious, it seems odd that an unconscious would evolve to create a feeling of free will.  Such a mechanism would imply something like an attempt (by the unconscious) to cause the self or consciousness to act or refrain from acting a certain way, but if the self or consciousness was already determined wholly, such an additional urge by feeling... to feel choosy... would be wholly superfluous, and in the end ineffectual.  In a predetermined universe the unconscious would not ever need to create a feeling of free will.  

I would avoid going down the evolutionary rabbit hole. I'm just asking, if the unconscious mind generates a feeling of free will, does that mean free will exists? Or even better, leave the unconscious mind out of it and ask if feeling that free will exists serves as a good introspection (intuitive) proof.

[tadmjones]

22 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

 

 

Some philosophers have said do not trust that existence exists, perhaps it is all illusion, but they fail to see they are asking you to ignore everything you have ever perceived, experienced, felt, indeed everything you know.  The answer is to reject such a call to complete and utter ignorance with no evidence forming the basis for such abandonment, as groundlessly silly.

 

 

 

 

How does experience got wiped out by calling existence an illusion? The claim of illusion is describing the apprehension of the state of being as incomplete ( implying to human cognition ) , not a claim of a void, the 'illusion' is experienced. You are saying those philosophers are claiming existence does not exist, they are not saying it. They are not denying your perceptions , feelings and experiences by a call to ignore them, they are just qualifying them as to alignment with the 'really real' , as opposed to the 'real' of human cognition.

[StrictlyLogical]

8 minutes ago, SocratesJr said:

This is sliding into solipsism.

 

I would avoid going down the evolutionary rabbit hole. I'm just asking, if the unconscious mind generates a feeling of free will, does that mean free will exists? Or even better, leave the unconscious mind out of it and ask if feeling that free will exists serves as a good introspection (intuitive) proof.

I not think the unconscious generates a feeling of free will.  I do not believe humans experience free will as a feeling.  I believe humans experience the performance of free will as a sort of action, one upon reflection which is such that "I could have chosen otherwise".

[StrictlyLogical]

23 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

How does experience got wiped out by calling existence an illusion? The claim of illusion is describing the apprehension of the state of being as incomplete ( implying to human cognition ) , not a claim of a void, the 'illusion' is experienced. You are saying those philosophers are claiming existence does not exist, they are not saying it. They are not denying your perceptions , feelings and experiences by a call to ignore them, they are just qualifying them as to alignment with the 'really real' , as opposed to the 'real' of human cognition.

Right, but they are asking you to deny the certainty and primacy of existence "out there", i.e. independent reality, as opposed to some kind of consciousness thing whether an individual, collective, or spiritual/godlike consciousness being primary or the only type or existence.  My point only was that the conclusions we reach from a mountain of evidence is not to be thrown aside in face of a claim which amounts to little more than a groundless maybe.

[SocratesJr]

21 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I not think the unconscious generates a feeling of free will.  I do not believe humans experience free will as a feeling.  I believe humans experience the performance of free will as a sort of action, one upon reflection which is such that "I could have chosen otherwise".

This idea isn't limited to Objectivism. I asked a Mormon guy if free-will exists, and he raised an arm to prove it ("a sort of action"). He could've chosen not to raise an arm as proof.

That is one of the most common "proofs" of free-will. Ayn Rand isn't different from the run-of-the-mill.

The "I could have chosen otherwise" proof isn't as common. But it's still a version of the subjective/intuitive/introspective/reflective first-person perspective proof. Let's not call it a feeling, but an intuition: direct evidence of free-will although it is not an entity that we can perceive directly, but only indirectly through reflecting back on an action.

Schopenhauer claimed our sense of free choice comes (or may come) from only being conscious of the final motives behind our actions, not the prior chain of unconscious drivers leading to those motives (which was my first counter-argument).

 

[StrictlyLogical]

2 minutes ago, SocratesJr said:

This idea isn't limited to Objectivism. I asked a Mormon guy if free-will exists, and he raised an arm to prove it ("a sort of action"). He could've chosen not to raise an arm as proof.

That is one of the most common "proofs" of free-will. Ayn Rand isn't different from the run-of-the-mill.

The "I could have chosen otherwise" proof isn't as common. But it's still a version of the subjective/intuitive/introspective/reflective first-person perspective proof. Let's not call it a feeling, but an intuition: direct evidence of free-will although it is not an entity that we can perceive directly, but only indirectly through reflecting back on an action.

Schopenhauer claimed our sense of free choice comes (or may come) from only being conscious of the final motives behind our actions, not the prior chain of unconscious drivers leading to those motives (which was my first counter-argument).

 

Question:  Is your question answerable (provable?) within the realm of the application of sound (proven?) philosophical principles alone (not mere speculation), or does an answer to the particular problem of free will require evidence, observation, empirical experiment, etc.... i.e. does it fall within the realm of philosophy or the special sciences? 

[SocratesJr]

29 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Question:  Is your question answerable (provable?) within the realm of the application of sound (proven?) philosophical principles alone (not mere speculation), or does an answer to the particular problem of free will require evidence, observation, empirical experiment, etc.... i.e. does it fall within the realm of philosophy or the special sciences? 

I'm not quite done with my own questions. What does reflective introspection reveal exactly? That question is for anybody.

Your rational actions do not require your conscious attention or ego. This split-brain experiment shows rational action without conscious intent. Or perhaps there is a consciousness and a will that you can't reflect on through introspection because you're not aware of it at any time.

 

Edited April 25 by SocratesJr