Free Will ?

[Robert F. Smith]

Free Will isn't found in my Mormonism, I'm a trapped goon. 

That isn't what your comments in many threads on this Board would indicate.

 

Self-doubt and self-reflection are particularly human characteristics, and they do not indicate lack of free will.  All of us have experienced them, but animals never do.  That is the exercise of authentic free will.

[Robert F. Smith]

Free will is  a very interesting topic.  I personally believe that our free will is evidence of our eternal nature.  Non-eternal entities would not have free will because everything they do could be traced back to how they were created - like a robot, they have no free will because everything they do can be traced back to who programmed them & how they were created.  The only way to have free will is to have no beginning - to be eternal.

from section 93: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.29?lang=eng#28

 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

Precisely.  And isn't it remarkable that D&C 93 has such a clear recognition of the true issue?  People trained in philosophy and theology often have difficulty with such a concept.  Yet here in May of 1833 Joseph Smith receives such a straightforward revelation which embodies the only actual way in which one can escape the infinite regress of determinism in the matter of free will.  Astonishing!!

[mfbukowski]

This one's for you then :

 

Freedom of the Will and the Isolation of Facts.—Our ordinary inaccurate observation takes a group of phenomena as one and calls them a fact. Between this fact and another we imagine a vacuum, we isolate each fact. In reality, however, the sum of our actions and cognitions is no series of facts and intervening vacua, but a continuous stream. Now the belief in free will is incompatible with the idea of a continuous, uniform, undivided, indivisible flow. This belief presupposes that every single action is isolated and indivisible; it is an atomic theory as regards volition and cognition.—We misunderstand facts as we misunderstand characters, speaking of similar characters and similar facts, whereas both are non-existent. Further, we bestow praise and blame only on this false hypothesis, that there are similar facts, that a graduated order of species of facts exists, corresponding to a graduated order of values. Thus we isolate not only the single fact, but the groups of apparently equal facts (good, evil, compassionate, envious actions, and so forth). In both cases we are wrong.—The word and the concept are the most obvious reason for our belief in this isolation of groups of actions. We do not merely thereby designate the things; the thought at the back of our minds is that by the word and the concept we can grasp the essence of the actions. We are still constantly led astray by words and actions, and are induced to think of things as simpler than they are, as separate, indivisible, existing in the absolute. Language contains a hidden philosophical mythology, which, however careful we may be, breaks out afresh at every moment. The belief in free will—that is to say, in similar facts and isolated facts—finds in language its continual apostle and advocate.

 

Very interesting- who wrote this?

 

I certainly agree with the linguistic confusion part- but it cites only the belief in free will as a confused notion, if I understand it, but I would argue that the whole dichotomy is confused.

 

I find the underlying metaphysics problematic- I am not sure at all what this means and how we could know if it is true or false:

Now the belief in free will is incompatible with the idea of a continuous, uniform, undivided, indivisible flow. This belief presupposes that every single action is isolated and indivisible; it is an atomic theory as regards volition and cognition.—We misunderstand facts as we misunderstand characters, speaking of similar characters and similar facts, whereas both are non-existent

 

[Guest]

Nope.

I would have to disagree unless you are handcuffed to a pew. You may leave or not attend any services. Also if you could define "goon" I would be thrilled.

[Tacenda]

I would have to disagree unless you are handcuffed to a pew. You may leave or not attend any services. Also if you could define "goon" I would be thrilled.

Stupid or foolish, a roughneck. Are a couple of defs.

[Silhouette]

Stupid or foolish, a roughneck. Are a couple of defs.

Having seen your posts on these forums, you don't strike me as stupid or foolish, and though I'm not sure what a "roughneck" is, I doubt that you fall into that category either.

[LOSTONE]

Thank you all for your insights to this subject. To be honest, some replies just confused me, but that is just of my own mind set. Never the less the replies where are a blessing. Thanks.

[ERayR]

Free will is an illusion, albeit a useful one. To those who wish to seriously consider the freedom of the will, I invite you to read Schopenhauer's Essay on the Freedom of the Will.

 

 

Yep we are all controlled by the matrix.  We may not be able to exercise free will in all things but the final expression of free will is how we let circumstances affect us.

[Freedom]

As Ahab stated, we have limited freedom do choose our own way. True and complete free will would lead to chaos. God has to instill some control otherwise His plan would be thwarted. And free is perhaps  bad choice of words because it certainly is not free. Each choice we make has a cost, either liberty and eternal life or bondage to sin. I am free to steel a car, but I don't thing God would let me set off a bomb that would obliterate live on the planet. Also, I suspect God would prevent me from steeling a car if one of his servants needs it to minister to someone in great need. There are several examples in the scriptures where the 'free' will of others have been curtailed to allow God's servants perform their labours. 

[stemelbow]

If God knows of what you will do before you conceive of doing that thing, then yours was not a choice. it was God's choice, conceived by Him before you had a chance to choose. If He knows, for instance, I am not one who will be exalted, then my fate is sealed. He already knows it and I can't do anything about it, for He already knows the very path I will lead before that path completely unfolds before me. My choices have already been made before I am faced with them.

This gets stickier, I think, than most LDS are willing to concede. You see God already knows many, for instance, will not be exalted. He might even know, as many LDS like to think it, who will not be exalted. He knows us that well, has conceived of our actions, perhaps, before we are even faced with the choice. If so, then free will is an illusion, as some stated before.

But if God does not know, hopes and presses each of us, even if He knows us well, not knowing how many will be exalted, or not really able to determine things like, "many are called but few are chosen..." then it's possible our choices are our own--He did not conceive of what we would do for us, thus determining our end.

Edited November 10, 2014 by stemelbow

[Stroopwafel]

Very interesting- who wrote this?

 

I certainly agree with the linguistic confusion part- but it cites only the belief in free will as a confused notion, if I understand it, but I would argue that the whole dichotomy is confused.

 

I find the underlying metaphysics problematic- I am not sure at all what this means and how we could know if it is true or false:

 

The paragraph I referenced is from the same work and author (Nietzsche) mentionned in my previous post; actually, it is the 11th paragraph which wasn't included at first.

 

From my understanding, he refers to the idea of first cause, that this concept would be essential for a coherent belief in free will. It is the aristotelian/scholastic argument, which he says induces us "to think of things as simpler than they are, as separate, indivisible, existing in the absolute." To have free will, one has to arrive at the demonstration of an atomic, isolated, indivisible action that stand by itself, without any other constraint than its own essence. Of course he doesn't believe that we can show this, although we are led to think that we can because of the way our language is built. Reality isn't black and white, but more so about degrees, variations. It is much more subtle than we may be led to believe.

 

Hope that helps a bit.

 

P.S. One thing I like to say about Nietzsche is that quoting him is necessarily doing so out of context. Heck, I guess we could quote in its entirety one of his book and still be "out of context."

[mfbukowski]

If God knows of what you will do before you conceive of doing that thing, then yours was not a choice. it was God's choice, conceived by Him before you had a chance to choose. If He knows, for instance, I am not one who will be exalted, then my fate is sealed. He already knows it and I can't do anything about it, for He already knows the very path I will lead before that path completely unfolds before me. My choices have already been made before I am faced with them.

This gets stickier, I think, than most LDS are willing to concede. You see God already knows many, for instance, will not be exalted. He might even know, as many LDS like to think it, who will not be exalted. He knows us that well, has conceived of our actions, perhaps, before we are even faced with the choice. If so, then free will is an illusion, as some stated before.

But if God does not know, hopes and presses each of us, even if He knows us well, not knowing how many will be exalted, or not really able to determine things like, "many are called but few are chosen..." then it's possible our choices are our own--He did not conceive of what we would do for us, thus determining our end.

Nah.

 

If I see a car going 60 miles an hour now 20 feet from a cliff, I know for a fact with no doubt that it will go over, and I will be right.

 

That doesn't mean I made it happen, nor does it mean that I interfered with the agency of the driver.

 

These two propositions do not even entail the other, much less imply the other.

 

 

"There exists a given event x such that I know that x will happen

There exists a given event x such that I caused that x to happen"

 

How do those imply each other?

[mfbukowski]

The paragraph I referenced is from the same work and author (Nietzsche) mentionned in my previous post; actually, it is the 11th paragraph which wasn't included at first.

 

From my understanding, he refers to the idea of first cause, that this concept would be essential for a coherent belief in free will. It is the aristotelian/scholastic argument, which he says induces us "to think of things as simpler than they are, as separate, indivisible, existing in the absolute." To have free will, one has to arrive at the demonstration of an atomic, isolated, indivisible action that stand by itself, without any other constraint than its own essence. Of course he doesn't believe that we can show this, although we are led to think that we can because of the way our language is built. Reality isn't black and white, but more so about degrees, variations. It is much more subtle than we may be led to believe.

 

Hope that helps a bit.

 

P.S. One thing I like to say about Nietzsche is that quoting him is necessarily doing so out of context. Heck, I guess we could quote in its entirety one of his book and still be "out of context."

Ah, ok yes that helps a ton.

 

I have not been really following the thread and missed your original post.  So Nietzsche is arguing probably for a more "process" view of complex interactions and not clearly discernible atomic events- that makes sense.

 

So really that is the underlying metaphysics here- it is a process metaphysics as opposed to a scholastic, Aristotelian view.

 

Okie dokie.  And yes I like that a lot - thanks! 

[Ahab]

If God knows of what you will do before you conceive of doing that thing, then yours was not a choice. it was God's choice, conceived by Him before you had a chance to choose.

No, you're not thinking correctly, but you can continue to think that way if you want to.

If He knows, for instance, I am not one who will be exalted, then my fate is sealed. He already knows it and I can't do anything about it, for He already knows the very path I will lead before that path completely unfolds before me. My choices have already been made before I am faced with them.

He knows your fate based on the choices YOU will make but YOU have not made those choices yet so you won't be accountable for those choices until you make those choices. So it isn't and won't be God making those choices. YOU will be choosing and God will just be acknowledging your choices

This gets stickier, I think, than most LDS are willing to concede. You see God already knows many, for instance, will not be exalted. He might even know, as many LDS like to think it, who will not be exalted. He knows us that well, has conceived of our actions, perhaps, before we are even faced with the choice. If so, then free will is an illusion, as some stated before.

You're still not thinking correctly but you can continue to think that way if you want to.

But if God does not know, hopes and presses each of us, even if He knows us well, not knowing how many will be exalted, or not really able to determine things like, "many are called but few are chosen..." then it's possible our choices are our own--He did not conceive of what we would do for us, thus determining our end.

Eh, still not...but, whatever. Do what you do.

[mfbukowski]

Free will is an illusion, albeit a useful one. To those who wish to seriously consider the freedom of the will, I invite you to read Schopenhauer's Essay on the Freedom of the Will.

 

Also, here are some excerpts from Nietzsche's Human, All Too Human, from the section called The Wanderer and His Shadow, which I personally find enlightening (bolded parts are mine):

Well both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were products of their times, and they were laying the groundwork here for Freud and Marx and much of went on later in the 19th century, so they were all enamored with the importance of social factors in human development.

 

But as you imply, to say that Nietzsche was "against free will" is certainly a misunderstanding.  As you know, you have to know ALL of Nietzsche to comprehend any given passage.  That's why for example, the Nazis could pull out a quote here and a quote there and make him sound like a Nazi which is about as far from a true understanding of Nietzsche as you can get!

 

Ultimately where their philosophy led, as carried on by their followers, was into a process view

 

Process philosophy is based on the premise that being is dynamic and that the dynamic nature of being should be the primary focus of any comprehensive philosophical account of reality and our place within it. Even though we experience our world and ourselves as continuously changing, Western metaphysics has long been obsessed with describing reality as an assembly of static individuals whose dynamic features are either taken to be mere appearances or ontologically secondary and derivative. For process philosophers the adventure of philosophy begins with a set of problems that traditional metaphysics marginalizes or even sidesteps altogether: what is the role of mind in our experience of reality as becoming? Are there several varieties of becoming — for instance, the uniform going on of activities versus the coming about of developments? Do all developments have the same way of occurring quite independently of what is coming about? How can we best classify into different kinds of occurrences what is going on and coming about? How can we understand the emergence of apparently novel conditions?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

As you can imagine, with such a view of complex causes, the whole notion of causality comes into question- because causes are not discrete events.

 

So Schopenhauer takes this view- he started it really- and says "there is no freedom" because we are all stuck in this web of causes.

 

On the other hand, it sure seems like we have freedom.  We can decide to continue reading this post or not, and play a video game instead.

 

So if we say that, then we have to say that "reality as we know it is an illusion", or we can say, with the same experience of the phenomena, that "it's too complex to characterize linguistically, so why worry about 'ultimate reality' which cannot be characterized anyway.

 

All that matters is the practical consequences of living day to day, and practically speaking surely we make choices- the rest is academic speculation.  THAT position is know as "Pragmatism" and that is where I am coming from

 

So THAT view ultimately leads to Wittgenstein- saying essentially that "It's all so complex, all that matters in communication is the context- words are all confusing and actually create the problems in the first place".  THAT is essentially a Wittgensteinian position.

 

So that's why I think it is fruitless and silly to even debate the issue.  You can look at it one way and put together words to make it sound like the "reality" is that we have free will.   On the other hand, you can put together words to make it sound like the "reality" is all determined and we don't have free will.

 

None of it amounts to a hill of beans and people who don't understand philosophy will debate it til doomsday.

 

Hence my lack of interest in the thread

 

But I am glad that I caught your post- maybe it contributed to others understanding the history of the argument

[stemelbow]

Nah.

 

If I see a car going 60 miles an hour now 20 feet from a cliff, I know for a fact with no doubt that it will go over, and I will be right.

 

That doesn't mean I made it happen, nor does it mean that I interfered with the agency of the driver.

 

These two propositions do not even entail the other, much less imply the other.

 

 

"There exists a given event x such that I know that x will happen

There exists a given event x such that I caused that x to happen"

 

How do those imply each other?

Unless you think you are God I don't see how this fits.

The point is I don't even know my actions until the point in time comes that actions are taken or at least planned for. but if God knows my actions before that time comes, then He is the one creating my action, not me.

So to apply a little more closely your story above. If a man drove towards a cliff at 60 miles per hour, he most likely would be trying to kill himself, unless he did not know a cliff was ahead. If say he wanted to kill himself, he has his reasons. But if say, God knew absolutely that he'd be killing himself by driving off a cliff at this time, before this man had conceived of it, then the action was destined to have had happened. He couldn't have changed that outcome because God, long before this man could have thought of it, had already conceived of him killing himself. No choice would have been made by him. it was going to happen.

But let's back up a moment. If God did not know this man would kill himself even until the 20 feet before the cliff, then choice is involved for this man. God could know the man's thoughts and feelings, and determination and still think it possible he may decide to pull up at some point and stop.

If scripture is correct in describing us being able to choose then it must be that God knows our options, knows our hearts, but is still not be able to know with 100% certainty what we're going to do. If we' prefer that God knows our actions before we know of them, then we're not really choosing, we're having choices put upon us by He who conceived of them for us.

[stemelbow]

No, you're not thinking correctly, but you can continue to think that way if you want to.

Well I appreciate you giving me that option. But if God is the absolutely knower of what I'm going to do, whatever you give me is irrelevant.

He knows your fate based on the choices YOU will make but YOU have not made those choices yet so you won't be accountable for those choices until you make those choices. So it isn't and won't be God making those choices. YOU will be choosing and God will just be acknowledging your choices

I agree we are the ones making our choices and not God. But if it is that God knows what we will do before we are faced with decisions, then He is the one creating our outcome. Our choices were conceived of by Him before we had a say in the matter.

You're still not thinking correctly but you can continue to think that way if you want to.

Eh, still not...but, whatever. Do what you do.

nah you're wrong. But that's ok. we're all a little wrong.

[strappinglad]

Schrodinger's cat experiment and quantum mechanics suggest that some decisions are made millions of years in advance of an event and others are affected by our mere observance .Perhaps Free Will is just as involved .

[mfbukowski]

The point is I don't even know my actions until the point in time comes that actions are taken or at least planned for. but if God knows my actions before that time comes, then He is the one creating my action, not me.

So to apply a little more closely your story above. If a man drove towards a cliff at 60 miles per hour, he most likely would be trying to kill himself, unless he did not know a cliff was ahead. If say he wanted to kill himself, he has his reasons. But if say, God knew absolutely that he'd be killing himself by driving off a cliff at this time, before this man had conceived of it, then the action was destined to have had happened. He couldn't have changed that outcome because God, long before this man could have thought of it, had already conceived of him killing himself. No choice would have been made by him. it was going to happen.

But let's back up a moment. If God did not know this man would kill himself even until the 20 feet before the cliff, then choice is involved for this man. God could know the man's thoughts and feelings, and determination and still think it possible he may decide to pull up at some point and stop.

If scripture is correct in describing us being able to choose then it must be that God knows our options, knows our hearts, but is still not be able to know with 100% certainty what we're going to do. If we' prefer that God knows our actions before we know of them, then we're not really choosing, we're having choices put upon us by He who conceived of them for us.

This is circular.

You are presuming that God would in fact intervene.

 

It's semantic silliness.  It's not worth the time to take it line by line.  See my previous answer, and read it at every time you say something like:

 

 

but if God knows my actions before that time comes, then He is the one creating my action, not me.

 

God knew absolutely that he'd be killing himself by driving off a cliff at this time, before this man had conceived of it, then the action was destined to have had happened

Knowing something will happen does not make it happen any more for God than it does for me.

 

If I know the car is going over the cliff- with certainty- I did not make it happen.  If God knows it 500 years before that the car will go over the cliff- it doesn't matter one bit.  Call it "destiny" if you like.  What does that even MEAN?  The very use of the word presumes that it has a meaning and that therefore "destiny" is real in some sense.  

 

But on the other hand, if you want to say that God doesn't know everything, that is also semantic silliness and I don't care about that either.

 

If you are stipulating silly conditions in which God supposedly doesn't know something and some allegedly cosmic results due to that stipulation, it is still just semantic silliness.  If you want to now play with the definition of "omnipotence" go ahead, it still doesn't matter.

 

So God can't make a boulder he can't lift.   So what?  It is semantic silliness

 

It's all a question of how you want to define the terms.  These are all models, thought experiments, paradigms, memes, whatever you want to call them.

 

Play with them and get yourselves mixed up to your heart's content.  Or better yet make a DECISION to do something better with your time.

Edited November 10, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

 

"There exists a given event x such that I know that x will happen

There exists a given event x such that I caused that x to happen"

 

How do those imply each other?

Changing the subject of the sentences to "God" makes no difference in the logic.

 

Because I know it will happen, then yes, it is true that it could not happen otherwise.   It WILL happen.

 

But I think it is quite clear that I had nothing to do with the car going over the cliff, even though IT COULD NOT HAPPEN OTHERWISE.

 

Neither did God.

[pogi]

I agree we are the ones making our choices and not God. But if it is that God knows what we will do before we are faced with decisions, then He is the one creating our outcome.

 

Nephi and other prophets saw the future.  Does that mean they somehow caused the future or are responsible for the outcome in any way?  Foreknowledge does not imply causation as evidenced by the prophets.  God is simply a more advanced seer.  He no more caused the future for knowing it than we caused the past for knowing it.  

[stemelbow]

This is circular.

You are presuming that God would in fact intervene.

Not in anyway am I presuming that God would intervene.

 

It's semantic silliness.  It's not worth the time to take it line by line.  See my previous answer, and read it at every time you say something like:

 

Knowing something will happen does not make it happen any more for God than it does for me.

But choices are only made when we conceive of them. If they were already conceived for us before we were faced with the choices then they really aren't our choices. Those decisions were made before us, if we presume that God conceived of our choices before we make them.

 

If I know the car is going over the cliff- with certainty- I did not make it happen.  If God knows it 500 years before that the car will go over the cliff- it doesn't matter one bit.  Call it "destiny" if you like.  What does that even MEAN?  The very use of the word presumes that it has a meaning and that therefore "destiny" is real in some sense.  

 

But on the other hand, if you want to say that God doesn't know everything, that is also semantic silliness and I don't care about that either.

 

If you are stipulating silly conditions in which God supposedly doesn't know something and some allegedly cosmic results due to that stipulation, it is still just semantic silliness.  If you want to now play with the definition of "omnipotence" go ahead, it still doesn't matter.

 

So God can't make a boulder he can't lift.   So what?  It is semantic silliness

 

It's all a question of how you want to define the terms.  These are all models, thought experiments, paradigms, memes, whatever you want to call them.

 

Play with them and get yourselves mixed up to your heart's content.  Or better yet make a DECISION to do something better with your time.

Dismissal? no problem. have fun.

[stemelbow]

Nephi and other prophets saw the future.  Does that mean they somehow caused the future or are responsible for the outcome in any way?  Foreknowledge does not imply causation as evidenced by the prophets.  God is simply a more advanced seer.  He no more caused the future for knowing it than we caused the past for knowing it.

I did not suggest that those who see the future are the cause of the future.

[Stroopwafel]

Ah, ok yes that helps a ton.

 

I have not been really following the thread and missed your original post.  So Nietzsche is arguing probably for a more "process" view of complex interactions and not clearly discernible atomic events- that makes sense.

 

So really that is the underlying metaphysics here- it is a process metaphysics as opposed to a scholastic, Aristotelian view.

 

Okie dokie.  And yes I like that a lot - thanks! 

 

You're very welcome!

 

But as you imply, to say that Nietzsche was "against free will" is certainly a misunderstanding.  As you know, you have to know ALL of Nietzsche to comprehend any given passage.

 

This can never be emphasized enough.

 

 

Ultimately where their philosophy led, as carried on by their followers, was into a process view

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

As you can imagine, with such a view of complex causes, the whole notion of causality comes into question- because causes are not discrete events.

 

So Schopenhauer takes this view- he started it really- and says "there is no freedom" because we are all stuck in this web of causes.

 

On the other hand, it sure seems like we have freedom.  We can decide to continue reading this post or not, and play a video game instead.

 

One of the point Schopenhauer makes is that a choice between alternatives is always motivated by some impulse which themselves are not really ours to settle on. One key phrasing he uses that characterizes his view is : "Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants."

 

So if we say that, then we have to say that "reality as we know it is an illusion", or we can say, with the same experience of the phenomena, that "it's too complex to characterize linguistically, so why worry about 'ultimate reality' which cannot be characterized anyway.

 

All that matters is the practical consequences of living day to day, and practically speaking surely we make choices- the rest is academic speculation.  THAT position is know as "Pragmatism" and that is where I am coming from

 

So THAT view ultimately leads to Wittgenstein- saying essentially that "It's all so complex, all that matters in communication is the context- words are all confusing and actually create the problems in the first place".  THAT is essentially a Wittgensteinian position.

 

So that's why I think it is fruitless and silly to even debate the issue.  You can look at it one way and put together words to make it sound like the "reality" is that we have free will.   On the other hand, you can put together words to make it sound like the "reality" is all determined and we don't have free will.

 

None of it amounts to a hill of beans and people who don't understand philosophy will debate it til doomsday.

 

Hence my lack of interest in the thread

 

But I am glad that I caught your post- maybe it contributed to others understanding the history of the argument

 

I can certainly empathize with your view; though I do struggle with pragmatism and wouldn't say I adopt it as my own philosophical view (which I'm still unsure what it is yet by the way), I find it appeals to me in a strange way.

 

In any case, thanks for your contribution!

[Guest]

Stupid or foolish, a roughneck. Are a couple of defs.

I do,not think you are goon, it that how you see yourself, if so that can wound and cause great hame to you soul. ;(