this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023

1 points (100.0% liked)

philosophy

19629 readers

1 users here now

Other philosophy communities have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. [ x ]

"I thunk it so I dunk it." - Descartes

Short Attention Span Reading Group: summary, list of previous discussions, schedule

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What am I missing when people talk about "free will"? (hexbear.net)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The way people talk about it makes it sound indistinguishable from "random will". If you believe in the existence of a "self" in any form, be it the chemical signals and electrical impulses in your material brain, or a ghost existing outside of space and time controlling your body like a puppeteer, you must believe in one of you believe in that self having free will.

Say you were to run a scenario many times on the same person, perfectly resetting every single measurable thing including that person's memory. If you observe them doing the same thing each time then they don't have this quality of free will? But if you do different things each time are you really "yourself"? How are your choices changed in a way that preserves an idea of a "self" and isn't just a dice roll? Doesn't that put an idea of free will in contradiction with itself?

Edit: I found this article that says what I was trying to say in much gooder words

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is really more of aporia about selfhood than a proof by contradiction against free will. I mean it is also the latter, but as a side effect.

Anyways the reason I'm saying this is that it has been discussed outside the West (where "free will" in itself is important, especially in Christian theology). For example, the entirety of the Indian philosophical traditions could be described as the questioning the nature of the self.

Buddhism is especially important here. The nature of the self is a tricky question with seemingly vague and contradictory answers. The self neither exists, doesn't exist, doesn't exist and not exist both, nor neither... rather it's a question not to even be answered.

I like these kind of aporetic topics. I believe that in Buddhism the real solution is to experience the truth of a matter personally ie. through meditative insight and enlightenment. Or maybe getting high.

Another way to put it is that it is a linguistic or cognitive issue that requires a perspective shift...maybe Wittgensteinian? That the concept of a self or free will is a limiting one that will lead to holes and contradictions in systems of logic, and are really more useful as a conventional marker for an abstraction. But not reality itself in itself

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I like this question because it asks how is 'free will' defined exactly. Depending on how that is done, one might argue that sociopaths have more 'free will' than others due to social context. I think this is pretty useful to force philosophy to have a more social context with this stuff.

It's similar to the contrast between "liberty to X" vs "liberty from X". Defining 'free will' only in the context of individualism doesn't seem to be very helpful, but I've not seen much of this discussed around this topic. It's mostly tug-of-war BS between philosophy, religion, neuroscience. We need more social sciences in there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Sartre defines free will as being our ability (or our curse) to choose and to be responsible for those choices. Furthermore, our freedom is dependant upon the freedom of others, so in this context sociopaths who encroach upon the freedom of others in turn reduce their own freedom. At least in existential, Levinasian, or Derridean philosophies, freedom is always defined in relation to others and the responsibility we have for them and ourselves.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually the unitary self is itself a fiction. There is no "you" outside of whatever exists in the moment, and it is constantly in flux

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with that, but is it in flux irrespective of things that happen to you/it insofar as it does exist? It exists in this moment, so if you were to run this moment over again I would type this exact same reply every time, or else there would be no self even in this moment. Quantum effects are as far as I'm aware undeterministic (or at least thus far not understood), but I don't believe you could construct an idea of "free" will out of them either.

But like I said in another reply, if I'm not a philosophy guy and I figured this out myself more or less, why is there still so much discussion about free will in philosophy circles? That's why I assume that I'm missing something in my understanding of what they mean by free will.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

TBH, I'm not personally very interested in this concept of free will. I think we have to act as though it exists whether or not it actually does. But if, I were, say a moral philosopher, I would probably be very concerned about it because it underpins all my other assumptions about right/wrong.

Often times, there's stuff that's extremely critical to a specialist and less so to a layperson. Literally theorists will stab each other to death over interpretation, meaning and language because that stuff is at the base of all their work.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eh I think we easily confuse word games with meaning.

Language is necessarily ambiguous, some abstraction of reality that allows us to communicate facts about reality in a simplified abstracted manner. So when we probe the spaces and limits of that abstraction all we find is ambiguity.

It’s like trying to work out how atoms work by repeatedly zooming in on google maps.

The idea of “I have free will” works fine enough for communicating a basic idea of human autonomy but trying work out what “free” really means, or who even is “I”, etc, we aren’t actually finding out anything profound. We are really just reaching to limits of an abstraction and the model stops working.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you're saying I can safely blob-no-thoughts when someone talks about it?

Regardless it feels like people wouldn't talk about free will so much if there wasn't anything to say about it, would they? It feels like a waste of energy, yet I see it discussed all the time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah basically.

Being a bit more rigorous about it, I think philosophically speaking there is some kind of error in the logic and that error gets smuggled in via the ambiguity of the language.

Like, “I” assumes some singular decision making entity exists but if you really want to zoom in to the level of chemical and electrical impulses in the brain and say ahah well there goes your “free will”, well you’ve broken the model because at this zoom level there is no singular decision making entity. There’s some network of synapses etc that fire quasi-independently.

But “I” still exist at a higher level of zoom as some emergent phenomena from those synapses. But “I” am more than just those synapses, I have an experience that cannot really be described by those synapses even if it is emergent from them.

So the error is to confuse levels of abstraction. To deny properties of “I” by zooming down to a level where “I” doesn’t exist anymore and then trying to draw conclusions about what “I” am.

Does this make sense?

Basically the entire concept of me and a self exists at a certain zoom level, and my will or the qualia of my existence only make any sense at all at a certain zoom level.

So zooming in further down to the point of electrical actions is an error. It’s like trying to figure someone’s birthday by studying the atoms they’re made of. It’s nonsense.

Or to skin this cat another way, and remain at this level of abstraction you can still describe the inputs into my decisions at the same level of abstraction at which “I” exist. Like, you can say I’m aggressive because my dad was toxic when I was a child or whatever some quasi-deterministic social factor that influences my behavior, right?

But what am “I” if not the sum of my experiences? By saying that I am controlled by my past experiences and therefore that I can’t make independent decisions, well this is just the same as saying that “I” exist somehow independently of my past. But that’s also nonsense, but here the nonsense is by secretly introducing via sleight of hand another level abstraction which is the metaphysical “I” which transcends my physical existence.

Basically, the question “what does it mean to have free will” always involves some shifting frame of abstraction and it’s the way this frame of abstraction shifts that, I think, is the philosophical error in asking the question.