Why we don't have free will using logic
Edited for clarity (3/14/24):
[Edited: Socrates famously proclaimed that he knew that he knew nothing. However, I disagree both with the notion that he knew that he knew nothing and with the idea that he knew that he knew anything at all. You might find this contradictory but allow me to explain. (Also, I am aware that Socrates never once meant that he thought that he knew nothing at all, when he said, "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance", he said so poetically, not literally.)]
Our "awareness" may not actually be awareness at all; it could merely seem like awareness of the way things truly are. Even something as seemingly concrete as the math equation 1+1=2 could, in reality, equal 3, 500, or even 0, or perhaps something beyond our current comprehension. Just because we are not aware of it being anything else does not mean that no other possibilities exist. After all, we do not have full awareness of everything even if we know anything, as knowing everything would allow us to know if it's possible to be mistaken or not due to reality existing in a way that prevents our knowledge from being incorrect or correct.
So, how then do we believe we know anything? It's through faith that we believe we know things, as faith is belief in something without evidence. We lack evidence to assert that our awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything with 100% certainty, after all, it could just be a deception.
But why do we have faith in anything if our faith in logic is correct? If we began with uncertainty, not knowing anything or even nothing at all (requiring faith), we could not have reached this point if we had free will. Having free will would imply knowing (though faith) that knowing things is important before knowing anything... which contradicts logic. Therefore, we must have been influenced to learn things not by our own will, in other words, to gain faith in things without free will. So, how then would we conclude that it makes sense that we have free will when we didn't initially use free will to learn anything? It doesn't. The logic does not follow such a possibility. Of course, I assume that those of you reading this believe that logic exists through faith, since if that is not the case, then I guess I wouldn't be right within your faith (whatever that is).
[Edited: In conclusion, for those who have faith in logic, my argument is that Socrates did not know that he knew nothing; he had faith that he knew nothing, whereas I have faith that he actually knew at least some things he thought he did not, because to know that you know nothing in any sense means you have enough knowledge surrounding that void of knowledge to say that you know nothing, but nothing is not truly nothing, though it is true that nothing describes the absence of something, it is not to say that something does not exist, it just does not exist in that context. So, when we say something becomes nothing or that something is nothing, we are actually saying that something no longer exists or does not exist in the context we're understanding. Therefore, nothing exists, just not in the context it doesn't. So, to say you know that you know nothing means that you actually know something, which is why I believe that every time Socrates said he knew nothing, he actually knew something, that is my faith regarding this matter in any case.]
+++
Added:
Premise 1: If we began with uncertainty, not knowing anything or even nothing at all, we could not have reached this point if we had free will, as it would contradict logic.
Explanation: If we started without any knowledge or even the concept of nothingness, our ability to make meaningful choices (free will) would be paradoxical. Free will implies the ability to make choices based on knowledge or beliefs, but if we started without any knowledge or beliefs, there would be no basis for making any choices, undermining the concept of free will.
Premise 2: Having free will would imply knowing (though faith) that knowing things is important before knowing anything, which contradicts logic.
Explanation: If we had free will, we would have to know (either through direct knowledge or faith) that knowing things is important before we knew anything. This would create a logical contradiction because it would require a pre-existing knowledge or belief in the importance of knowledge, which contradicts the idea of starting from a state of complete ignorance or uncertainty.
Premise 3: We must have been influenced to learn things not by our own will, in other words, to gain faith in things without free will.
Explanation: Since we could not have started with free will due to the contradictions outlined in the first two premises, our acquisition of knowledge and beliefs must have been influenced by factors outside of our control. This suggests that our learning process is guided by external influences, rather than by our own free will.
Conclusion: We do not have free will.
Explanation: Given that our acquisition of knowledge and beliefs is not based on free will, and starting from a state of complete ignorance or uncertainty would make the concept of free will paradoxical, it follows that we do not have free will. Our learning and decision-making processes are shaped by external influences and do not stem from a truly autonomous free will.
+++
Added:
First Note:
To clarify, I do believe free will exists, but I do not believe we gain it until after death, and even then, we only have free will within ourselves. We already have a will, we are just not free to use it, it is restricted. To have a free will within yourself means that your body/mind is truly you, so the actions of your body/mind came from just you, but are limited by how things are around you, for if this were not true, our free wills would contradict each other.
Our freedom would allow us to not only have bodies/minds which are truly us, but also have knowledge which is truly us. We would each be unique in a way that others are not. The reason why I believe we don't have free will right now is because this world is not perfectly good, in that it would be irresponsible to give us free will in this situation, as it would be like telling us to figure out things ourselves.
Second Note:
I realize that some of you reading this may still be able to come up with counterarguments that we can know logic is real, that we don't need faith as I claim is true. But for one thing, if logic were truly like that, such absolute certainty, why am I able to doubt it? If it were truly so true, myself doubting it should not even be possible, I would have to be lying, yet to lie, seems strange, after all, who would I be trying to convince? Obviously not someone who "knows" logic, and yet, I stand firm that logic requires faith even now.
But to that, someone might argue that I just don't understand logic correctly, that's why I'm coming to such a conclusion. After all, I'm using logic right now to make this argument, aren't I? But if logic isn't actually real, that would mean that right now, I'm not actually using logic at all, I'm just using something that seems like logic due to our limited awareness.
Is it truly so bad to not know if logic, or if anything, or even nothing is true? For me, I feel freed after realizing that everything and nothing requires faith to believe is real, after all, fears come from knowing things exist which scare us, but to not know anything or nothing prevents such fear from taking hold as deeply as it would if we truly knew we knew anything.
So, in summary, not even nothing is certain, and therefore us, being in such a position of uncertainty, cannot possibly have free will.
[Edited: Socrates famously proclaimed that he knew that he knew nothing. However, I disagree both with the notion that he knew that he knew nothing and with the idea that he knew that he knew anything at all. You might find this contradictory but allow me to explain. (Also, I am aware that Socrates never once meant that he thought that he knew nothing at all, when he said, "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance", he said so poetically, not literally.)]
Our "awareness" may not actually be awareness at all; it could merely seem like awareness of the way things truly are. Even something as seemingly concrete as the math equation 1+1=2 could, in reality, equal 3, 500, or even 0, or perhaps something beyond our current comprehension. Just because we are not aware of it being anything else does not mean that no other possibilities exist. After all, we do not have full awareness of everything even if we know anything, as knowing everything would allow us to know if it's possible to be mistaken or not due to reality existing in a way that prevents our knowledge from being incorrect or correct.
So, how then do we believe we know anything? It's through faith that we believe we know things, as faith is belief in something without evidence. We lack evidence to assert that our awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything with 100% certainty, after all, it could just be a deception.
But why do we have faith in anything if our faith in logic is correct? If we began with uncertainty, not knowing anything or even nothing at all (requiring faith), we could not have reached this point if we had free will. Having free will would imply knowing (though faith) that knowing things is important before knowing anything... which contradicts logic. Therefore, we must have been influenced to learn things not by our own will, in other words, to gain faith in things without free will. So, how then would we conclude that it makes sense that we have free will when we didn't initially use free will to learn anything? It doesn't. The logic does not follow such a possibility. Of course, I assume that those of you reading this believe that logic exists through faith, since if that is not the case, then I guess I wouldn't be right within your faith (whatever that is).
[Edited: In conclusion, for those who have faith in logic, my argument is that Socrates did not know that he knew nothing; he had faith that he knew nothing, whereas I have faith that he actually knew at least some things he thought he did not, because to know that you know nothing in any sense means you have enough knowledge surrounding that void of knowledge to say that you know nothing, but nothing is not truly nothing, though it is true that nothing describes the absence of something, it is not to say that something does not exist, it just does not exist in that context. So, when we say something becomes nothing or that something is nothing, we are actually saying that something no longer exists or does not exist in the context we're understanding. Therefore, nothing exists, just not in the context it doesn't. So, to say you know that you know nothing means that you actually know something, which is why I believe that every time Socrates said he knew nothing, he actually knew something, that is my faith regarding this matter in any case.]
+++
Added:
Premise 1: If we began with uncertainty, not knowing anything or even nothing at all, we could not have reached this point if we had free will, as it would contradict logic.
Explanation: If we started without any knowledge or even the concept of nothingness, our ability to make meaningful choices (free will) would be paradoxical. Free will implies the ability to make choices based on knowledge or beliefs, but if we started without any knowledge or beliefs, there would be no basis for making any choices, undermining the concept of free will.
Premise 2: Having free will would imply knowing (though faith) that knowing things is important before knowing anything, which contradicts logic.
Explanation: If we had free will, we would have to know (either through direct knowledge or faith) that knowing things is important before we knew anything. This would create a logical contradiction because it would require a pre-existing knowledge or belief in the importance of knowledge, which contradicts the idea of starting from a state of complete ignorance or uncertainty.
Premise 3: We must have been influenced to learn things not by our own will, in other words, to gain faith in things without free will.
Explanation: Since we could not have started with free will due to the contradictions outlined in the first two premises, our acquisition of knowledge and beliefs must have been influenced by factors outside of our control. This suggests that our learning process is guided by external influences, rather than by our own free will.
Conclusion: We do not have free will.
Explanation: Given that our acquisition of knowledge and beliefs is not based on free will, and starting from a state of complete ignorance or uncertainty would make the concept of free will paradoxical, it follows that we do not have free will. Our learning and decision-making processes are shaped by external influences and do not stem from a truly autonomous free will.
+++
Added:
First Note:
To clarify, I do believe free will exists, but I do not believe we gain it until after death, and even then, we only have free will within ourselves. We already have a will, we are just not free to use it, it is restricted. To have a free will within yourself means that your body/mind is truly you, so the actions of your body/mind came from just you, but are limited by how things are around you, for if this were not true, our free wills would contradict each other.
Our freedom would allow us to not only have bodies/minds which are truly us, but also have knowledge which is truly us. We would each be unique in a way that others are not. The reason why I believe we don't have free will right now is because this world is not perfectly good, in that it would be irresponsible to give us free will in this situation, as it would be like telling us to figure out things ourselves.
Second Note:
I realize that some of you reading this may still be able to come up with counterarguments that we can know logic is real, that we don't need faith as I claim is true. But for one thing, if logic were truly like that, such absolute certainty, why am I able to doubt it? If it were truly so true, myself doubting it should not even be possible, I would have to be lying, yet to lie, seems strange, after all, who would I be trying to convince? Obviously not someone who "knows" logic, and yet, I stand firm that logic requires faith even now.
But to that, someone might argue that I just don't understand logic correctly, that's why I'm coming to such a conclusion. After all, I'm using logic right now to make this argument, aren't I? But if logic isn't actually real, that would mean that right now, I'm not actually using logic at all, I'm just using something that seems like logic due to our limited awareness.
Is it truly so bad to not know if logic, or if anything, or even nothing is true? For me, I feel freed after realizing that everything and nothing requires faith to believe is real, after all, fears come from knowing things exist which scare us, but to not know anything or nothing prevents such fear from taking hold as deeply as it would if we truly knew we knew anything.
So, in summary, not even nothing is certain, and therefore us, being in such a position of uncertainty, cannot possibly have free will.
Comments (71)
This seems to forego what his point actually was - to remain humble in the face of apparent knowledge.
I doubt many, if any, would claim Socrates actually claimed to know no things whatever. Then again, some claim he didn't exist.. so..
Quoting Echogem222
This seems standard.
I don't think this was meant to be taken literally, but word play to convey that the essence of philosophy and seeking knowledge is to come to every situation as if you know nothing. Thus you leave your preconceptions behind, you listen to others in discussions, and you seek to understand the topic before telling others how it should be.
As for, "How do we know that we know?" there's an entire field of philosophy called epistemology. I've written a bit on the subject as well here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 Its a bit lengthy, but there's a summary from the next poster besides me that captures it very well. Feel free to read and ask questions if you're curious.
You can't be 'wise in many ways' without knowledge.
When I studied Socretes at university we were taught that the claim was not to be read as a concrete absolutist proclamation, but a poetic expression about the limitations in Socrates' knowledge.
He obviously knew things or he wouldn't have been able to forensically drill down into people's claims using provocation and irony to make his points, which were obviously predicated on the knowledge of the limitations of other's presuppositions.
Quoting Echogem222
No. There are things we can have confidence in and things we don't know. Faith can be left to religious claims. There's a continuum from total ignorance to certainty. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't be typing your response on a website based on technology maintained by knowledge and then reading and responding. Sure, we know nothing with absolute certainty, but we don't need certainty.
Try cutting off your hand off with a power saw. I bet you'll form an opinion pretty soon that you are certain there is pain and that you have done something injurious to yourself. To deny this would be decadent and even childish. Thoughts?
"When I studied Socrates at university, we were taught that the claim was not to be read as a concrete absolutist proclamation, but a poetic expression about the limitations in Socrates' knowledge."
Yes, limitations, he thought he knew that he knew nothing in certain areas, not that he thought he had faith that he knew nothing in certain areas. I'm not an idiot, I of course understand he believed he knew some things when he said that he knew that he knew nothing.
"No. There are things we can have confidence in and things we don't know. Faith can be left to religious claims. There's a continuum from total ignorance to certainty. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't be typing your response on a website based on technology maintained by knowledge and then reading and responding. Sure, we know nothing with absolute certainty, but we don't need certainty."
I do not believe I gained awareness of logic and other things through free will, since I don't believe in free will, so now, after being exposed to such things, I feel influenced to believe such things are true because I have no influence swaying me to think differently, and I see no benefit in doing differently. So, I believe I started out my beliefs with zero certainty because I lacked the free will to do differently, and since my faith in anything was originally started out with zero certainty, everything I have faith in is founded on faith of zero certainty, disproving your reasoning. I did explain this in my post, but I guess you couldn't be bothered to fully read it before stating your opinion.
Quoting Echogem222
:up:
Quoting Echogem222
Sorry too many double negatives and disordered syntax for me to follow. I struggle with unclear English.
You say you are not an idiot - are you certain? Is that faith based?
I'm unclear, what is it you are certain you are uncertain about?
Quoting Tom Storm
I am not an idiot is obviously based on faith, as is everything else.
Quoting Tom Storm
In the context of knowing anything, I am neither certain or uncertain, in the context of faith, I am certain.
To claim uncertainty is to claim you know there are things you are uncertain of, which means having knowledge, which I do not have, not in the context of non-faith-based knowledge.
here we go, good stuffQuoting Echogem222
keep goingQuoting Echogem222
hmmm close this needs more thought still fine no problems yetQuoting Echogem222
interested im listening and more....Quoting Echogem222
Make this conclusion stronger its important You have good stuff here it ought to go somewhere make the reach set that scope with purpose in mind perhaps even though your passion is evident to meQuoting Philosophim
dead wrong would you like to be surprised or bothered?
I was kinda getting at this here with the delight of, Vaskane....https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/887319
While im at it, I couldnt help but notice that even though faith is heavily discussed here you used an interesting angle...using Socrates, and free will is smart and to slide in these questions about faith and certainty without religion. I am with you here...but not important now. Just figured id mention and its good to know that the title could have an impact...when I was in the thread linked above, I think tired thinker posted it, "Types of faith" a few days ago I was thinking, wondering about this, I was trying to think of how I could defend that thread to not go into Philosophy of Religion but i guess it makes sense and should remain there in this case because. But im looking out for ways to do that...we will see what happens. Still feeling suspicious about that for some reason, i like it.
Quoting Philosophim Its right where it needs to be, at least you acknowledge a path at all.
Quoting Kizzy
To clarify, I do actually believe in a religion, and the points I made do actually tie into my religion, so it would actually count as a philosophy of a religion, but it can also apply outside of my religion.
Quoting Kizzy
From my understanding, faith is never blind until faith is no longer believed as being faith, but actually knowing things, because when you truly think you know something, how can those who only have faith in things prove you wrong? I believe that those who think they can know anything without faith already have blind faith. In fact, back when I was still a Christian, I was taught to think I knew things, not that I had faith, and getting out of that religion from that position was a nightmare to me. I was able to leave Christianity behind only because I realized that I had faith in that religion through painful experiences, in other words, to leave a faith behind requires understanding your own uncertainty, therefore, to teach that people can know things is to discourage a lack of certainty and make leaving any faith behind harder than it needs to be.
In other words, by emphasizing that we can know things, belief systems can inadvertently discourage acknowledging the role of faith and uncertainty in our understanding of the world. This can therefore lead to blind faith, where individuals will not critically evaluate their beliefs or consider alternative perspectives. Encouraging an awareness of uncertainty can promote a more open-minded approach and a deeper understanding of the basis of one's beliefs.
Quoting Tom Storm wahhhhhhh :worry:
Where does he say this? It is the most famous thing he never proclaimed. If you search the dialogues you will find that what he did say is quite different.
First is that skepticism had its heyday after Plato, with the Academy itself having a "skeptical period." So, while threads of skepticism run through the dialogues, particularly the Meno, Phaedo (interlude on misology), the Theatetus, and parts of the Timaeus and the Republic, it's not a position Plato is necessarily paying close attention to because he is more focused on the relativism of the Sophists. Relativism leads to its own sort of skepticism, but it's distinct from skepticism and Plato puts far more focus on dealing with the claims of the former. Phyrro isn't around yet, so he doesn't have this sort of broader skepticism in mind.
Second is that, when discussing Socrates, its always important to note that he is being fictionalized into highly stylized and artistic project, and his view is not always meant to be "correct." I tend to agree that the early dialogues are very focused on the project of introducing Socrates as an alternative to the Homeric heroes and those of the contemporary dramatists, but that this Socrates might also be closer to the historical one. But they key point I'd make here is that it'd be a real risk to read the later Socrates of the middle and late dialogues through the lens of Socrates initial statements about the limits of his own knowledge. Plato does think he knows [I]some[/I] important things, and he wants to teach them to us, primarily through Socrates. He is skeptical about physical knowledge, since the physical world is always contingent and changing (e.g. the Phaedo) but that skepticism doesn't extend everywhere (there are interesting similarities to Shankara here).
There is a profession of falibalism in the Timaeus, but it's important to distinguish fallibalism from total skepticism. I would take Socrates' initial statements about his own lack of knowledge in the Apology and the other early dialogues in context. He seems to be talking about the ability to to know important things, e.g. how society should be run, what is good, etc. While Plato does get into more fundemental sorts of doubts, doubts about the accuracy of perception, etc. in the Theatetus and other places, the rest of the content in the Apology would seem to warn against Socrates' being taken as a wide-ranging position about all knowledge.
If you want a really good ancient treatment of the skepticism that grew out of Plato and its relation to faith, St. Augustine's Contra Academicos is quite good and includes a version of Descartes famous "cognito ergo sum."
Quoting https://reasonandmeaning.com/2019/11/03/socrates-i-know-that-i-know-nothing/
Even if he was such, I don't think he would be contradicting himself. I may say that I know nothing while also casting doubt on other people's beliefs. Belief is a(n doxastic) attitude, which means that I believe something if and only if I believe something. I don't believe something because I say X or because I did Y of course, some of my behaviour may suggest what some of my beliefs are (shaking before going up a mountain may suggest I don't actually believe I know how to ski), but it gets complex from there, especially when instinct may override rationality, and whether you want to include involuntary aspects such as emotions into your analysis of belief.
There is a phrase in some languages which is "to speak from your mouth out", which is to say something without committing to its truth. Something similar in English is "to play devil's advocate", you can say something without it implying any beliefs. Socrates, when talking to the people, is not necessarily admitting to any beliefs.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Cogito. Good recommendation :up: I did not know he said that in Contra Academicos, I was aware of the si fallor in "Monologues", "The Trinity" and "The City of God":
Some earlier appearances of cogitos here too:
[hide="Reveal"]In "Nicomachean Ethics", Aristotle mentions consciousness of consciousness as consciousness of existence, but based on the definition that thought or perception are existence.
Goméz Pereira in "Antoniana Margarita" also presents consciousness as proof of existence, as well as some other parallels with Descartes.
Thomas Aquinas says in "De Veritate": "No one can assent to the thought that he does not exist. For in thinking something, he realises that it exists"; resembling Aristotle's argument.[/hide]
I did, but I will admit that I had a hard time following it. My point would be that looking to Plato for a discussion of radical skepticism might not be the best framing, because it's not really what he's interested in, especially in the Apology. I will admit confusion as to whether you think you have found a flaw in Plato's project or are just using Socrates as an arbitrary example of the fact that "you can doubt anything," and that "knowing anything means knowing something." The latter is interesting, but then the topic isn't really Socrates but skepticism.
The idea that it's possible to doubt anything is in many other places Descartes might be another more logical starting point?
"Free will" as such isn't really a concept Plato and Aristotle had. It comes on the scene with Saint Paul and Saint Augustine. But they did have robust theories of self-determination, a sort of reflexive freedom.
I don't think either Aristotle nor Plato would say we start out self-determining. For Plato, most people are ruled over by the appetitive and spirited parts of their soul, in a sort of disharmonious chaos. Aristotle clarifies a lot in Plato by laying out the idea of virtues as habits/practices we can develop, and the distinction between vice (doing the wrong thing and not knowing it is wrong), incontinence (doing what you know is wrong), continence (overcoming emotion and desire through effort), and virtue (doing what is good and enjoying it). You aren't self-determinating off the bat babies aren't free, they follow their impulse. Freedom is then to do what one thinks is right, to overcome being ruled over by desire, instinct, and circumstance.
You don't get that at the outset. You become more free through self-discovery, self-knowledge, and through gaining knowledge of the world and skills that empower you to act in the world.
Does cultivating such knowledge require faith? I suppose so, under some definitions of "faith." This is what Augustine says. You need to start with faith to understand. You can start by questioning anything, who your real parents are, if the world was just created this second, etc. You "have faith so that you can understand."
To me, these seem like reasonable positions. I don't know why freedom should come first. You can't question assumptions until you've learned how to question them effectively. Likewise, justification doesn't have to come prior to beliefs.
Quoting C. D. Yonge translation
Quoting R. D. Hicks translation
I would not say I did a full study, but I did take a course, mostly centered around Guthrie's "Socrates". That was a long time ago. At the time I thought it was a dead end. The reason is that none of the main sources on Socrates - Aristophanes, Xenophon, and Plato are intended to be historical accounts. Both Plato and Xenophon write in response to Aristophanes portrayal of Socrates as a sophist.
The Socrates of The Clouds has the advantage of being quite funny though. "Huh? We don't deal with mortals here; we're contemplating the Sun. Oh you want some divine knowledge, quick, to the Divine Couch to contemplate!"
Re the reliability of old sources, Eusebius passes down the rumor that the theologian and Platonist scholar Origen had castrated himself in order to avoid temptation and focus on his studies. Yet one of Origen's books that has made it down to us, a commentary on Matthew, says something to the effect of "you'd have to be a real, grade A dumbass to think that Jesus is actually telling us to remove body parts that make us sin here." A funny disconnect.
Ah, Efsevios, the guy who might or might not have forged historical documents.
Diogenes Laertius says:
but fails to provide a reference. In the same paragraph he mentions Xenophon's Symposium but I was unable to find it there.
In Plato's Apology he says that he does not know anything noble and good. (Apology 21d)
In Plato's Symposium Socrates says:
(177d)
His knowledge of ignorance is not simply a matter of knowing that he is ignorant but of knowing how to proceed in the face of ignorance. Knowledge of our ignorance is essential to Socratic philosophy. His practice of inquiry stems from his not knowing, from his search for knowledge.
I am not sure about that. Is an embryo free or self-determining? A baby? A two year old? A teenager? At some point, people seem to gain more of an ability to determine their own actions and feelings, although this ability is never absolute.
To get a little metaphysical, it seems possible for a semi-isolated system to be more of less self-determining, its states determined by what it is. This is generally what is meant by "adaptive" when we talk about complex, dissipative systems. Systems might be self-organizing to varying degrees, but they don't create themselves ex nihilo, and complexity takes time to develop.
A well educated person who has cultivated the virtues, who makes an effort to understand their world and themselves, etc. seems like they can become more self-determining than someone who is always led around by their passions and appetites, or someone who has been subject to horrendous abuse and locked in a room all their lives.
A person might have taken things for granted, but they can only return to challenge these assumptions effectively after having developed in certain ways. This sort of freedom and self-determination seems to show up in the world. The claim that a person cannot have this sort of freedom as an adult because they lacked it as an embryo, and so their development wasn't their "free choice," doesn't seem to carry water.
It seems to rely on an abstract conception of freedom that is contradictory - one where freedom is total freedom from constraint. But then choosing certain beliefs and not others would itself be a form of constraint. To choose A and C is to not have chosen A and B, or just A, or none of the above. Freedom as freedom from any constraint turns out to imply that freedom requires never choosing anything, as choice implies constraint. Yet the inability to choose is the opposite of what we tend to mean by freedom - a contradiction. So freedom can't be just the total lack of constraints.
Nor can it be that freedom would require that we choose our beliefs from some vantage of having no beliefs at all. For if we were to choose our beliefs in that way, based on no prior beliefs at all, these choices would be arbitrary. These choices would have nothing to do with us. Indeed, it's hard to see how we exist sans any beliefs. Yet you seem to be setting things up so that, in order to be free, we must have to somehow select our beliefs prior to having any beliefs.
So, I think it's your conception of freedom that is giving you trouble. It doesn't seem to cash out. Under this definition nothing can be free. You either have your beliefs forced on you by some extrinsic force, or you would be choosing your starting beliefs based on nothing and so have arbitrary beliefs guiding your actions. But why are these the only options? Why can't a mature individual return to their beliefs and examine them within the context of other beliefs and evidence, overturning them if there is warrant?
The more knowledge you get through a lack of free will makes you free? How does that logically follow the premises? It's like saying that a lack of free will+ a lack of free will+ a lack of free will, etc. once you get to a certain point of gaining knowledge through a lack of free will, you suddenly are able to use free will. Sure, you could say it's possible, but using logic, you would never come to that conclusion.
It certainly is! But also quite serious.
What logic? You seem to be saying something like: "an entity is free if and only if it is free from its inception."
I do not see a demonstration of this though.
Consider a universe of just one agent and a video game. At first, the agent has no freedom. They are in a tutorial mode during which they can only click on one bottom at a time as the game demonstrates how all the different buttons work. Through the tutorial, the agent gains true beliefs about what the buttons do. But they can't choose anything, they just watch.
Then the tutorial ends. Now they can push the buttons however they want, choosing which to use. In what sense have they not gained any new freedom? In what sense has the tutorial robbed them of their ability to choose which buttons to press?
Ok, I was honestly just trying to be helpful in pulling these out. I see that you have gone back and made it clearer.
I would just point to two things here:
Why not both?
If you look back, you'll see that I agree with you on the paradoxical nature of an absolutely free will. I think most philosophers would. I guess my suggestion would be: "is this a good definition of free will?"
Look at the inverse of your conclusion, if our learning process was not guided by external influences at all, would that make us free? I would say no. Our memories and beliefs, who we love and who we despise, are all influenced by things that are external to us, right? But if our actions were fully autonomous, then it couldn't be the case that our memories play any role in our choices (unless we suppose our memories are also divorced from the world, not caused by it). So this seems to lead to the impossibility of free will in either case.
Our actions can't be free if they are fully determined by the world, but they also can't be free if they are completely divorced from the world, since our interactions with the world make us who we are. This is why most conceptions of free will reject the idea that it entails being "totally autonomous."
Which is to say, I think you are correct, but in the larger scheme of free will discussions the "free will" that proves to be contradictory in this way is not the "free will," being debated. For example, most compatibalist accounts of free will assume that the world as a whole is deterministic.
But if you use the argument that because logic is logical is why logic is true, that is dependent on awareness being truly as it seems to be, which we can't know, therefore, logic still requires faith.
Quoting Vaskane
How do you know this, that there exists nothing which could contradict this reasoning? Because for that to be true, you would have to know everything, and therefore know that there is nothing else which could contradict your reasoning, but you naturally don't know everything, so you can't make that argument with 100% certainty.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
"Why not" is not logical reasoning, it's like saying that suddenly, we are able to use free will. Sure, that could be true, but why should I believe that? What basis does such a belief have in being meaningful to have faith in?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
To clarify, I do believe free will exists, but I do not believe we gain it until after death, and even then, we only have free will within ourselves. We already have a will, we are just not free to use it, it is restricted. To have a free will within yourself means that your body/mind is truly you, so the actions of your body/mind came from just you, but are limited by how things are around you, for if this were not true, our free wills would contradict each other.
Our freedom would allow us to not only have bodies/minds which are truly us, but also have knowledge which is truly us. We would each be unique in a way that others are not. The reason why I believe we don't have free will right now is because this world is not perfectly good, in that it would be irresponsible to give us free will in this situation, as it would be like telling us to figure out things ourselves.
Any particular reason for your fatuous rudeness?
Another way of explaining our trust in logic (without resorting to faith) comes with understanding the ability that neural networks in our brains have, to subconsciously perform pattern recognition. In learning to use language we develop at least a rudimentary recognition that logic works reliably. Subsequently we naturally expect the consistent pattern we have recognized to continue to hold.
So maybe "faith" isn't a particularly good way of understanding the situation?
To answer your questions... Reliable patterns to observations.
Yes there is more to our thinking than logic, but jumping from that to faith is missing out on a much more explanatory picture of what is going on.
You are remarkably confident in your beliefs about what I am assuming.
Also quite wrong.
It might help for you to re-read my original post, as I have recently added some more details to it for enhanced clarity.
I'm not blaming you. I don't suppose you have libertarian free will.
Quoting Echogem222
I'm not committed to debate at all. You might say I was investigating the degree to which you are open to learning. You thinking that you know what I'm assuming does not bode well I'm afraid. You see, there are patterns I've learned to recognize.
If I reformulate your three points as:
1.) If we do not have knowledge then we can not act freely since knowledge is a prerequisite to acting freely
(If not A then not B)
2.) If we are free then we should not have a predisposition towards knowledge
(If B then not C)
3.) If we have a predisposition towards knowledge then we are not free.
(If C then not B)
Conclusion: We do not have free will.
(Not B)
--------------
First, I'd like to point out: Structurally, there is no contradictions present here. You keep saying ...contradict logic. A contradiction is a logical entity, it doesnt contradict logic. A contradiction would be of the form: If A then not A.
Second, Id like to point out that I have no reason to accept 1, 2, or 3.
For 1, lets imagine an entity that is definitely free. I put a gun to the entitys head and tell it to pick a number between 1-10. Having no information about the number, what it means, if it will have any effect at all or otherwise, the entity still has 11 options (1 being to not answer at all).
For 2, first of all why not and second of all I dont believe that we have a predisposition towards knowledge, but we learn over time that knowing things is beneficial and try to actively acquire knowledge for that reason. This has nothing to do with our freedoms. In fact, some people freely choose to not acquire knowledge.
For 3 basically the same as 2.
If you are talking about how I changed the title, I did that so that we would all have conversations more on topic, as I felt that many just read the title, didn't read much of the post, totally missed the point because the title wasn't clear enough.
Based on faith also. Many do not believe we started without any knowedge or beliefs tabula rasa.
But even in tabula rasa I fail to see how that problematic.
1 I am born, a stupid baby who knows literally nothing.
2 As a baby, I can't make choices because I basically have no consciousness at that point.
3 I have sense perception before I am able to make choices.
4 My senses give me some beliefs (the sky is blue).
5 I am now able to make choices based on the sky being blue.
Quoting Echogem222
Why does free will require knowledge? I don't see how that follows.
Quoting Echogem222
Surely we don't have absolute free will, I think only a "pantheistic" God could have such. But it does not imply we have no free will at all.
Quoting Echogem222
Or maybe it follows that we don't start from complete ignorance, meaning that we do have innate ideas?
Quoting Echogem222
Can you doubt the law of identity though?
Quoting 013zen
No, this is false, if they truly had free will, they would not be limited by your knowledge, after all, in their mind, they can react to things you say however they want, suffering would not affect them, they could shut off all of their senses, and killing them would not be possible because their body and mind would be fully them, you could not use things to control how they experience anything.
Quoting 013zen
Some people freely choose to not acquire knowledge?? Where is your evidence for that? Am I just supposed to believe that you're telling the truth?
1. How does "being free" entail the ability to "shut off all of [one's] senses"
2. How does "being free" entail that "killing [the thing that is free is]...not possible"?
Quoting Echogem222
Many people do not know, for example, how to do basic maintenance on their car. Doing oil changes, fixing headlamps, etc. These are problems that come up regularly throughout life, and present opportunities for people to learn how to do these things. Instead, they pay others that did seek out the knowledge to do it for them.
Quoting Echogem222
Okay.
:rofl:
Many of us made more of your argument than what was written, because the OP is not well-written at all. There are many points that were brought up that address your argument directly with clearer language than what you give us. But yet you refuse to address them. It is more than clearly an admission of defeat.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
You admit defeat here:
Quoting Echogem222
Simply because he had a hard time following the original post. That is not because he is stupid, he is smart, but it is because your OP is a visual mess.
You do that a few other times in this thread, all one needs to do is read through it to verify what I am saying. You take Banno's and wonderer1's snark as being the rule, but most of us are earnestly engaging with your thread.
I even go as far as granting you your absolute skepticism without having to do so, and yet, if we are being realistic about this, Count (and me) is correct, your argument does not follow. The fact that you replied to my objections with a flurry of related questions instead of actually addressing the objections is even more telling.
Yes, the will is fixed to what the will has amounted to up to the moment. There cannot be a "truly autonomous free will" such as in not using the will, meaning that one is somehow a first cause, so that kind of 'free' is impossible.
The 'free' in free will needs to be defined. I gave one case of free versus fixed, but of course one cannot be free of the will, so that 'free' doesn't mean anything but to help emphasize the robot shock of the will being fixed to influences, etc..
Others might define 'free' as when not being coerced.
The court system's 'free' is as one being held responsible versus being not sane or being extremely emotional as temporarily not sane, and thus not responsible.
The religious might mean 'free' as that matching God's will.
Using 'free' to merely mean that the will is able to operate is trivial, with the 'free' not meaning anything.
Other words that want to take on a life of their own apart from their definition are 'infinite', as an amount or a number (the infinite never completes; one cannot have it) or 'Nothing' (an 'it' trying to be an it).
'No free will' seems to sound like some sort of a bad thing, on the surface, as if there was an alternative, such to be had by adding 'free' to it to make it magic.
The just plain will (with no adjective needed) is dynamic in time and so it can change, yet its still robotic and deterministic, but granting us consistency.
Your intro post is long winded.
I found this thread very interesting and read that the people discussing did not reach an understanding. Maybe I did not either, but I felt that I could try to continue the discussion because I thought that I understood everyone.
I go through Count Timothy von Icarus argument about the game and the tutorial and 013zen example about the gun and with choosing numbers from 1-10. I try to understand how Echogem's idea works in these examples. In the end I talk that how in my opinion we can have free will and information.
1. Count Timothy von Icarus
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I understand the tutorial example and see how you say that even though the person receives knowledge in the tutorial they still have free will on how to operate on them.
However, do you see that the player is still technically bound to this knowledge because everything they learn after them is affected by this knowledge? The information they gain in the game is influenced by the knowledge of the tutorial as the tutorial teaches them the basics. Sure they can uncover something that the tutorial did not teach but the claim is that they would always compare the new information to the old since their understanding is constructed from the old information. This way the image of the new knowledge is at least tiny bit affected by the tutorial.
Hence the player cannot be free from the knowledge from the tutorial and cannot have free will in the broadest sense.
If the knowledge the tutorial provides is thought to be of having "no information" then we can say that they have free will, but Echogem's idea was to point out that the tutorial is not the base level as there could be less or no information than provided in the tutorial.
And if a person with free will and without any information has the choice to go to the tutorial they have no reason to choose it since they have no reason to value having information over not having information.
2. 013zen
Quoting 013zen
I understand your point here that the person has the 11 choices. Maybe to understand what Echogem is saying this example will help.
Example:
If we pretend that the floor is lava and try to avoid it the rules are understood and the person who touches the floor "dies" and loses the game. In the same time a person who is not part of the game cannot die or lose by touching the floor since the rules dont apply to them. So similarly if you choose to see the world differently you wont die to the bullet of the gun because the rules dont apply to you
Thinking that dying is a part of a game which you choose to play might be difficult to accept since death seems an objective event regardless if the person chooses to play or not.
But I think this is what Echogem was saying. "Knowing" that death is "objective" and something that happens when you are shot can be though as a knowledge that limits your free will (as dying in the lava in the game "floor is lava"). If you are not given this information, have true free will, you don't consider death being objective and it doesn't have effect to you.
The premise with Echogem seems to be something that the world is something we choose to believe is true and then play by it rules. And not like that assumptions like "World is governed by laws that explain everything" is always true as this assumption is "just" something we choose to have faith.
__
My opinion about having free will
To argue something more to this I would not see the issue with starting with true free will and then by accident or just by choosing with no reason at all to acquire some knowledge. After that you could build on that information and then similarly at some point by accident or with no reason at all to leave all that knowledge and go back on having no knowledge and maybe start it all again or not. So I could not see having free will an impossible thing as gaining or losing information could just happen without any reason.