Free Will

[Placid Dingo]

Let's assume a deterministic view of the world, where basically everything is set in a way that will determine the outcome of events from the onset, and continue to accept (Hawking describes this in brief history of time) that this set of inevitable events cannot be known. Let's also assume, for the sake of this little article that there are no Theological implications to prevent this (that any God or Deity either exists inside the same determinist structure, or that they do not set forth events that would upset this state of existence, or else are responsible for this structure operating inside the discussed limitations.)

We can accept that in this state, Free Will is largely an illusion. This article was in a sense predestined by who I am as a person, genetically and as shaped by the experiences that the universe has contrived to make happen. What I would like to propose is a structure for understanding the specifics of the various illusions of Free Will, and the way in which it may be rational to act in regard to this.

I would like to propose three types of Free Will.

Pragmatic, Counter-intuitive , and Deistic.

Pragmatic Free Will can be understood as Free Will, that we can accept as existing, in practical terms. For example, to pick up a pencil, or not. To order chicken or beef. Decisions which we feel, in practical terms, we are free to choose one option or another.

Counter-intuitive Free Will can be understood as choices made in opposition to our disposition. I will propose two other elements here, that this type of Free Will must be caused in part by an event, and with effort. For example, a homosexual who develops a heterosexual lifestyle must be influenced by an event (ie, a religious experience) and with effort.

Deistic Free Will is not proposed as actual Free Will but as the closest imitation to what we may consider actual, or God-like Free Will, where one may make counter-intuitive decisions as though they were Pragmatic. A person who can decide rationally to live or die, love or not love another person, support one candidate or another be one type of person or another, as they choose, as easily as picking up a pencil, or ordering beef or chicken could be said to have (Psudo)Desitic Free Will.

The basic proposal is that while we may not be able to have 'Free Will' in the traditional sense, through broadening our knowledge and range of experience, it may be possible to manifest greater types of Free Will in areas where it would seem to most matter.

[Triple Zero]

What if we could theoretically have no Free Will because of determinism and such, but we have it ANYWAY because we WANT TO have it?

That may not make much sense, but neither does Quantum.

[East Coast Hustle]

Fuck Will. That guy was a total jerkoff.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Fuck Will. That guy was a total jerkoff.

This made me giggle.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Even if everything is totally deterministic, from the point of view of any given person (who is, of course, determined in this context) their will is free. Free will is only an illusion if the perspective of determinism is the truth, and determinism can likewise be considered to be an illusion caused by free will (determinism is what free will looks like when you watch it in rewind). The two are mutually exclusive if you assume one of them is right, but they both describe the 'real' situation equally well. Even if one is an illusion, both are useful as beliefs. For instance, even if everything is predetermined, it kinda sucks to assume you have no control over your life (plus, imagine the potential effects on politics!).

[Kai]

This whole free will thing is so much mental fappery.

Okay, so we don't have free will, whatever that might be. How does that change anything about reality, how should that dictate my actions?

It seems to me to fall into nihilism, or to be otherwise meaningless. What is the opposite of free will?

[NotPublished]

I always dislike conversations about Free-Will...

I suppose OP ideas are different ... but lets avoid the Free-will vs Pre-determinism 

[Doktor Howl]

Let's assume a deterministic view of the world, where basically everything is set in a way that will determine the outcome of events from the onset, and continue to accept (Hawking describes this in brief history of time) that this set of inevitable events cannot be known. Let's also assume, for the sake of this little article that there are no Theological implications to prevent this (that any God or Deity either exists inside the same determinist structure, or that they do not set forth events that would upset this state of existence, or else are responsible for this structure operating inside the discussed limitations.)

We can accept that in this state, Free Will is largely an illusion. This article was in a sense predestined by who I am as a person, genetically and as shaped by the experiences that the universe has contrived to make happen. What I would like to propose is a structure for understanding the specifics of the various illusions of Free Will, and the way in which it may be rational to act in regard to this.

I would like to propose three types of Free Will.

Pragmatic, Counter-intuitive , and Deistic.

Pragmatic Free Will can be understood as Free Will, that we can accept as existing, in practical terms. For example, to pick up a pencil, or not. To order chicken or beef. Decisions which we feel, in practical terms, we are free to choose one option or another.

Counter-intuitive Free Will can be understood as choices made in opposition to our disposition. I will propose two other elements here, that this type of Free Will must be caused in part by an event, and with effort. For example, a homosexual who develops a heterosexual lifestyle must be influenced by an event (ie, a religious experience) and with effort.

Deistic Free Will is not proposed as actual Free Will but as the closest imitation to what we may consider actual, or God-like Free Will, where one may make counter-intuitive decisions as though they were Pragmatic. A person who can decide rationally to live or die, love or not love another person, support one candidate or another be one type of person or another, as they choose, as easily as picking up a pencil, or ordering beef or chicken could be said to have (Psudo)Desitic Free Will.

The basic proposal is that while we may not be able to have 'Free Will' in the traditional sense, through broadening our knowledge and range of experience, it may be possible to manifest greater types of Free Will in areas where it would seem to most matter.

I have to take an enormous crap.  I can feel my sphincter buckling.  It's getting beyond free will, or even rational thought.

So do you think this enormous Christmas log waiting to be born is counter-intuitive?  Because it's definitely going to be an event.

[Elder Iptuous]

I think the entirety of the North American Plumbers Guild would agree that your feces are always counter intuitive, Dok.  Many a sewer worker has gone bald dealing with your unnatural evacuations, and their resultant catastrophes.

[Placid Dingo]

Even if everything is totally deterministic, from the point of view of any given person (who is, of course, determined in this context) their will is free. Free will is only an illusion if the perspective of determinism is the truth, and determinism can likewise be considered to be an illusion caused by free will (determinism is what free will looks like when you watch it in rewind). The two are mutually exclusive if you assume one of them is right, but they both describe the 'real' situation equally well. Even if one is an illusion, both are useful as beliefs. For instance, even if everything is predetermined, it kinda sucks to assume you have no control over your life (plus, imagine the potential effects on politics!).

Useful's kind of what I'm going with here; Looking at what could provide a useful frame of reference for people (me) who get caught up in playing with these kinds of ideas.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Do subatomic particles have free will?

Apparently they do.

[Kai]

I think there is something missing from this though.

The thing that's missing is the IMPLICATIONS either way. What does it MEAN? How does it effect my life?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I think there is something missing from this though.

The thing that's missing is the IMPLICATIONS either way. What does it MEAN? How does it effect my life?

For me, lack of free will seems like a strong argument for wu-wei.

[Brotep]

What is the opposite of free will?

The expensive kind, that can only be bought at quality distributors of designer goods, or stolen, from disreputable street vendors.
And you're right--whether you got it free, or cheap at good will, or paid so much for it that you gave up your financial autonomy, it doesn't really matter.

We take the stance that we have free will. If we could somehow find and specify a mechanistic process underlying our choices, surely the awareness of that process would present us with a new set of choices.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I think there is something missing from this though.

The thing that's missing is the IMPLICATIONS either way. What does it MEAN? How does it effect my life?

Nada. If we could test it, we'd KNOW (or at least have good evidence for one over the other coming from proper studies), and it wouldn't still be argued. Since its repercussions are totally invisible to us, knowing which it is cannot impact your life.

However, thinking you know which it is can have reasonably big impacts. Like becoming a thelemite or naming a city Providence.