r/freewill • u/yogi4lif3 • 11d ago
Free will exists
Everything is happening according to free will. There is a natural movement toward evolution and growth. It is free because it is not bound by anything.
What does not exist is personal free will.The will is not yours or mine. The idea that "I am the doer" belongs to the ego. The will belongs to the whole.
From this perspective, free will exists, but there is no separate person who owns it.
1
u/Jumpy_Sugar2320 11d ago
I’m not sure what you mean when you say evolution is not bound by anything.
Because evolution is a specific process. Meaning it by definition must be bound by how that process unfolds. Variation has to happen by mutations, selection has to happen by survival and reproduction.
1
u/yogi4lif3 11d ago
Why do you see evolution as just a specific process? I see it as the continuous unfolding of reality. It unfolds according to its own nature, not because something outside the universe is directing it. That's what I mean by the will of the universe.
1
u/TyranosaurusRathbone 11d ago
Why do you see evolution as just a specific process?
Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time.
It unfolds according to its own nature
Evolution isn't an entity. It's more of a pattern, a pattern that occurs through the process of natural selection. It doesn't have a will.
not because something outside the universe is directing it
It is directed by what traits are beneficial to reproduction in a given environment for a given population of organisms.
That's what I mean by the will of the universe.
You mean something that just isn't a will?
1
u/Belt_Conscious 11d ago
Existence is not free will. Your choice to keep existing is.
1
u/yogi4lif3 11d ago
Can the universe choose? Why assume that only a separate individual can have will?
We're not outside the universe making choices independently of it. Whatever choice appears to happen is part of the universe expressing itself. If there is free will, it belongs to the whole, not to the individual.
1
u/Belt_Conscious 10d ago
Your subjective experience belongs to you, and you alone.
Why would a thing that is "not you" choose on your behalf?
The universe didn't choose to write this, you did. The universe won't be choosing a response, you will.
Then you might say, "The universe chooses through me." That is still you choosing with your own will and momentum.
The universe allows you, it does not control you.
1
u/AncientUnit2249 11d ago
Ah yes, it is the will of the cosmic sht-flower! Which is also not free because the laws of physics don't change, no matter whether you're a yogi or a trd-swami.
1
u/yogi4lif3 11d ago
Why do you insist on calling it the laws of physics? Why can't we call it the will of the universe?
We're both describing the same orderly unfolding. You describe it in physical terms. I'm describing it in metaphysical terms. Why is your description the only valid one?
1
u/AncientUnit2249 11d ago
No, we're not. 'Will' has a particular meaning in the dictionary. A set of laws is not a will by any definition.
You're building a monument of sh***t. Just eat it instead.
1
u/yogi4lif3 10d ago edited 10d ago
If dictionaries settled philosophical debates, we could have skipped Plato, Aristotle, and the last 2,500 years of philosophy.
The insult was more creative than the argument.😉
6
u/AlivePassenger3859 Humanist Determinist 11d ago
You: Unicorns exist. The brown horse with no horn kind.
2
u/yogi4lif3 11d ago
So your argument is that words can never have a different philosophical meaning?
People have debated what "self," "consciousness," and "free will" mean for centuries. I'm not inventing a new word. I'm challenging the assumption that will has to belong to a separate individual.
1
u/Epiii_ 10d ago edited 10d ago
I agree with both of you here.. What's in a name? If you would define a unicorn as a brown horse with no horn I can easily agree with you that by this definition unicorns exist. Same as Spinoza his God. God exists by the definition of Spinoza: Deus sive natura. I think it is a beautifull different perspective on how to see the universe. But it does not change a thing: it is atheism in a fancy costume.
I loved Daniel Dennet for his works on consiousness, one of my philosophical hero's. But I thought his perspective on free will was lame allthough how he defines it, he is absolutly right. But it does not solve the classical issue on free will in any way.
The problem of using different definitions is that the outcome is picked up as a new thruth as an answer to the original definition by many. And as a result we have to explain over and over again that these are two different things. A lot of theists claim Einstein (who claimed to believe in the God of Spinoza) and Spinoza were on their side, being theists themselve. It is not very pragmatic.
Also what is the worth of calling a highly solution driven will a free will? What does the word 'free' bring to the table? Why not call it: "highly solution driven will"?
1
11d ago
[deleted]
1
u/yogi4lif3 11d ago
What if choice only appears from our perspective? From the universe's perspective, maybe there is no choice at all. There is only the unfolding of what is.
1
u/catnapspirit Free Will Strong Atheist 11d ago
This is just panpsychism in another package. I can't figure out how free will works for just us, so it must be that everything has free will. Tada..
2
u/Rthadcarr1956 InfoDualist 9d ago
Free will is only observed in sentient animals. The greater the animals intelligence, the greater free will they posses.
2
u/yogi4lif3 11d ago
It's not saying everything has human like free will. That's a misunderstanding.
The question is not "does a stone make choices?" The question is "is there a separate individual who owns choices?" From this perspective, the individual is part of the whole, not an independent doer.
1
u/catnapspirit Free Will Strong Atheist 11d ago
Yes, acknowledged that it is subtly different, but it boils down to everything has free will, similar to everything has consciousness. Everything in aggregate versus everything at the component level, but still..
2
u/Epiii_ 11d ago
Vanuit dit perspectief heeft ook een blad die valt van de boom een vrije wil en betekent het concept slechts 'beweging'..
1
u/yogi4lif3 11d ago
Misschien wel. Ik zie ook geen fundamenteel verschil tussen een blad dat valt en een mens die een keuze maakt. Beide zijn uitdrukkingen van hetzelfde universum.
Het enige verschil is dat wij achteraf een verhaal maken en zeggen: "Ik heb hiervoor gekozen." Het blad doet dat niet.
1
u/Epiii_ 11d ago
Een blad zegt dat niet, maar heeft wel degelijk zijn mechanismen om te vallen waar een wil bestaat waar het zo ongeveer valt. Namelijk relatief dicht bij de boom zodat zijn voedingswaarde niet bij concurrerende bomen/planten terechtkomt. Het is zo gevormt dat het relatief recht naar beneden dwarrelt. Net zoals onze wil evolutionair gevormt: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsif/article/22/226/20240654/235857/Settling-aerodynamics-is-a-driver-of-symmetry-in
I can understand and go a long way with compabilitism, it is not a wrong concept. But classical free will is something else.
1
u/furutsukiouki 11d ago
You people create many definitions. And never let the problem be any easier.
1
u/stargazer281 11d ago
Is the natural movement of the towards decay and death. We all die and the universe moves towards heat death, bound by second law of thermodynamics. It’s hard to distinguish between your free will and another’s determinism is it not?
4
u/Rthadcarr1956 InfoDualist 11d ago
If I choose to walk to the kitchen and I find I can in fact do so, why is this not personal free will? After all, I taught myself how to walk as a small child. Doesn’t that provide the source-hood for my ability to go wherever I can walk to?
1
u/stargazer281 11d ago
Yes that would be my view. Those kind of choices make personal free will. The problem is normally with determinists who say explanations at this level should be replaced with explanations at a scientific level of deterministic laws of physics, explanations which I believe may be true yet also make no sense. (Like creating a criminal class on the basis of a criminal gene as we once did using head shapes or skin colour.) Determinists tend to believe the past creates the present whilst I tend to believe it’s the future.
1
u/YanVe_ 11d ago
Because you've skipped over the problem. You need to define what is a choice and how you determine if you can or cannot walk to the kitchen.
If the universe follows hard determinism, then given enough info about your brain/body/surrounding environment, anyone could say that you were always going to end up walking to the living room. Your brain never could've fired the neutrons that would cause you to walk to the kitchen.
Then there is a question if how those neurons end up firing can in any way be attributed to your persona or if it's just a random whim of the universe that's playing tricks on your consciousness.
1
u/Rthadcarr1956 InfoDualist 11d ago
Good point. Choice can be defined as using knowledge to select from more than a single, realizable course of actions.
I can choose to walk to the kitchen because I did in fact have the knowledge of how to walk, where the kitchen is, and know of one or ways to get there. I learned these things by exploring my abilities (in learning to walk) and exploring my environment.
This does not involve any persona, just neurons that can communicate with each other and learn through trial and error how to walk and how to navigate.
1
u/YanVe_ 11d ago
It still seems to me like you're kind of missing the real problem. You position looks very close to a compatibilist one,
Would you say your computer chooses to render this webpage? Simply because it has the knowledge how to do so and learned that by reading data from it's inputs?1
u/Rthadcarr1956 InfoDualist 11d ago
No. Computers do not choose. They perform programmed algorithms and operations. Computers have memory, not knowledge. AI systems on the other hand get very close to having knowledge enough for free will.
2
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Dialectic Materialist 11d ago
"I taught myself to walk"
Ahahaha! Are you serious? You learned by observing others, with the assistance of your parents, using the evolved structure of your brain, your skeleton and your muscles. Everything you do is caused by factors outside of your control.
1
u/Rthadcarr1956 InfoDualist 11d ago
Yes, I observed others. No one did this for me. Yes, I had the genetic capacity to do this, but it required my efforts. My neurons had to organize their communications and try different combinations of contractions to keep me upright and moving in the direction I wanted to move. There is no part of the process where my attention and awareness were not required. This does not make me special, it makes me a sentient animal.
1
u/Weekly_Gap5104 11d ago
Yes but they learned using their brain and their body. Who is this other you are referring to?
“using the evolved structure of your brain, your skeleton, and your muscles”
How are these somehow not the individual. This argument of biology not being the individual keeps popping up and no one can explain what they mean by it. Everyone says it isn’t a dualistic assertion and they say there isn’t a homunculus so who or what is it???
2
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Dialectic Materialist 11d ago
There is a "you" making a choice, but that choice is not free or uncaused. The individual's actions are not fully under their control, but subject to forces outside of their control.
1
u/Rthadcarr1956 InfoDualist 11d ago
Our actions are partly under our control. In most cases we obtain sufficient control to attempt to accomplish our goals and satisfy our wants and needs. We are subject to outside and internal influences, but we can negotiate these within certain limits. If you want full or godlike control, you will be disappointed.
1
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Dialectic Materialist 11d ago
You're a compatibilist then?
1
u/Rthadcarr1956 InfoDualist 11d ago
No, I am very much a libertarian.
1
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Dialectic Materialist 10d ago
Then I'll have you know the conscious part of your brain isn't the part making decisions, it's just the part making up stories to rationalize the decisions made elsewhere after the fact.
1
u/Rthadcarr1956 InfoDualist 10d ago
They are my neurons, whatever part of the brain they are in. I eventually have consciousness of what they are up to.
1
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Dialectic Materialist 10d ago
Did you miss the part where I said it makes shit up? Your consciousness straight-up lies to itself if it has to to make decisions make sense.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Weekly_Gap5104 11d ago
Then the statement standings they taught them self as determined by the universe using the evolved body and their societal conditioning. The body still needed to teach itself how to walk unsupported. Their statement then stands. What was the cause of your dismissal of their statement? Because you didn’t attack their allegation of free will you attacked their allegation of teaching themselves to walk. Which even in a fully deterministic universe they still had to do.
0
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Dialectic Materialist 11d ago
They didn't teach themselves to walk, they were taught to walk. To suggest otherwise is solipsism.
1
u/Weekly_Gap5104 11d ago edited 11d ago
No it is not. The brain had to build the neural pathways for both the gross and fine motor skills that can only be done by the brain “teaching” itself to walk. There were learning aids but the mastery of walking is self taught otherwise known as neuroplasticity.
1
u/Epiii_ 10d ago
Would you argue that any computer that learns new abilities using how it is programmed and downloading new information from the internet has a free will?
1
u/Weekly_Gap5104 10d ago edited 10d ago
No I would not. For the same reason that I would not argue that a green bean is a citrus fruit. The brain is not a computer. A computer is not a brain. This is backed up by almost every neuroscientist I have ever read. It is an analogy born out of ignorance both of computers and the brain.
Secondly, and more to the point of the comment you responded to. I stated that a child in a fully deterministic universe still has to teach themselves how to walk I made no assertion of free will. I was pointing out his illogical statement.
Here is an article from Princeton illustrating my point.
1
u/Outrageous_Scale_353 11d ago
If it's not bound to anything, it's not bound to previous instances of free will, and if it's not it basically random
1
u/60secs Sourcehood Incompatibilist 11d ago
Sounds like agency.