Freedom Theorem.

[emperor_Hikaru]

Yes, well I just finished running tech for Bald Soprano, so Ionesco was the first to come to mind.

Well, if you were truly omnipotent, wouldn't you be able to make yourself know how to solve anything? True ominpotency would allow, by definition, you to anything. So why not?  

[27x]

emperor_Hikaru

Yes, well I just finished running tech for Bald Soprano, so Ionesco was the first to come to mind.

Well, if you were truly omnipotent, wouldn't you be able to make yourself know how to solve anything? True ominpotency would allow, by definition, you to anything. So why not?

So what you are saying is there is no difference between being free, and being god?  

[whynaut]

emperor_Hikaru

Well, if you were truly omnipotent, wouldn't you be able to make yourself know how to solve anything? True ominpotency would allow, by definition, you to anything. So why not?

A good and very true point, but I still feel as though outside influences like society would still limit omnipotence because it manipulates thought. Even if omnipotence would always point you toward the correct course of action, your reasoning for those actions would always be based on others. This corrals thought and therefore freedom.

exclaim Caution: Upcoming Nerd Alert exclaim There is a Marvel comic called the "Secret Wars" wherein Dr.Doom gains near (not necessarily complete) omnipotent power. As the first action of his new found powers, Doom heals his scarred face.

In this example, Dr. Doom had the power to reshape reality as he saw fit, however the choice to heal his face was not his own. Society tells him (and us) that there is an importance to physical beauty and the physical beauty is defined by such-and-such standards. There could have been a million different ways to solve this problem with near unlimited power (make everyone else accept his face, redefine beauty, or even ignore his own condition by not defining it for himself as a problem at all), but Doom instead chooses society's standards that he has a "problem" and it needs to be "fixed."

While the point may be raised that true omnipotence would be able to clear the veil of outside influences, I submit that there are no truths beyond outside influences. If we are to believe existentialism, the universe we live in is essentially a meaningless wherein human beings create their own meaning from this nothing. So would a true God be able to escape this delusion of purpose by doing absolutely nothing?  

[Arson Hiroha]

I find it interesting that as I watch this the definition for freedom keeps changing. In the first post I see it defined as freedom from compulsion, and then from there freedom of the mind (and if you're Descartes, that's simply freedom to exist), and from there freedom of action, and then the most ironic of all, freedom to control.

How can we all argue over a concept if we don't even agree what the issue is? The fact is, the concept of freedom is quite ambiguous, and differs from person to person. One person argues for freedom in one sense, and another person argues for another freedom.

On the recent line of discussion, omnipotence would be to possess every freedom possible. To Whynaut's example, the answer is very simple. Dr. Doom was never omnipotent if he never had absolute freedom of thought. Although he was infinite in one sense, he was not infinite in another. Also, if you're a Descartes fan, then you would also say that for him to be infinitely powerful he would have to be infinitely good. (Although, this is because Descartes believes evil to be a corruption, and not something in itself. Therefore, a god cannot have it.)  

[27x]

Arson Hiroha

I find it interesting that as I watch this the definition for freedom keeps changing. In the first post I see it defined as freedom from compulsion, and then from there freedom of the mind (and if you're Descartes, that's simply freedom to exist), and from there freedom of action, and then the most ironic of all, freedom to control.

How can we all argue over a concept if we don't even agree what the issue is? The fact is, the concept of freedom is quite ambiguous, and differs from person to person. One person argues for freedom in one sense, and another person argues for another freedom.

On the recent line of discussion, omnipotence would be to possess every freedom possible. To Whynaut's example, the answer is very simple. Dr. Doom was never omnipotent if he never had absolute freedom of thought. Although he was infinite in one sense, he was not infinite in another. Also, if you're a Descartes fan, then you would also say that for him to be infinitely powerful he would have to be infinitely good. (Although, this is because Descartes believes evil to be a corruption, and not something in itself. Therefore, a god cannot have it.)

The important thing to understand is there is a difference between freedom and ability, but I see where you are coming from.  

[emperor_Hikaru]

For Dr. Doom, he never obtained true omnipotence. To be truly omnipotent, one would have to be everything at once. Therefore, it is simply impossible to be omnipotent as a singular, earthly being. Therefore, it's impossible to be completely free. You see?  

[Arson Hiroha]

Indeed, personally I see freedom as autonomy. I exist, therefore I am free. I make decisions for myself, therefore I am free.

In this case, even under the harshest dictatorship, you will always be free. Even if you have no legs with which to walk, and no lips to speak, you will always have this freedom. As long as you have a mind, no matter what it is persuaded into doing, it always had the initial freedom of thought. Maybe not expression, but thought.

Although, I find it funny. The conversation started out as "Are we free?" and now the question is almost "What is freedom?"  

[whynaut]

Arson Hiroha

Although, I find it funny. The conversation started out as "Are we free?" and now the question is almost "What is freedom?"

Well that is where all argument boils down to, "how do you define what is being argued?" Personally, I define that freedom as: the ability to act without constraint.

The initial argument for this thread was that since people are always bound by the 'constraints' of physics, then we cannot act with pure freedom. I take the meaning of constraint even further by saying that the subjugation of thought through society's influence is too a constraint. Meaning that even if we were not bound by physics (through omnipotence), I feel we would still not be free of mind.  

[Arson Hiroha]

whynaut

Arson Hiroha

Although, I find it funny. The conversation started out as "Are we free?" and now the question is almost "What is freedom?"

Well that is where all argument boils down to, "how do you define what is being argued?" Personally, I define that freedom as: the ability to act without constraint.

The initial argument for this thread was that since people are always bound by the 'constraints' of physics, then we cannot act with pure freedom. I take the meaning of constraint even further by saying that the subjugation of thought through society's influence is too a constraint. Meaning that even if we were not bound by physics (through omnipotence), I feel we would still not be free of mind.

Heh, it does seem like we need to decide which freedom we are talking about to say if it is absolute or not. For you, influence from your surroundings is always there, so this freedom is impossible to be absolute. For mine, you simply need to have means of judgement to be free.

For example, take Descares' model of the mind. He sees the process of making conclusions as two things:

Knowledge, which is finite. This would be the experiences you are referring to. In other words, in the statement "I think this, because..." this would be the "because". Since no one holds completely true knowledge, this is finite.

Judgement, on the other hand, is infinite. He views this simply as affirming or denying any idea. I can say yes or no to anything, basically, but that doesn't mean I always know what I'm talking about (see above).


In my view, as long as someone has the second component they can proceed. By affirming something, they can try affirming others, and if they contradict then you already know one cannot be true. That simply goes back into base reason, and not outside knowledge. To me, a person having this ability is what they need to have freedom of autonomy. After all, what other freedoms could exist without autonomy itself?  

[Niniva]

To interject very politely here.

Freedom is being talked about in two different senses here. That much is obvious. In philosophy we don't dabble in areas of impossibility such as physical freedom because the idea of being free of physical (and metaphysical) laws that keep the world as it is is absurd so it is useless to speak of it.

On the other hand, freedom of choice is something I study very vigorously. There are arguements being left out here though.

The Cartesian view is very flawed in that it offers no real explanation of how you are actually free to choose. Wether you know or not.

The problem being that you literally may not know what you are talking about, and thus you may not know that you have been influenced in a particular way by a particular thing. In point of fact, to say that you are free to decide or choose outside of any sort of influence (in other words your reasoning mind brings you to this conclusion but based on no pure causes) then it defies causality. It would seem that this is absurd.

In point of fact it is indeterministic. And indeterminism is pure chaos. That any act or choice you had was totally undetermined by any outside influence (including your own thought patterns) is to say it is random and cannot be controlled and so it is also not a free choice.

This doesn't seem likely, since things seem to happen on a metaphysical level in conjunction with other acts, such as the term because.

Example:
"Johnny, why did you do that?"
"Because Jane said I could."

In this case it is implied that if Jane had not said Johnny could, Johnny would not have and so we have at least one cause (dissreguarding his actual ability to act of course) causality is something that must exist then in order to obtain freedom of choice or no matter what you think, your action is not within your control.

So if we must maintain causality then how is it that ANY act can be avoided?

First off I must amend this slightly. An act of choice, or one where we say we are free, must first be an act that begins with some sort of decision making process or deliberation, and then (and here's the kicker) it must also be an act that you could, truely, avoid doing.

In other words you have to realize there is a choice, make the choice, and the choice itself must ACTUALLY affect the outcome. Otherwise you do not have what we call a metaphysical (or actual) definition of freedom, what you have is the illusion of freedom.

This has been an ongoing problem in Philosophy for centuries and to date no one is able to get passed this hurdle with any sort of answer that is provable. Compatabalists say we don't have metaphysical freedom, that all acts are in fact caused but we believe we are free and so we "are" in some sense free (the illusion of freedom). Incompatablists say that actions are not caused but that we still maintain freedom in choices. I don't agree but they are out there. Obviously Indeterminists don't believe in freedom and neither do Determinists in the hardcore sense.

I personally call myself a compatabalist but I hold the stance of Metaphysical free will defined as follows.

An act is free if and only if, you have the actual ability to have done other then you did.

In other words, it is TRUELY and LITERALLY possible for the action that you took to have not been taken. A true compatabalist would say this isn't true, that you only think it's true, but at the metaphysical level it is determined just like everything else.

I agree we must maintain causality for freedom or else your choices would not be able to cause your actions and your actions randomly occur without cause and by whim and chance do they happen to coincide with your thought patterns. So causality MUST be the case.

But, I believe that there is a way to explain freedom using causality and determinism that maintains your literal ability to have acted differently, and I can attempt to explain how after you read this wall of text and want me too, though it's not a final theory yet.  

[Arson Hiroha]

Hmmm, so are you making the arguement that we are not autonomous? I find much unclear about your post.

If you're saying that we have no freedom of choice because our choice is always influenced by something, then that itself is absurd. Surely that is why choices are made, to use outside influences and reason which action may be the best? To say that using reason or outside factors in your choices is not freedom seems absolutely false to me, in fact, I see it very well as freedom itself. One's ability to reason is the only thing that keeps them alive, and to not reason at all would be nearly impossible unless you lose your conscious and subconscious mind.

Even someone completely inhibited by some other source still uses reason, of course. If I'm intoxicated or drugged, or just delusional, I'm still using reason, my freedom, although on false sources. Though, this may not be the arguement you're trying to present. Could you please tell me clearly and precisely what point you're trying to make? If I could hear this stated simply and clearly we could likely get the discussion right back on track.  

[Niniva]

Arson Hiroha

Hmmm, so are you making the arguement that we are not autonomous? I find much unclear about your post.

If you're saying that we have no freedom of choice because our choice is always influenced by something, then that itself is absurd. Surely that is why choices are made, to use outside influences and reason which action may be the best? To say that using reason or outside factors in your choices is not freedom seems absolutely false to me, in fact, I see it very well as freedom itself. One's ability to reason is the only thing that keeps them alive, and to not reason at all would be nearly impossible unless you lose your conscious and subconscious mind.

Even someone completely inhibited by some other source still uses reason, of course. If I'm intoxicated or drugged, or just delusional, I'm still using reason, my freedom, although on false sources. Though, this may not be the arguement you're trying to present. Could you please tell me clearly and precisely what point you're trying to make? If I could hear this stated simply and clearly we could likely get the discussion right back on track.

Certainly.

Most of my post above was to inform of both sides of the issue. But you are no speaking of the same freedom as I am. Nor can you correctly say that your ability to reason is actually a free act.

You reason yes, but even your (and my) ability to reason is marred by events in our past.

Such as:

Lets say a boy was mugged when you were ten. Beaten to a bloody pulp and left for dead by a man with a grey sweater on and a ski mask. they never caught him.

His reaction could be anger, fear, frustration...whatever. But now just today, he bumps into another man in an ally with a ski mask on wearing a greay sweater. The man says "excuse me" and turns to leave.

To the boy, the fear in his heart and the warning in his mind that tells him to turn and run, or not go near the man in the first place (or whatever thought is triggered) seems like perfectly sound reasoning. And it is, in a manor of speaking since our experiences "determine" our initial reactions and our reasons for doing what we do.

Now lets say this person (call him Joe) punched the sweater man in the stomach and turned and ran away looking for someone to help.

Was the action Joe took free? Because Joe's reason was CAUSED or predetermined by a previoius experience. (Much like the environmental learning theory). You cannot say that subjective reasoning (or what you "think") is free from outside influence and so it is therefore determined. And if it is determined then how can you say it is free?

I believe in freedom of action and of thought personally. I believe we can achieve both the ability to THINK differently (IE: that it was possible for Joe to not have reasoned the way he did) and ACT differently (IE: that Joe could have NOT punched this person reguardless of if all reasons pointed to that he should)

You can say it SOUNDs absurd that our ability to reason is not free but in point of fact that ability to reason is still subject to causality just like everything else. You would not think along logical lines at all if you could not piece together causes and effects. The same applies to your thoughts. This thing causes you to think that thing and that thing causes you to think another ad infinitum.

So of course you USE reason but REASON does not make you free since it can be determined just as easily as any other act. Explain to me how you can claim that your reason (which is a deterministic act) makes you free? If you claim your reasoning is not determined then you claim you have no control over them and they are random thoughts that are chaotic and incoherent and only come together accidentally to form any measure of understanding. If you say your thoughts are determined by something, whatever that may be (passed experience, others experiences ect.) then it would seem your thoughts were destined to be what they are since you could not control the causes, do not KNOW all the causes, and now think the way you do BECAUSE of them.

In order to claim what you claim you have to be willing to say that the things you reason, are caused by something, and yet at the same time, could have been different. And I'd like to know how you can claim that.

Anyway my main orriginal point was that there is no action you can take (including the act of choosing) that you cannot say has a predetermining cause. If there was then ask this "Why did you do that?" And the answer will almost always begin with "Because..." indicating what is believed to be the ultimate cause. In other words since the past has already happened and there are an infinite number of possible causes for every action then you cannot say that it is absurd to think you don't have freedom of choice since choice is influenced by predtermined causes.

If you get nothing else out of this then get this:

My stance is that actions can be both deterministic (meaning they follow causality) AND that they are free in the litteral metaphysical sense of freedom (not just that the action was the action that you wanted, but that the action "could" have "not" happened).

Does this make sense?  

[Arson Hiroha]

Hmm, it seems that what we both say freedom of thought is differs entirely. You say that to be totally free of thought you can have no prior experiences, or causes, whereas I say this is the very thing that allows you to be free.

By my views, what "Joe" did was completely rational. He was using his ability to reason on prior experience. Indeed, if someone could not use prior experiences to determine their next actions, would they be free? Having our decisions left entirely to chance is hardly free either. If you are floating on your back in a river, left only to follow its course, you are not free to determine your direction. However, say you have arms. Now you have the ability to swim and try to fight the current of the river and determine your own direction. The arguement you are making, when applied to my prior principle, seems to be saying that I am not free because I am relying on my arms. However, in this case, my arms are simply a tool for my freedom.

How does what I stipulate different from the freedom of thought you propose? For I see his prior experiences simply as tools, and he had the freedom to use them in the way he did, or in another way. Although he does have not the infinite ability to decide upon his experiences, he does have the infinite ability to decide. Thus, we are back to the very thing I first proposed. Although, now it seems as if what you believe and what I believe are starting to come into similar colors. Tell me, how do you view freedom of thought to be, and how is it different from the kind I propose?

Bear in mind, I have never said that something defined as freedom does not have causality, as far as I can remember at least. For any freedom of mine to exist, I would have to exist first. Thus, any freedom already has causality, if not just that I have to exist for me to be free. By this rule, if freedom cannot have causality, then freedom of any type cannot exist. If it is freedom to not exist, then you cannot have (or carry) this freedom, because you don't exist. Is this where you believe our beliefs to conflict? If not, then where does this difference lie? For if this is not the case, it seems our beliefs are very much alike in this issue.  

[Niniva]

Arson Hiroha

Hmm, it seems that what we both say freedom of thought is differs entirely. You say that to be totally free of thought you can have no prior experiences, or causes, whereas I say this is the very thing that allows you to be free.

Actually our views end up in the same place but I think your view is flawed ever so slightly, but not because you are wrong, but because you have not totally explained how.

Quote:

By my views, what "Joe" did was completely rational. He was using his ability to reason on prior experience. Indeed, if someone could not use prior experiences to determine their next actions, would they be free? Having our decisions left entirely to chance is hardly free either. If you are floating on your back in a river, left only to follow its course, you are not free to determine your direction. However, say you have arms. Now you have the ability to swim and try to fight the current of the river and determine your own direction. The arguement you are making, when applied to my prior principle, seems to be saying that I am not free because I am relying on my arms. However, in this case, my arms are simply a tool for my freedom.

Yes, these are all good points but having the tool caused you to be able to use it as did prior experience with similar tools. In essence without those things being there then you would not have reasoned at all in any rational sense. And thus we have determinism. Something being a tool does not excuse that it causes something and if it causes something how can you say it is free? <---thats the question I am proposing. I do think there is an answer and I think it is found within your viewpoint but I don't think you can simply just "say" your thinking is free when there are so many prior factors which determine it. If it were free then every person who has lived and experienced everything exactly the same as you or I....would NOT reason the same as you or I, and that at first glance seems to be what you are saying. But I don't see any proof of this in your arguements. Are you willing to step out on that limb and provide some explanation or example as to how someone, lets just say me, if I were exactly your age with parents holding quite literally the exact same view points living in the same city, experiencing everything exactly the same....would still be able to have different view points and reason differently then you? I should like to hear it.

Quote:

How does what I stipulate different from the freedom of thought you propose?

I think I answered this already but if not then let me know.

Quote:

For I see his prior experiences simply as tools, and he had the freedom to use them in the way he did, or in another way.

Here is the problem with this:
"or in any other way"
There is no reason in your frame of refference to believe that "Joe" COULD have used the tools of prior experience in any other way. In the example I gave technically speaking Joe is not totally responsible for his actions because his actions were driven by his prior experiences leading him to conclude that the second gentleman in the grey sweater was a threat when in fact there was no reason to believe that. So his actions may have been rational when you take the determining factors (prior experience) into account but they are not "free" in the sense that he "could have" in any literal sense, thought differently about the situation. I believe he could have, and that it is possible to re-evaluate the situation but thoughts are driven by experience and environmental catalysts and so to say they are totally free must come with some explanation as to how.

Quote:

Although he does have not the infinite ability to decide upon his experiences, he does have the infinite ability to decide.

This may very well be true.....but how? You need to explain how it is that you can make the claim that he ACTUALLY has the ability to decide. In the example technically Joe didn't decide to hit the man, Joe's prior experiences MADE him hit the man.

Quote:

Thus, we are back to the very thing I first proposed. Although, now it seems as if what you believe and what I believe are starting to come into similar colors. Tell me, how do you view freedom of thought to be, and how is it different from the kind I propose?

If it isn't clear yet then I think we are thinking along the same lines but that an explanation of how one can actually act or think differently then they did should the circumstances not change.

The largest question is this:

If we were to rewind time after Joe hit the second man in the grey sweater, back to when he first enters the alley, and do it all over again, would Joe still hit the man? And what if we did it again? Would he hit him that time too?

The point I am trying to make here is that you have to provide some explanation that will be adequate enough to explain why you think that Joe could have acted differently in spite of his past experiences.

Quote:

Bear in mind, I have never said that something defined as freedom does not have causality, as far as I can remember at least. For any freedom of mine to exist, I would have to exist first. Thus, any freedom already has causality, if not just that I have to exist for me to be free. By this rule, if freedom cannot have causality, then freedom of any type cannot exist. If it is freedom to not exist, then you cannot have (or carry) this freedom, because you don't exist. Is this where you believe our beliefs to conflict? If not, then where does this difference lie? For if this is not the case, it seems our beliefs are very much alike in this issue.

They are very much alike. I agree with you but your conclusions are lacking in depth.

I tend to think that even a right answer can be wrong if the path taken to get there is the wrong path. What it sounds like you have done is start with "freedom" and then look for some semi-adequate explanation as to how we have it, but that is flawed. You cannot start with a conclusion before you ask the question.

The difference being this:

You are saying we have freedom and here's how.

I am saying: Here's what happened, these were the circumstances (causes) and these were the results, In these results what can we say about Joe?

At first glance it doesn't appear as he was free, it appears as though the circumstances, if remained completely unchanged, would cause his actions to be pre-determined. Not in a spiritual sense but in the sense that since the causes for his actions were all outside of his control that he also had no control over them (including thought).

I think you want to claim that the causes for his actions were his decision, but a decision is the end product of causes IE: an effect, and thus is not a free act since things CAUSED it and those things were also caused by many other things.

I think you may be right, he may be free to decide but because of something else. Not that he decision was not caused, but that the final cause for his decision was that he did something we have not discussed but have only implied so far. He deliberated.

He took time to evaluate the circumstances. And if the deliberation process (the act of evaluating the "best" course of action based on the causes outside of your control) actually affects the decision then I believe you can say his actions were free. I think this is what you are getting at, but it needs to be stated that this view is incomplete.

Maybe we should work on it together to bring it into more completeness. I've argued this with my professor here and he and I are at a virtual stand still with it. He thinks that since you cannot say that things are not determined (including how you deliberate since different people's values are influenced or caused by different things) then freedom in a metaphysical sense doesn't exist but we feel like we're free because our actions are the ones we want to happen.

I find a lot of moral issues with his side of the coin, actually more then a lot.....more like too many to count. So I tend to think that our moral disposition is something that is at least partly innate and also that we can at least approach objectivity in every situation, and if both of those are the case then we can safely say that Joe's ability to deliberate was not determined by environment and thus the only real cause for him to act in any given situation is the fact that he is human.

So I can say that if we rewound time back to the point where Joe enters the alley and sees the man that in some cases he may hit the man and in other cases he may deliberate differently and not hit the man. But even if he did not, the fact that deliberation is an innate human ability that CAN (not that it always is but that it can) be used aside from any outside influences. It's cause being as you said, that you exist and so you think, and deliberate. Since that is the case HOW you deliberate MAY be determined by past experiences (obviously we learn that things burn and so don't touch them, sharp things cut so don't touch them either, ect) but the process is not necessarily the case.

Any thoughts? This is not totally complete obviously, there's room for improvement and there are problems I can see within it so lets discuss.