Is Free Will Real?

[SuperCoolGuy]

I'm new to this forum and this sort of topic may have been discussed already but . . .

do we really have free will, or are we just robots like everything else?

A plant "chooses" to grow towards a window only because the sunlight seems to come from that direction (outside stimulus). Ants seem to "choose" directions to walk but are guided by scent trails. Dogs are born with a friendly disposition thanks to centuries of domestication, but can easily be turned savage and unfriendly to humans through abuse.

Are we merely a sum of genetics and social upbringing that simply reacts to a plethora of outside stimuli. And if so, does that render the heaven/hell religions wrong? Can we be punished or rewarded for just being what we are? Are we just really fancy, complicated, but nevertheless, "preprogrammed computers" that cannot fairly be judged as righteous or evil beings that freely chose their fate.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
Is Free Will Real?

I don't know but it's a dang tough question to ask out loud.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Welcome, SCG.

Yes, the question's been hashed out before. The stumbling block always seems to be this: Give a coherent definition of "free will" and we'll talk about it.

[SuperCoolGuy]

Ok . . .

Every person is born with tendencies due to genetics. Every person has additional tendencies and behavioral traits due to upbringing. At some point, a slate is started that is absolutely clean.

At this point, I have to say, I'm Muslim so my argument is coming from that perspective. Stay with me . . .

In Islam, one is not held responsible for one's actions until puberty and only if they are mentally competent. Every person reaches puberty at different ages, and not every person reaches the age of puberty and/or achieve's a certain minimal mental capacity for being responsible for one's actions. In this example, I'm only speaking about those who do.

At some very specific point in time, we have to assume that an absolutely clean slate is started. In the next split second a moral decision is made about something (helping your mom, changing the TV channel, etc.)

If we do not have free will, then every outside stimuli and personal prediposition mentioned earlier affects that moral decision, and this person cannot be held responsible for that and every other decision following.

If we do have free will, then in addition to every outside and inside factor is . . . well . . . what is there? Again, this a person who has just reached puberty and has an absolutely clean slate and is making their first moral decision, and everything that is affecting their decision making process is from something completely not of their own doing.

Did I just prove my own religion doesn't make sense on the most basic of principles? Islam dictates that every person is held accountable for every action and decision they make.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
Can we be punished or rewarded for just being what we are?

People can be. Ants can be.

Are we just really fancy, complicated, but nevertheless, "preprogrammed computers" that cannot fairly be judged as righteous or evil beings that freely chose their fate.

If people have no free will, neither do the social systems that punish and reward them.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
I'm new to this forum and this sort of topic may have been discussed already but . . . "May?" :D Yes, at length. But then most philosophical concepts have.

This is a very intellectually stimulating idea. It does have religious implications. However there are two schools of thought from the religious point of view. Same with materialism. We could just be the results of stimulus and have an illusion of free will or we might actually be able to make decisions.

Like solipsism it tends to be a discussion that becomes irrelevant in the end. Should we come to decide that we have no free will it doesn't change much and we certainly will go on living as though we do.

And not we are not going to just sit at home doing nothing because we have no free will.

[SuperCoolGuy]

Originally posted by RandFan
"Should we come to decide that we have no free will it doesn't change much and we certainly will go on living as though we do.


But individually, if person who believes in Juddaism/Christianity/Islam (and sources tell me there's a few of them) does come to the conclusion that we have no free will, it does change much. They ought to seriously consider abandoning their religion. Not that many would anyway, but in principle.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Give a coherent definition of "free will" and we'll talk about it.

Why should the definition be created by someone working alone and then analyzed by people working together?

Why can't a definition be produced by means of the combined efforts of various people?

Here is a starting point. Compare sweating with snapping your fingers. You do not have direct voluntary control over whether or not you sweat. If you have normal fingers and know how to snap them, then you can choose to snap them.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
But individually, if person who believes in Juddaism/Christianity/Islam (and sources tell me there's a few of them) does come to the conclusion that we have no free will, it does change much. They ought to seriously consider abandoning their religion. Not that many would anyway, but in principle.

On which principle? If an advanced AI (artificial intelligence) program realizes that it is computer code that makes its decisions and therefore has no free will, on what principle should it abandon belief in the people who created it; people who reinforce its learning by some form of punishment/reward.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In a way, it is irrelevant, all that matters is tha we feel we have it.

[jmercer]

Welcome to the forums... :) Free will, hmm? I've thought about this for years.

We humans are intelligent beings. With that intelligence comes the ability to make rational decisions based on logic, unlike animals who always make decisions based on instinct and/or previous experience.

If there were no such thing as free will, then intelligence would be useless. Like animals, all our decisions would always be made based on instinct and previous experiences. What use logic or rational thinking, if they cannot affect our decisions?

Inventions and technology - how could they exist without free will? What possible biological and social factors could compel someone to come up with a theory about the universe? Or create a Mona Lisa? Or to create mathmatical models that reflect the universe with new and amazing insights?

So, yeah - I believe in free will. I don't see how we would have gotten here otherwise. :)

[SuperCoolGuy]

How do you punish a computer program if it doesn't learn the way you want it to? And if that person claims to the AI that it does have free will and the computer program realizes it doesn't, isn't the program entitled to believe its programmer is a liar.

How does a fair and just (Juddaism/Christianity/Islam) God punish a person who is not responsible for its own programming (genetics/parents/upbringing/hometown/dangerous or safe neighborhood friends/extended family/abusive uncle/etc.)?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by The idea
Why should the definition be created by someone working alone and then analyzed by people working together?

Why can't a definition be produced by means of the combined efforts of various people?
I asked no-one to create anything. Many people, working alone and together, have attempted to define the concept for millennia. To my eye, no coherent definition has ever emerged. Thus, when someone broaches the topic, I ask for their definition, to have some idea of what they're getting at.

Here is a starting point. Compare sweating with snapping your fingers. You do not have direct voluntary control over whether or not you sweat. If you have normal fingers and know how to snap them, then you can choose to snap them.
But can I "freely" choose to snap them? And what does that even mean?

[SuperCoolGuy]

Originally posted by jmercer
Like animals, all our decisions would always be made based on instinct and previous experiences. What use logic or rational thinking, if they cannot affect our decisions?


Isn't logic based on previous experience? Can't animals think rationally (basic level)?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
But individually, if person who believes in Juddaism/Christianity/Islam (and sources tell me there's a few of them) does come to the conclusion that we have no free will, it does change much. I'm not so certain. Could you give us an example or perhaps give a better explanation of how you think such a conclusion changes things?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
In a way, it is irrelevant, all that matters is tha we feel we have it.
That sums it up nicely. The two wods that most often spring to my mind when free will is brought up are "useful fiction."

[toddjh]

Originally posted by The idea
Here is a starting point. Compare sweating with snapping your fingers. You do not have direct voluntary control over whether or not you sweat. If you have normal fingers and know how to snap them, then you can choose to snap them.

That's only pushing the question up one level. You now have to address the issue of whether you're really in control of what you choose, and you're right back where you started. Start by asking yourself whether you can consciously choose to direct your thoughts -- try the classic "don't think about elephants" exercise. The answer is, obviously, no, you don't have absolute control over what you think. Why, then, do you believe you have any more control over what you decide?

That aside, I don't consider free will to be a meaningful concept. For starters, free will generally requires determinism to be false -- that is, if free will exists, then events cannot be predicted with perfect accuracy. There is some degree of unpredictability inherent in the concept of free will.

But, then, what makes "free will" more than just another word for unpredictability? How might we look at an event and determine whether it was the result of free will, or simple randomness? Until that question can be answered, there is no reason to distinguish between the two. Saying that something has "free will" is equivalent to simply saying it's unpredictable -- and, since we already have plenty of words for that, I don't see why we need one more.

Jeremy

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy

How does a fair and just (Juddaism/Christianity/Islam) God punish a person who is not responsible for its own programming (genetics/parents/upbringing/hometown/dangerous or safe neighborhood friends/extended family/abusive uncle/etc.)?
Perhaps God has no free will, either.

[SuperCoolGuy]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm not so certain. Could you give us an example or perhaps give a better explanation of how you think such a conclusion changes things?

If I'm convinced we have no free will, religions claiming we do mean nothing to me. I'm personally forced to renounce my religion, potentially endanger my marriage, and risk persecution from my family.

Hey, 2 weeks ago, I became convinced ghosts don't exist. Ten years ago, I realized UFO abductions are people's imaginations. If every person convinced themselves we have no free will, yikes.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
Isn't logic based on previous experience? Can't animals think rationally (basic level)?

To answer the first question - logic itself is a methodology. It can certainly use a previous experience as a starting point, but logic can also be used without any experience.

If A=C... and B=C... then A=B

There's no previous experience involved in the above problem, yet it's a simple logic problem.

Regarding your second question, that's a matter of serious debate. I don't think that anyone's actually proven or disproven the questions of animals thinking. (Although there are indications that some of our "close" relatives in the primate world may do so.)

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
If I'm convinced we have no free will, religions claiming we do mean nothing to me. I'm personally forced to renounce my religion, potentially endanger my marriage, and risk persecution from my family.

Hey, 2 weeks ago, I became convinced ghosts don't exist. Ten years ago, I realized UFO abductions are people's imaginations. If every person convinced themselves we have no free will, yikes.
How would a person convinced they had no free will act, in your estimation?

[SuperCoolGuy]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Perhaps God has no free will, either.

That implies that God is subject to some external influence as well. No religion I know of remotely recognizes this possibility.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
But can I "freely" choose to snap them? And what does that even mean?
Those questions are unlikely to be helpful. Instead, consider kicking your leg. You might intend to not kick, but a doctor's hammer may produce a kick reaction nevertheless. In contrast, if you snap your fingers then you probably can't blame any outside stimulus.

[SuperCoolGuy]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
How would a person convinced they had no free will act, in your estimation?

Using myself as an example, question whether a God exists, continue to abtain from gambling and alcohol, continue to obey the laws of this country, and learn to feel comfortable with the fact that there is probably no afterlife.

How someone else would act, depends on the person. I am not of the opinion that an aetheist is evil and is inclined to evil things. Some of the best people I know from an ethics, moral standpoint are aetheist

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
How do you punish a computer program if it doesn't learn the way you want it to? And if that person claims to the AI that it does have free will and the computer program realizes it doesn't, isn't the program entitled to believe its programmer is a liar.

How does a fair and just (Juddaism/Christianity/Islam) God punish a person who is not responsible for its own programming (genetics/parents/upbringing/hometown/dangerous or safe neighborhood friends/extended family/abusive uncle/etc.)?

Easily. But I think you're really asking "why", not "how" -- and the answer to that is: To shape the person's behavior in accordance with the "god's" will.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
That implies that God is subject to some external influence as well. No religion I know of remotely recognizes this possibility.
God not subject to external influence? What is prayer if not (at least attempted) external influence?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by The idea
Those questions are unlikely to be helpful. Instead, consider kicking your leg. You might intend to not kick, but a doctor's hammer may produce a kick reaction nevertheless. In contrast, if you snap your fingers then you probably can't blame any outside stimulus.

Why not? Based on what we know, it's reasonable to say that the act of snapping our fingers is very much affected by the physical state of neurons in our brains.

How do you know that everything we do is not the result of one big doctor's hammer?

Jeremy

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by The idea
Those questions are unlikely to be helpful. Instead, consider kicking your leg. You might intend to not kick, but a doctor's hammer may produce a kick reaction nevertheless. In contrast, if you snap your fingers then you probably can't blame any outside stimulus.
OK, I'll take what you said as granted. I snap my fingers; no outside influence is to blame. Why are the internal influences necessarily "free." What is this free thing, anway?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jmercer
If there were no such thing as free will, then intelligence would be useless. Like animals, all our decisions would always be made based on instinct and previous experiences. What use logic or rational thinking, if they cannot affect our decisions? Common misconception about free will. Not that I deny that we have free will.

Let's put it this way. We find out that "X" will increase the likelihood of our existence.

1.) We do "X"

2.) We don't do "X"

Neither prove free will. Critical thought is simply a variable of our programming. We learn about critical thinking and our programming takes over and we have the illusion that we actually had a choice when in reality we did or did not do "X" as a result of many variables including logic. The calculations are performed first and then we "think" that we consciously made a decision.

Our "programming" functions rationally because of variables including the admonition of others that we do. Those variables override the variables that would cause us to function irrationally.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
Using myself as an example, question whether a God exists, continue to abtain from gambling and alcohol, continue to obey the laws of this country, and learn to feel comfortable with the fact that there is probably no afterlife.

How someone else would act, depends on the person. I am not of the opinion that an aetheist is evil and is inclined to evil things. Some of the best people I know from an ethics, moral standpoint are aetheist
A person convinced of the absence of free will would have to conclude that their life up until the point they were convinced was devoid of free will. What, then, is the impetus to change their life now, especially since they can't (by their own beliefs) freely choose to do so?

[The idea]

Originally posted by toddjh
Start by asking yourself whether you can consciously choose to direct your thoughts -- try the classic "don't think about elephants" exercise. The answer is, obviously, no, you don't have absolute control over what you think.
If some experience can be interpreted as evidence that one lacks absolute control over something, then doesn't that mean that there is some conceivable experience that could be interpreted as evidence that one has control over something?

If it is meaningless to inquire whether or not one has control over something, then how can it be meaningful to say that, on the basis of some particular evidence, one has concluded that one doesn't have absolute control over some particular thing?

[SuperCoolGuy]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
A person convinced of the absence of free will would have to conclude that their life up until the point they were convinced was devoid of free will. What, then, is the impetus to change their life now, especially since they can't (by their own beliefs) freely choose to do so?

The impetus to change one's life comes from one's own genetics/previous experiences/upbringing and especially, religious beliefs. In other words, our own programming dictates how we respond to such a realization, which was preprogrammed anyway. And the change of one's life from the realization of no free will is still subject to the laws/punishment of one's own social surrounding.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by The idea
If some experience can be interpreted as evidence that one lacks absolute control over something, then doesn't that mean that there is some conceivable experience that could be interpreted as evidence that one has control over something?

If it is meaningless to inquire whether or not one has control over something, then how can it be meaningful to say that, on the basis of some particular evidence, one has concluded that one doesn't have absolute control over some particular thing?
We're not worried about absolute control. I think it's decently obvious no-one has absolute control over anything. We're worried about free control. The influence, if any, that "I" exert on "my" actions--in what way is it free?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
The impetus to change one's life comes from one's own genetics/previous experiences/upbringing and especially, religious beliefs. In other words, our own programming dictates how we respond to such a realization, which was preprogrammed anyway. And the change of one's life from the realization of no free will is still subject to the laws/punishment of one's own social surrounding.
I agree completely. Which leaves me wondering why you added "yikes" to your hypothetical above about everyone concluding they have no free will. If they're all preprogrammed anyway, it's just the program running its course. Why is it scarier after the global awakening than before?

[SuperCoolGuy]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
On which principle? If an advanced AI (artificial intelligence) program realizes that it is computer code that makes its decisions and therefore has no free will, on what principle should it abandon belief in the people who created it; people who reinforce its learning by some form of punishment/reward.

A computer program that can realize it has no free will can still believe it's programmer exists. However, it cannot trust the programmer if the programmer claims the program does have free will.

A person who realizes they have no free will can still believe in God, just not a Christian or Islamic God, since those forms of Gods claim a person does have free will to choose good or evil or to accept Jesus as their personal savior or not.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
OK, I'll take what you said as granted. I snap my fingers; no outside influence is to blame. Why are the internal influences necessarily "free." What is this free thing, anway?

I think a better question is: What is this "will" thing, anyway?

[SuperCoolGuy]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I agree completely. Which leaves me wondering why you added "yikes" to your hypothetical above about everyone concluding they have no free will. If they're all preprogrammed anyway, it's just the program running its course. Why is it scarier after the global awakening than before?

I meant "yikes" in both good or bad. Remember when you realized Santa doesn't exist. Now imagine half the world's population deciding not to believe in their religion. I have no idea what would happen, but it's bound to be interesting.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
I think a better question is: What is this "will" thing, anyway?
I have no problem with "will." I just figure it's a handy term for a decision-making process. (Or apparent decision-making process, if one prefers.) A bowl of chocolate and one of vanilla ice cream are before me. I will eat one; some decision will be reached. That's will. Whats free about it is what I want to know.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
If I'm convinced we have no free will, religions claiming we do mean nothing to me. I'm personally forced to renounce my religion, potentially endanger my marriage, and risk persecution from my family.

Hey, 2 weeks ago, I became convinced ghosts don't exist. Ten years ago, I realized UFO abductions are people's imaginations. If every person convinced themselves we have no free will, yikes. Not necassarily but so what? Your post is an emotional response to the problem of free will. I also think that it does not follow that someone would be forced to leave any church (as if that is in anyway significant).

The Free Will/Determinism Paradox (http://www.futureperspective.com/free.htm)

Even though our knowledge is telling us that we do not possess free will, most of us are loathe to accept this conclusion. We think, if I do not have free will, then it is not important whatever I do. I might just as well stay in bed all day. Such reaction is emotional, not logical. It is this kind of negative emotional reaction which inhibits us from accepting the logical conclusion of determinism. The following is a simple thought exercise which may help us understand the deception which our emotions are perpertrating upon upon our intellects. Consider the following similations of an “undetermined universe� and a “determined universe.� Suppose that a new car is to be given away by your local community association on Saturday night. Every adult in the community is eligible. In the undetermined universe, the winner of the car will be drawn at random by computer selection from the list of community adults at 8:00 p.m. on Saturday night and the winner announced over the local FM radio station. In the determined universe, the computer random selection has already been made but the name of the winner is being maintained secret in the vault of the community association until 8:00 p.m. Saturday night when it will be announced over the radio. For the average person in the community the emotional impact of the contest is identical whether an undetermined or determined universe exists. His “odds� of winning are the same and he listens to the radio announcement with the same anticipation. For a person who believes the universe to be undetermined, there is no point to any action relating to his winning. He might just as well stay in bed until 8:00 p.m. Saturday. However, for a person in the determined universe and believing that the universe is actually determined, he might break into the community association safe, see if he is the winner, and if not, substitute his name as the winner.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I have no problem with "will." I just figure it's a handy term for a decision-making process. (Or apparent decision-making process, if one prefers.) A bowl of chocolate and one of vanilla ice cream are before me. I will eat one; some decision will be reached. That's will. Whats free about it is what I want to know.

So willing is the process of decision-reaching, and acting. But with a bowl of chocolate and a bowl of vanilla ice-cream in front of you, how free are you to select the filet mignon?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Im pretty comfy with the idea of me having no free will at all. Problems arise for religion believers, not for free thinkers.

[SuperCoolGuy]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
So willing is the process of decision-reaching, and acting. But with a bowl of chocolate and a bowl of vanilla ice-cream in front of you, how free are you to select the filet mignon?

You are only free to select the filet mignon if:

You know filet mignon exist, because you've seen it, heard about it, tried it, or had some situation or situations in your previous experience that made you aware that filet mignon exist. That's the only criteria. Doesn't matter if you know how it tastes, or know how to get it. As long as you know it exists.

Are previous experiences dictate what choices we have to select from.

[jmercer]

Hmm... ok, someone please explain to me how creativity fits in with no free will? Mozart, Brahms, Da Vinci, etc.? How did they create their art if free will doesn't exist and we're all "programmed"?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jmercer
Hmm... ok, someone please explain to me how creativity fits in with no free will? Mozart, Brahms, Da Vinci, etc.? How did they create their art if free will doesn't exist and we're all "programmed"? Lot's and lot's of very complex variables.

There is nothing that I know of that suggests that art is only the result of free will. Many artists will tell you that they are compelled to release something that was inside of them.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
Are we merely a sum of genetics and social upbringing that simply reacts to a plethora of outside stimuli.
Obviously, the implications free will say something to the effect of being able to break the bounds of determinism.

I'm not really sure what this means, but it seems to me that people seem to be able trapped largely in a world of causes and effects that cant be easily broken.

The only ways I can think of doing this are:
* Actions are random
* Actions are self-caused

And if so, does that render the heaven/hell religions wrong? Can we be punished or rewarded for just being what we are? Are we just really fancy, complicated, but nevertheless, "preprogrammed computers" that cannot fairly be judged as righteous or evil beings that freely chose their fate.
Consider what I mentioned above:

On the first interpretation, nothing much is meant morally - it only mean that actions are simply reduced down to random fortuous events (hardly a moral statement at all).

I've heard of some philosophers arguing that some actions are mysteriously "self-caused", but I'm not sure how to begin conceptualizing this, unfortunately.

But I think freewill isnt relevant to moral responsibility in a necessary sense. At its basic level, moral responsibility is a way of saying that someone is answerable to his or her actions and so is a proper subject of praise or blame. Being answerable to one's own actions is has relevant characteristics that are twofold:
1. That someone knows what he or she was doing
2. That the intents, beliefs, or desires of that someone played a part in the outcome of their actions

It is really tempint to consider consider the above explanation of moral responsibility incomplete, and to ask "doesnt responsibility imply that someone could have done otherwise?". I think its a good question, but not necessarily relevant, because morality is interested in questions of "shoulds" and "oughts". The question isnt relevant to "could have done otherwise", but is really about moral statements like "should have done otherwise".

If responsiblity is idealized in that form, then you can in fact say non-paradoxially "determinism implies moral responsibility",for the reason that one of the major "tenets" (for lack of better words) of determinism implies that consequences (which I think must include moral consequences) can be deduced from the state of present events.

Originally posted by jmercer
Hmm... ok, someone please explain to me how creativity fits in with no free will? Mozart, Brahms, Da Vinci, etc.? How did they create their art if free will doesn't exist and we're all "programmed"?
Fortunate environmental factors determined the artists to create their art, perhaps. "If things had been different, they'd be different" I think the saying goes.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by RandFan
Lot's and lot's of very complex variables.

There is nothing that I know of that suggests that art is only the result of free will. Many artists will tell you that they are compelled to release something that was inside of them.

Granted. Perhaps they're programmed to 'create' - but what about the actual creative process? Is that pre-programmed?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Fortunate environmental factors determined the artists to create their art, perhaps. "If things had been different, they'd be different" I think the saying goes.

Sure, they're influenced by their environment... but does that dictate what they do? Or merely contribute to shaping an expression of free will during the creative process?

(BTW, folks, I don't know, I'm just asking questions about it... I can't draw a stick figure, carry a tune, compose a sonata, etc., and I'm apparently miserable at writing books, too. :) )

[Filip Sandor]

My view on this has teeter-tottered for a very long time and it's a very good question...

One very interesting fact, which has guided my own search for the answer to this age old question, is the fact the idea of
free will comes so naturally to us. Unlike the idea of a Pink Unicorn, the idea of free will is inherently more plausible.. and why? There has to be a reason.

If it doesn't exist then why do we tend to see it as such a real flip-side of determinism and why do we tend to define determinism in the context of determinism vs. non-determinism, if non-determinism doesn't exist? Maybe we need to re-define free will so that we may work with it on a more scientific level, but we can't escape the fact that the conception of free will is so natural to our minds - hence there is so much debate surrounding it.

My position on the question of free will is this:

I believe we can choose certain outcomes within certain boundaries. In other words, we have more or less freedom, depending on the circumstances. The simple fact that I believe Nature offers us the necessary tools for progressing our evolution is enough evidence to me that free will (or the absence of it) which is such an inherent feeling to us all must be representative of something real and that this "something" actually exists!

[Kaylee]

Yeah, I agree, when it comes to making decisions and seeing the possibilities, we have some free will but not absolute free will. Our will is bound by our intelligence, innate talent and physical abilities, ideas we've been exposed to which in turn are shaped by our SES and even the era we are born in … and no doubt a few hundred thousand other things also.

I also think however, that our society, at least when it comes to legal issues, depends on the assumption that we have absolute free will and can take full responsibility for our actions. There are some exceptions of course, people who are judged mentally ill, retarded, or not of legal maturity are not held responsible for all of their actions. But in exchange they give up legal rights; for example people judged insane may be forcibly institutionalized, children under 18 cannot make contracts.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by SuperCoolGuy
You are only free to select the filet mignon if:

You know filet mignon exist, because you've seen it, heard about it, tried it, or had some situation or situations in your previous experience that made you aware that filet mignon exist. That's the only criteria. Doesn't matter if you know how it tastes, or know how to get it. As long as you know it exists.

Are previous experiences dictate what choices we have to select from.

How do time and space constraints bear on choices? If you are very hungry and you know it will take 90 minutes for (you to get to the restaurant, wait for a table, wait for the waiter) wait for the filet mignon to be ready; doesn't your hunger tell force to take the easily available ice cream? Unless you have a great deal of "willpower".

What if you decide you want to eat baked carrots grown in MARSian soil? That's not easily available, though it is possible.

To what extent do time and space constraints mean our choices are less than free?

[ReFLeX]

No matter how hungry you are, I think you are still willing to get the carrots from Mars. Your will has been exercised freely.
I don't look at will as the actual act, you added "acting" to Marquis's explanation. To will something is to desire that thing to happen. "Free will" is then typically applied to our own self-governing decisions. But just because your will doesn't succeed doesn't mean you didn't freely choose that desire. You can will you want the carrots, but if you also will to survive until you do get the carrots, you'll either have to eat something else in the meantime or become a breatharian. If you die waiting for a space shuttle to come on sale, your will fails!

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by ReFLeX
No matter how hungry you are, I think you are still willing to get the carrots from Mars. Your will has been exercised freely.
I don't look at will as the actual act, you added "acting" to Marquis's explanation. To will something is to desire that thing to happen. "Free will" is then typically applied to our own self-governing decisions. But just because your will doesn't succeed doesn't mean you didn't freely choose that desire. You can will you want the carrots, but if you also will to survive until you do get the carrots, you'll either have to eat something else in the meantime or become a breatharian. If you die waiting for a space shuttle to come on sale, your will fails!

I don't agree. Desires can contradict one another.

Desire to eat.
Desire not to get wet.

Will is the choice and subsequent exercise of the plan of action.

Will: Go out into the rain to get food.
Will: Stay inside and be hungry until the rain stops.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Will: Go out into the rain to get food.
Will: Stay inside and be hungry until the rain stops. Determinism: Hunger overides all other motivations.
Determinism: Hunger not sufficent to motivate to out in the rain to get food.

Desires can be seen as a scale. Once the deisre on one side get greater than the desire on the other the scale will tip. Shortly after lunch you will not want to go out in the rain. Wait long enough and you WILL go out in the rain.

[jmercer]

Hm... ok. Let's work with hunger, since that's instinctual. Good place to work. :)

So... if there is no free will... what stops a successful dieter from reaching for that cookie? "Willpower" certainly suggests "free will"... so if it's not willpower, then what is it?

If the argument is that dieting is just a matter of desire versus determination... what about hunger strikers who die from their strike?

(Edited to add last sentence)

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by jmercer
Hm... ok. Let's work with hunger, since that's instinctual. Good place to work. :)

So... if there is no free will... what stops a successful dieter from reaching for that cookie? "Willpower" certainly suggests "free will"... so if it's not willpower, then what is it?

Willpower is the ability to stick with the plan of action, over time. In other words, rejecting interfering desires from derailing the plan.

If the argument is that dieting is just a matter of desire versus determination... what about hunger strikers who die from their strike?

(Edited to add last sentence)

Desire to protest a great injustice.
Desire to eat.

Will: Don't eat to protest a great injustice.

Where did the idea that it was a great injustice come from? Experience, direct and/or vicarious.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jmercer
So... if there is no free will... what stops a successful dieter from reaching for that cookie? "Willpower" certainly suggests "free will"... so if it's not willpower, then what is it?

If the argument is that dieting is just a matter of desire versus determination... what about hunger strikers who die from their strike?

(Edited to add last sentence) Good question. In that instace the desire to affect change for a cause is greater than hunger.

It is that the desire to be accepted by society or to find a mate or to be healhy are greater than the motivations to eat the cookie.

[jmercer]

Which would - I assume - be an argument for free will?

Aside from the above, I have a question which may be stupid or not... I apologize in advance if my ignorance is showing by asking it. :D

Does Chaos Theory have any bearing on the question of free will in any way? (I know little of Chaos Theory except for the VERY basic concept.)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Regarding libertarian free will, the sort of free will where you're really supposed to be able to make decisions free from the bonds of determinism:

What does in mean that at one instant you have the free will to make a choice, and at the next instant you have made a choice?

~~ Paul

[Robin]

Originally posted by jmercer
Which would - I assume - be an argument for free will?

Aside from the above, I have a question which may be stupid or not... I apologize in advance if my ignorance is showing by asking it. :D

Does Chaos Theory have any bearing on the question of free will in any way? (I know little of Chaos Theory except for the VERY basic concept.)
Actually Edward Lorenz, in his book "The Essence of Chaos" conjectures that the mind is a chaotic system and discusses the implications of this idea on free will.

He does not come to any actual conclusion but says:

"if you choose to believe in free will you have not chosen wrongly". If you have free will you chose rightly, if you don't have free will you didn't choose.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Regarding libertarian free will, the sort of free will where you're really supposed to be able to make decisions free from the bonds of determinism:

What does in mean that at one instant you have the free will to make a choice, and at the next instant you have made a choice?

~~ Paul

There's a principle that (my paraphrase) says: "People are always re-deciding."

So, I would say that people can only be said to have decided to the extent that they follow through on that decision, and don't redecide on another course.

But to make a choice means that you have a more-or-less "fixed" reference process to follow, and a way to compare that reference process with what you actually do -- to determine if you are following your plan, being congruent with your previous "self" and such.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jmercer
Which would - I assume - be an argument for free will? Perhaps my words are poorly chosen. When the drive to eat is greater than the drive to stay dry.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Robin
"if you choose to believe in free will you have not chosen wrongly". If you have free will you chose rightly, if you don't have free will you didn't choose. So we can conclude that Geddy Lee did not subscribe to determinism.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Suggestologist said:
So, I would say that people can only be said to have decided to the extent that they follow through on that decision, and don't redecide on another course.
I don't understand what it means to make any sort of free-will decision at all. I've made my decision. In what sense was my mind, in the previous instant, free to make any decision? If I'm free to make any decision, how do I make it?

A libertarian free-will decision is made using some mechanism other than an algorithmic or random one. There is some third mechanism. I have absolutely no concept for what that might be.

~~ Paul

[Robin]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Regarding libertarian free will, the sort of free will where you're really supposed to be able to make decisions free from the bonds of determinism:

What does in mean that at one instant you have the free will to make a choice, and at the next instant you have made a choice?

~~ Paul
I can't understand how a decision can be free from the bonds of determinism - surely everyone would believe that a choice is determined by something, say knowledge, memory, intelligence, attitude, beliefs etc.

Is there really a school of thought that says our choices appear at random from out of the aether?

Most of us understand free will to be the extent that a decision is made by us (whether by mechanical or other means) and not by outside agency.

I am also having trouble seeing where the original post is coming from. Why exactly should someone stop believing in God because they have decided there is no free will?

Many atheists believe they have free will and many don't - really it is just a disagreement in defintion.

But religious free will is at best problematical. As far as I know those religions have never found a formula for resolving the predestination/free-will contradiction.

So if you are still reading Supercoolguy I would say that whatever your final conclusion about free will, it should not affect your religious beliefs. You may not have free will even if there is a God.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I don't understand what it means to make any sort of free-will decision at all. I've made my decision. In what sense was my mind, in the previous instant, free to make any decision? If I'm free to make any decision, how do I make it?

Different people have different decision-making strategies.

A libertarian free-will decision is made using some mechanism other than an algorithmic or random one. There is some third mechanism. I have absolutely no concept for what that might be.

~~ Paul

Heuristic.

[Kaylee]

A group of people may have the same goals and preferences -- but their abilities to stick to a plan and deal with frustrations and temptations may differ widely -- even assuming that the frustrations and temptations facing them are equal.

Their previous experiences and decisions may differ causing them to make different decisions according to the determinism philosophy. The balance of their brain hormones and chemicals may also differ causing them to make different decisions for those reasons as well. However their decisions will still be affected by their goals and preferences that they have taken the time to think through -- that's why I say free will is partial and not absolute.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
What does in mean that at one instant you have the free will to make a choice, and at the next instant you have made a choice?

~~ Paul

Hey Paul,

Imagine that to be like a sine wave (I think.. like one single wave oscillating at some 'random' frequency).. now imagine that there are many of these so called "potential waves" where change and determinism opens up a bigger window for choice - which seems as though it certainly does have a third part to it..

...of course, the big question.

[jmercer]

I just tossed a coin to determine if I would buy bagels for this morning's breakfast, or make omelets. Heads came up, and I'm heading out right now to buy bagels.

Why doesn't choosing to leave my breakfast choice up to random chance demonstrate free will?

[ReFLeX]

Arguably it was the external influence of this thread that caused you to choose the flipping of a coin. Or any number of indetectable factors... which can support either side of the argument...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jmercer
I just tossed a coin to determine if I would buy bagels for this morning's breakfast, or make omelets. Heads came up, and I'm heading out right now to buy bagels.

Why doesn't choosing to leave my breakfast choice up to random chance demonstrate free will? A popular argument. One I used to make on this forum when I passionately argued for free will. All the variable that are you simply adds one more variable in its calculations to compensate for ego. Try using the coin flip for every decision like, should you go to work or not or should you eat or not as opposed to should you eat bagels or toast or whatever. You will find the coin flip is only seemingly relevant to minor issues where your internal variables are close to moving in either direction any way.

Again, I'm not a determinist. It's just after many posts of trying to prove free will that I came to realize that I can't.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Robin said:
I can't understand how a decision can be free from the bonds of determinism - surely everyone would believe that a choice is determined by something, say knowledge, memory, intelligence, attitude, beliefs etc.
I cannot understand it, either.

Is there really a school of thought that says our choices appear at random from out of the aether?
Not randomly, either. It appears that libertarian free will involves something other than algorithmic and random choices.

Perhaps I misunderstand libertarian free will, but it makes no sense to me.

RandRan said:
Again, I'm not a determinist. It's just after many posts of trying to prove free will that I came to realize that I can't.
A refreshingly honest statement.

~~ Paul

[jmercer]

Originally posted by RandFan
A popular argument. One I used to make on this forum when I passionately argued for free will. All the variable that are you simply adds one more variable in its calculations to compensate for ego. Try using the coin flip for every decision like, should you go to work or not or should you eat or not as opposed to should you eat bagels or toast or whatever. You will find the coin flip is only seemingly relevant to minor issues where your internal variables are close to moving in either direction any way.

Again, I'm not a determinist. It's just after many posts of trying to prove free will that I came to realize that I can't.

Heh... what's really annoying is that I got the bagels, everybody ate them, and then I ended up making omelets by request for about half of 'em. :D

Free will is one thing... but now I'm worried that fate exists. ;)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by RandFan
Try using the coin flip for every decision like, should you go to work or not or should you eat or not as opposed to should you eat bagels or toast or whatever. You will find the coin flip is only seemingly relevant to minor issues where your internal variables are close to moving in either direction any way.

Again, I'm not a determinist. It's just after many posts of trying to prove free will that I came to realize that I can't.

I was thinking about this post over the weekend, and I had a couple thoughts and questions I figured I'd post, in case anyone wanted to continue the discussion. If not, I'll let the thread die after this.

Free will - is it like pregancy? (Meaning that you're either pregnant or not.) Trivial as my coin-toss example was, it's relevant to this. If free will is like pregancy, then even the smallest demonstration of it (such as my coin toss example) suffices to prove it's existence.

If there is no free will at all, then why not? What prevents it from existing? Or if the difference is impossible to detect, then what difference does it make?

If free will is graduated - only available at "low levels" - then what is the threshold? What conditions cause the "trigger mechanism" to go off that prevents free will from being exercised at "higher" levels? And what is the trigger mechanism, how does it work?

It seems to me that Occam's razor would lead us to suspect that free will exists... it's just the simplest explanation for the things we do to ourselves and each other - good, bad and everything in-between.

(I must also admit that the thought of free will not existing personally bothers me for several reasons; one, because I don't want to be a puppet with only the illusion of volition; two, because I'm concerned that disbelief in free will is actually a form of escapism... and lastly because I view that idea as a form of nihilism. Personal observation only. :))

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jmercer
It seems to me that Occam's razor would lead us to suspect that free will exists... it's just the simplest explanation for the things we do to ourselves and each other - good, bad and everything in-between.
Simplest, possibly, but it might be important to remember the original wording of the Razor: Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. In other words, don't postulate more things than are needed to explain.

The concept of free will is asking us to postulate an entity that is not explainable entirely by deterministic cause and effect, or even by chaotic indeterminism.

It seems simpler to me, then, to believe that my actions occur as the result of a long chain of cause and effect, just like everything else I'm aware of in the world.

(I must also admit that the thought of free will not existing personally bothers me for several reasons; one, because I don't want to be a puppet with only the illusion of volition; two, because I'm concerned that disbelief in free will is actually a form of escapism... and lastly because I view that idea as a form of nihilism. Personal observation only. :))
It only seems that way because you don't have the free will to make yourself think otherwise. :p

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by jmercer
(I must also admit that the thought of free will not existing personally bothers me for several reasons; one, because I don't want to be a puppet with only the illusion of volition;

Because you cannot be aware of all the factors acting in influence upon you, and those few you can percieve are mostly the ones within your power to affect, even if "free will" is an illusion the effect is the same as if you have volition.

Originally posted by jmercer
two, because I'm concerned that disbelief in free will is actually a form of escapism...

The inverse, actually, for the reasons you stated above most people tend to believe in free will. For the same reasons they believe in gods without evidence. It makes them feel better about themselves and their position in the universe.

Originally posted by jmercer
(and lastly because I view that idea as a form of nihilism. Personal observation only. :))

How, exactly?

[jmercer]

Hmm... good points, all. More food for thought, some of the absolutely best parts of these forums. :)

Regarding nihilism - basically, I view a lack of free will as essentially surrendering to the unknown and unknowable - since if we don't have free will, the complexities of what force us to make our decisions can't ever be known. (Too complex and/or subtle... or perhaps individualized would be a better term.) I find the idea that I may make an error without any ability to avoid it abhorrent and ultimately defeatist... as if there's no hope for improvement and we're all just passengers on a boat having the illusion that we're walking on land. :)