How do you define Free Will?

[Jesse2]

Determinism vs. Free Will is an old philosophical debate. I am hoping to find any fresh perspective or insight on this issue. I believe that an adequate definition of free will means simply that we have the ability to choose at any given moment. I also believe that each choice is made by a combination of both genetic and environmental factors. No choice can be made absent these factors. I also believe that this explanation negates the need for any type of 'soul' that isn't traceable to neural activity.

What is randomness?

We call the roll of the dice random simply because we are not yet able to scientifically and accurately predict the outcome of a dice roll. We therefore often define the lack of such a predictability as 'random'.

Is there an order behind all chaos?

[jasonmccoy]

Take a look at Daniel Wegner's book The Illusion of Conscious Will

[Jesse2]

Can you tell me some of what Wegner says?

[Skeptical Greg]

If there is no free will, it is a convincing illusion..

As I have suggested in the past, everyone who believes in determinism, should proceed to the nearest 10 story building and jump from the top.

Then those of us remaining, will discuss this subject again..

[Jesse2]

Well, if free will is defined as meaning simply that we have choices, I'm not certain that we need a determinism at all. If you define free will as meaning that there is something in you besides genetics and environment that contributes to your choices, I would then like to know what that thing is.

[Yahweh]

Free will is a term used to describe the conscious ability of someone to make descisions at their own accord. Its completely absurd to believe consciousness and free will is an illusion or to believe in fate or devine will because if that were the case, it would conflict with the Law of Causality (which is the principle of or relationship between cause and effect). Fate and Devine Will are metaphysical, I dont believe in them. Free Will is physical (an aspect of self-awareness), I believe in it.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Free will is a term used to describe the conscious ability of someone to make descisions at their own accord. Its completely absurd to believe consciousness and free will is an illusion or to believe in fate or devine will because if that were the case, it would conflict with the Law of Causality (which is the principle of or relationship between cause and effect). Fate and Devine Will are metaphysical, I dont believe in them. Free Will is physical (an aspect of self-awareness), I believe in it. Such spooks as fate or divine will are unnecessary and I agree with your definition. Are choices separable from genetic and environmental factors? If so, how?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Jesse2

I believe that an adequate definition of free will means simply that we have the ability to choose at any given moment. Would you say that we have the ability to choose what we think at any given moment?

[Jesse2]

I don't know. I'm still trying to figure this out, which is why I am asking the question. At the moment, I think I believe that my choices are predetermined by genetic and environmental factors. I don't think that free will is an illusion. I believe that simply defined it means that I have choices. I am not aware of all the things that go into my choice making.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jesse2
Such spooks as fate or divine will are unnecessary and I agree with your definition. Are choices separable from genetic and environmental factors? If so, how?
I am unaware of any DNA that is responsible for a person to be able to make choices. (Edit to add) Of course mommy and daddy's genetic material plays a big part in their offspring's particular tastes (especially personality), using that kind of reasoning, you can assume genetics play a part in one's habit of making choices. The ability to make descisions exists because humans are conscious. Consciouness is self-awareness and recognition of the surrounding environment. Humans are able to gather information from the surrounding environment and make decisions from them. "Its a sunny day, I'll go on a walk" or "Theres is a tornado outside, I'd like to go on a walk but I think that would put my physical at risk, I'll refrain from taking that walk" (of course, you realize the cognitive process goes faster than this, it just an example).

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Yahweh
"Its a sunny day, I'll go on a walk" or "Theres is a tornado outside, I'd like to go on a walk but I think that would put my physical at risk, I'll refrain from taking that walk" (of course, you realize the cognitive process goes faster than this, it just an example). These are learned behaviors. True?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Jesse2

At the moment, I think I believe that my choices are predetermined by genetic and environmental factors. I don't think that free will is an illusion.
I would suggest that you must choose one or the other.

[reprise]

Hehe. At the moment, the sequential thread titles read :

'How do you define Free Will?'

'Eating with chopsticks'.

[evildave]

Randomness is only lack of sufficient information.

There is near infinite information, and all known means of measuring much of the finer points of this information actually changes it.

Even if you could collect "total" information, you can't possess the processing power to use it. Especially not in "real-time".

Free will is what we have when we make decisions based on incomplete information.

We can choose badly or brilliantly, and anywhere in between.

All we can normally hope for is adequately.

[Peter Soderqvist]

Originally posted by jasonmccoy
Take a look at Daniel Wegner's book The Illusion of Conscious Will

Soderqvist1: If consciousness and free will is an illusion, genes for lesser brain must have a huge competition advantage over genes for bigger brain! But here we are with big brains, and for the same reason; consciousness and free will as illusion doesn't fit the Darwinian Description! If stimulus can impinge upon minds, but minds cannot respond to stimulus, this description violates Newton's third law of motion, which states that; there is a reaction to every action!



Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene Chapter 4 - The gene machine
The genes are the master programmers, and they are programming for their lives. They are judged according to the success of their programs in copying with all the hazards that life throws at their survival machines, and the judge is the ruthless judge of the court of survival. Whatever the philosophical problems raised by consciousness, for the purpose of this story it can be thought of as the culmination of an evolutionary trend towards the emancipation of survival machines as executive decision-takers from their ultimate masters, the genes. Not only are brains in charge of the day-to-day running of survival machine affairs; they have also acquired the ability to predict the future and act accordingly. They even have the power to rebel against the dictates of their genes, for instance in refusing to have as many children as they are able to. But in this respect man is a very special case, as we shall see. http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Books/selfish.htm

Soderqvist1: Thus the bigger the brain, or hardware is, the more freedom it has, over its genetic program, software!

Matt Ridley reviews Freedom Evolves by Daniel C. Dennett
"Either our actions are determined, in which case there is nothing we can do about them, or our actions are random, in which case there is nothing we can do about them."

Daniel Dennett to the rescue. The ebullient, pugnacious and ever pithy sage of Boston has written books on free will, consciousness and Darwinism. He now returns to free will with a remarkably persuasive new idea derived from Darwinism: that freedom of the will is something that grows, that evolves. The greater the sophistication of an organism, the greater its knowledge of the world and of itself, so the greater its ability to take charge of its own destiny. A rock has no freedom to choose; a bacterium has very little; a bird has some; a conscious primate has much more; a conscious primate inheriting a rich lode of cultural knowledge has the most of all.

Determinism - the idea that a cause automatically produces an effect - is not, says Dennett, the same as inevitability. This is a surprising assertion, which he spends several chapters justifying, and I think he succeeds.
http://www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2003/02/09/boden09.xml&sSheet=/arts/2003/02/09/bomain.html

Freedom Evolves by Daniel Clement Dennett
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031860/qid%3D1051189359/sr%3D2-1/ref%3Dsr%5F2%5F1/103-1088406-5119037


Soderqvist1: I have 7 books by Dennett; namely, The Mind's I with Hofstadter, The Intentional Stance, Consciousness Explained, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Kind of Minds, Brainchildren, and Freedom Evolves! I have also all Richard Dawkins books, including his last one, namely, The Devils Chaplain. I have also, The Volitional Brain, Towards a Neuroscience of Free Will, Edited by Benjamin Libet, Anthony Freeman and Keith Sutherland; this book is listed in the bibliography of Daniel Dennett's "Freedom Evolves! http://www.imprint.co.uk/books/volitional_brain.html

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jesse2
These are learned behaviors. True?
Not entirely, you just have to be able to use common sense. (Of course, common sense is sometimes learned through trial and error... "Why is that stove burner glowing red, is it hot, I should put my hand on it just to make sure" :D)

[The Mad Linguist]

The way I see it: our choices are determined by the sum of our genes, our neural architecture, our personality, our experiences, plus (possibly) a certain quantity of quantum randomness. Does this mean that our choices are not determined by us?

No! Because we ARE the sum of our genes, our neural architecture, our personality, our experiences, plus (possibly) a certain quantity of quantum randomness. Take all that away and you've taken away the entire person.

So that which determines my choices is identical with that which constitutes "me".

[pillory]

FREE WILL IS BEST DEFIENED AS " DO WHAT YOU GOT TO DO" just kidding"do you what you want to do"
do what you can you

dum,just foerget the whole free will

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I can never get the free will folks to explain how it works. Somehow, I make a decision. Something(s) determined that decision, unless I made a random choice. Whatever that something is, it determined the decision. The decision was determined. Where's the free will?

~~ Paul

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Yahweh
"Its a sunny day, I'll go on a walk" or "Theres is a tornado outside, I'd like to go on a walk but I think that would put my physical at risk, I'll refrain from taking that walk" (of course, you realize the cognitive process goes faster than this, it just an example). Originally posted by Jesse2
These are learned behaviors. True? Originally posted by Yahweh
Not entirely, you just have to be able to use common sense. (Of course, common sense is sometimes learned through trial and error... "Why is that stove burner glowing red, is it hot, I should put my hand on it just to make sure" :D) I have learned that I don't like to take a walk regardless of whether or not it is sunny out. If I were a storm chaser, I may have learned that I wish to go out and take pictures of the tornado rather than stay at home.

I argue that these behaviors are learned and therefore traced to what I clumsily refer to as environmental factors. Or perhaps I was born not to like walks or to chase storms (genetic cause). This is probably less likely than the behaviors being learned.

I also argue that 'common sense' is learned. For example, the "wild child" in France roughly a few centuries ago enjoyed running out in the snow, naked. The Polar Bear club of modern day enjoys swimming in icy waters. Most of us would agree that it is common sense to wear heavy clothing in cold weather and not to go swimming in icy waters at all.

[Bluegill]

One night during my senior year of high school, I stayed up late working on a paper about Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-5. Fueled by instant coffee and sugar cookies, I lapsed into a long period of comtemplating the nature of free will.

I finally reached the conclusion that there is no such thing as free will, but that since the world behaves exactly as if we DO get to make choices, then it's better to just accept the notion that we have free will.

I don't know if I can repeat my thought processes from that night without spending several more sleepless days studying Tralfamadorians and sci-fi concepts of four-dimensionality. Ugggh. But I think I was right, anyway.

Another note: We were discussing free will in a college class once, and our professor brought up some famous person's argument in favor of free will. According to this argument, picture a hungry mule in a field. There are piles of hay on opposite sides of the mule, each the exact same distance away. Also, the piles of hay are exactly alike. There is no way whatsoever to distinguish one pile of hay from another, and therefore there is no way to decide which pile of hay to go to for food.

It's absurd, according to this argument, to think that the mule, with no way of making a decision about which way to go, would stand there and starve. He would use free will to decide to go in one direction or the other, eat, and keep from starving to death.

But I disagree with this argument. With no way of making a decision, how do we know that the mule wouldn't stand there and starve?

I suspect that "free will" is just another way of saying that the inevitable, complex series of causes that provoke a response in the human brain are beyond our ability to grasp.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Bluegill
I finally reached the conclusion that there is no such thing as free will, but that since the world behaves exactly as if we DO get to make choices, then it's better to just accept the notion that we have free will.

I suspect that "free will" is just another way of saying that the inevitable, complex series of causes that provoke a response in the human brain are beyond our ability to grasp. Thank you. I think these two paragraphs sum it up nicely, and I doubt I could say it better myself. Is it necessary to say that 'free will is an illusion'? If so, why?

As for 'fate', I say hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to say that anything that has already happened was 'fated' to happen that way because there is no way to change what has already happened. If we try to apply this concept of fate to the future, we are attemping prophecy, and that is when we stumble. As it's already been said in this thread, we lack the brain-power to prophecy with any accuracy except in the simplest of cases.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I can never get the free will folks to explain how it works. Somehow, I make a decision. Something(s) determined that decision, unless I made a random choice. Whatever that something is, it determined the decision. The decision was determined. Where's the free will?

~~ Paul
Well, if I cant explain what free will is, I'll explain what it aint.

If you give ask a human a question, the human responds. But, there is no "If this condition is true, then do this behavior".

Decision making is not based on randominity either. Humans make choices at their own accord, they base them on criteria they set for themselves. Humans self create their own criteria, these may be based off taste, environment, others, inner convictions, but in any case humans make decisions at their own will.

Free will is a part of being conscious. To suggest humans are not aware of their own "being" would be completely absurd.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yahweh said:Humans self create their own criteria, these may be based off taste, environment, others, inner convictions, but in any case humans make decisions at their own will.
Taste is a function of environment and upbringing. The environment is not my will. Inner convictions stem from upbringing and experience. It's all determined by something else.

Either it is determined by prior events or it is random. What else is there?

~~ Paul

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Humans make choices at their own accord, they base them on criteria they set for themselves. Humans self create their own criteria, these may be based off taste, environment, others, inner convictions, but in any case humans make decisions at their own will. You mentioned environment and others (meaning other humans?). As Paul stated, "taste is a function of environment and upbringing" Environment, once again, is a factor or cause to assist in determining decisions. This supports my original point that "each choice is made by a combination of both genetic and environmental factors."

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Yahweh said:
Taste is a function of environment and upbringing. The environment is not my will. Inner convictions stem from upbringing and experience. It's all determined by something else.

Either it is determined by prior events or it is random. What else is there?

~~ Paul
Prior event help establish some of the criteria by which humans make decisions and perform actions. It doesnt suggest humans are incapable of having free will though.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jesse2
You mentioned environment and others (meaning other humans?). As Paul stated, "taste is a function of environment and upbringing" Environment, once again, is a factor or cause to assist in determining decisions. This supports my original point that "each choice is made by a combination of both genetic and environmental factors."
Well then you were correct in assuming choices are related to genetic and environmental factors, but at the root of all conscious choices is free will.

(Keep in mind I'm trying to explain free will in laymens terms, I dont want to resort to sorting through various neuropsychological reasons or going all out Philosophy 404 at the moment...)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yahweh said:Prior event help establish some of the criteria by which humans make decisions and perform actions. It doesnt suggest humans are incapable of having free will though.
Wait, I'm trying to get someone to define free will! It's not predeterminism and it's not randomness. What is it? What exactly is free, and what is it free from?

~~ Paul

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Well then you were correct in assuming choices are related to genetic and environmental factors, but at the root of all conscious choices is free will.Free will is "1. The ability or discretion to choose" By that definition, of course we have free will. But, again, each choice is determined by genetic and environmental factors. If there is something other than these factors determining the choice, then what is that "something"?
Originally posted by Yahweh
(Keep in mind I'm trying to explain free will in laymens terms, I dont want to resort to sorting through various neuropsychological reasons or going all out Philosophy 404 at the moment...) Good, because I don't think we need to get that deep to answer the given question(s).

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Jesse2

I don't think we need to get that deep to answer the given question(s).
I think that depends on the answer(s).

Q: Do humans have free will?
A: No.

That's pretty simple. Since humans don't have it, no further explanation is really required; humans don't have lots of things we might imagine.

Q: Do humans have free will?
A: Yes.

That seems to require further explanation.

Let's simplify where we can.

Our actions are directed by our thoughts (with the exception of some features which the human nervous system -- like those of other animals -- is equipped with, that run on automatic; poke a stick at our eyes and we blink, throw a rock at us and we duck, etc. We have little or no conscious level control over most of these, so we really aren't concerned with them. Any control we do have over these is of the nature of reconditioning them to respond differently; they are still triggered automatically, and respond automatically.)

So then the question (again) is: can we control our thoughts?

Experiment:

During the five seconds immediately following your reading this sentence, DO NOT visualize a purple cow.

Results?

That we choose is clear. What is not so clear is whether we choose what we choose.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Dymanic
So then the question (again) is: can we control our thoughts?

Experiment:

During the five seconds immediately following your reading this sentence, DO NOT visualize a purple cow.

Results?

That we choose is clear. What is not so clear is whether we choose what we choose. I read that somewhere in Indian (of the Hindu variety) culture that it was unlucky to think of a monkey while you were getting medical care. Yes... How do you try not to think of the monkey? (or in this case, of the purple cow)

In this case, the variation may lie not in whether or not you visualize the purple cow, but how much you visualize it. One person may visualize it for less than a second, another may do it for longer. Also, the purple cow may be visualized stronger for one person than another.

I'm not really sure if all this talk about monkies and cows is on subject.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I can never get the free will folks to explain how it works. Somehow, I make a decision. Something(s) determined that decision, unless I made a random choice. Whatever that something is, it determined the decision. The decision was determined. Where's the free will?

~~ Paul

What outside of you compelled you to post your response to this forum Paul?

Free will is within you. It is you. It is your nature. If your decisions are determined from outside of you, by someone or something else, fill us in.

I am a "free will" folk. I believe that each human is responsible for his/her actions. That is how I conceive free will. No other creative entities in the universe have control over my will.

-Elliot

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by elliotfc
If your decisions are determined from outside of you, by someone or something else, fill us in. Choices are made by individuals. Genetics and environment are the two factors in our choices. What else is there?

Originally posted by elliotfc
I believe that each human is responsible for his/her actions. That is how I conceive free will. I agree with you about responsibility. If a man commits a crime, he should do the time. How else will he learn? How else can society be protected from him? How else could his environment teach him?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Dymanic

I think that depends on the answer(s).

Q: Do humans have free will?
A: No.

That's pretty simple. Since humans don't have it, no further explanation is really required; humans don't have lots of things we might imagine.

Q: Do humans have free will?
A: Yes.

That seems to require further explanation.

Let's simplify where we can.

Our actions are directed by our thoughts (with the exception of some features which the human nervous system -- like those of other animals -- is equipped with, that run on automatic; poke a stick at our eyes and we blink, throw a rock at us and we duck, etc. We have little or no conscious level control over most of these, so we really aren't concerned with them. Any control we do have over these is of the nature of reconditioning them to respond differently; they are still triggered automatically, and respond automatically.)
Those are invalid examples. They are spontaneous reflexes. People can override their "duck and cover" reflexes if they really really want to for some reason. The brain is equipped to perform a lot of involunatary actions.

So then the question (again) is: can we control our thoughts?

Experiment:

During the five seconds immediately following your reading this sentence, DO NOT visualize a purple cow.

Results?

That we choose is clear. What is not so clear is whether we choose what we choose.
Your "dont visualize a purple" cow is flawed. If someone does happen to visualize the cow, its only be a purple cow was suggested.

Humans do have the ability to control their thoughts. They can write a story, they can do math, they can talk to themselves.

Humans have about 10000 thoughts a day (or it might be 5000, I forgot). These thoughts dont "randomly fire", they are influenced by the environment around you if you are not doing something to deliberately control them. Most human thoughts tend to be "organized" (meaning they are not completely irratic, they tend to be linked flow). Its very hard to keep yourself from thinking for more than a few seconds. To believe humans are not responsible for their actions is absurd. If humans did not have free will, they would not be self-aware. Humans are self-aware and they are able to make decisions at their own accord.

One of the things that suggests free will is then number of choices you could have made. You could have had a burrito, you had a hamburger instead. You cannot go back and change this of course, but it was definitely a choice you had, and for whatever your reasons were, you chose the hamburger instead of the burrito. (This is very simpified version of the philosophical priniciple called Causation and Control & Ability To Do Otherwise.)

There are no constraints that prevent free will (under normal conditions... under special conditions a person could certainly put an electrode up to your brain and make a limb twitch). There are no outside forces that control my actions, I am conscious therefore I am responsible for my own actions (under normal conditions... I realize all the "what if someone did this to you" and other hypothetical scenarios).

[Jesse2]

Yahweh, I have no disagreement with what you have said, but what allows any of these choices to escape causality?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Humans do have the ability to control their thoughts. They can write a story, they can do math, they can talk to themselvesA computer program could do those things.
Those are invalid examples. They are spontaneous reflexes. People can override their "duck and cover" reflexes if they really really want to for some reason.
As I noted. Please reread the paragraph more carefully.
These thoughts dont "randomly fire", they are influenced by the environment around you if you are not doing something to deliberately control them.
The term 'randomly' is going to be confusing at this point. I suggest that the thoughts fire 'spontaneously'.
Your "dont visualize a purple" cow is flawed. If someone does happen to visualize the cow, its only be a purple cow was suggested.So you agree then that if a purple cow is suggested, you don't have a choice NOT to visualize one?

You could have had a burrito, you had a hamburger instead.
Maybe you don't even like burritos. Do you have a choice about that?

[evildave]

Well, here's a nice example in math.

We can plot the position of objects in 3-space 4-dimensionally. It's actually quite trivial, and at the same time useful. You see, when you know when/where it left, and when/where it arrives, assuming a straight line, collisions can be predicted to the millisecond given sets of these line segments. Since time proceeds in the same direction and rate for all (unless we muddy up my tidy little model slightly with relativity), the location of every object can be determined at any moment based on a scaling calculation. In addition, using a 3D line distance formula, and doing the opposite algebra, we can determine when a collision might happen, and use that time to check where both bodies are in space. Simple, trivial collision testing and rejection for treating time like another dimension, similar to the difference between 2D and 3D. In this case, three and a half D. Saves a LOT of cycles.

Now, some people might leap to the conclusion that this arithmetic "proves" something about reality. Well, as a matter of fact it does. It proves that people confuse their models of reality with reality easily. This is a SIMPLE MODEL of *A* world, and NOT the actual world. Even the concept of "causality" is only a MODEL we slap on top of what we perceive reality to be.

Even in my simple model, it doesn't mean that the final position of any objects is always known. I can build a schedule for what should be done for this millisecond, versus that millisecond, but there are still inputs from thousands of players to consider. They change their minds, pick things up, put things down. All beyond my control.

Even their inputs are unpredictable. If someone presses "go forward", they have no idea (and neither do I) whether they pressed that key just as someone started a HUGE download on too an ISP spread too thin.

Many inputs beyond my control. NO accounting for any of them. All I can do is adjust to what the world does to the process and hope the testing I devise proves it really works before it goes live.

Routinely, we predict outcomes with minimal information. That's what models are for. We model people, things, places. Our models are not always right. Even if it was perfect on one day, things change.

The gap between ignorance and brilliance is our free will.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Elliotfc said:Free will is within you. It is you. It is your nature. If your decisions are determined from outside of you, by someone or something else, fill us in.
What does "within you" mean? I'm not saying my decisions are made by someone else. I'm asking what the sources of my decisions are, other than prior states of my brain and randomness. Where's the free part?

I am a "free will" folk. I believe that each human is responsible for his/her actions. That is how I conceive free will. No other creative entities in the universe have control over my will.
Agreed, but I still don't see what's free. People seem to imagine some ethereal *I* making decisions, nonrandomly, without the weight of prior experience. I don't understand what that means. Either you base a decision on previous experiences, or you choose at random, or some of both. What other choice is there?

~~ Paul

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by elliotfc

I believe that each human is responsible for his/her actions. That is how I conceive free will.
In other words, "We must believe in free will, otherwise we will have no basis for a system of moral values." This is the 'argument from adverse consequences' -- by this logic, finding a defendant guilty could be considered the proper thing to do on the basis of its potential effectiveness as a deterrent to others, rather than on the basis of the evidence against him.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Dymanic

In other words, "We must believe in free will, otherwise we will have no basis for a system of moral values." This is the 'argument from adverse consequences' -- by this logic, finding a defendant guilty could be considered the proper thing to do on the basis of its potential effectiveness as a deterrent to others, rather than on the basis of the evidence against him.


In the absence of free will, how could you even define morals. We already give people the benefit of the doubt when they are presumed to be insane.. i.e. " They had no control over what they were doing . . No free will ... " So they are not morally responsible ..

If no one had free will, no one would be morally responsible, and there would be no morals.


It isn't clear to me if you assume there is at least the illusion of free will..

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Yahweh said:
Wait, I'm trying to get someone to define free will! It's not predeterminism and it's not randomness. What is it? What exactly is free, and what is it free from?

~~ Paul

Paul, you're on to something, but you won't like the answer.

And btw, you are asking one of the fundamental questions that Franko used to ask of atheists here who believe in free will.

How does that make you feel? :D

Adam

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Would you say that we have the ability to choose what we think at any given moment?

The reason that I do believe in free will is that there are circumstances where we can loose it.

Obbsession: repetitive thought that cycle through the mind or in the case of depression return to thoughts of failure and death.

Compulsion: the need to act or suffer an anxiety attacks, which is worse than death.

Having been in the grip of obsession, compulsion and depression, I know what loosing free will is like.

Free will the ability to chose our resp[onse to external and internal stimuli. I believe that free will exists but that not all people at all times have it.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jesse2
Choices are made by individuals. Genetics and environment are the two factors in our choices. What else is there?
Well, I bet a persons current emotional state could make a difference.

Or an altered mental state. Drunk Yahweh can be just as responsible and make all the same decisions that Sober Yahweh does, but Drunk Yahweh might not listen to his good reasoning side, thats why Drunk Yahweh is still responsible for his actions. (I rarely drink anymore, its just an example...)

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by evildave
Even their inputs are unpredictable. The gap between ignorance and brilliance is our free will. Thanks, evildave. This makes sense to me and sounds like something I would agree with. We don't have to do away with free will or call it an 'illusion'.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Diogenes
In the absence of free will, how could you even define morals. We already give people the benefit of the doubt when they are presumed to be insane.. i.e. " They had no control over what they were doing . . No free will ... " So they are not morally responsible ..

If no one had free will, no one would be morally responsible, and there would be no morals.

It isn't clear to me if you assume there is at least the illusion of free will.. Free will is not absent, illusory or even redefined. Our choices are inextricable from elements in our genetic makeup or from what we have learned from our environment. The law is an imperfect means by which to 'correct' individuals who are some sort of minor or major threat to society or perhaps even themselves.

Of what purpose is moral judgement outside of the law? Perhaps as a tool for social inclusion/exclusion.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Well, I bet a persons current emotional state could make a difference.

Or an altered mental state. Drunk Yahweh can be just as responsible and make all the same decisions that Sober Yahweh does, but Drunk Yahweh might not listen to his good reasoning side, thats why Drunk Yahweh is still responsible for his actions. (I rarely drink anymore, its just an example...) Emotional states such as intoxication come about through a relationship with your environment. Simplified, you drank the booze. As for either average or unusual emotional states, cannot these be traced to what you are born with? Which causes escape from "What you are born with/what you learn from or relate with in your environment"

In other words, the perception that your choice is untied to causes is quite similiar to the perception that the dice roll is random. We know that the dice roll is not truely random - it is simply humanly unpredictable. I believe evildave already touched on the notion of unpredictability.

[jasonmccoy]

Originally posted by Jesse2
Can you tell me some of what Wegner says?

He suggests that if A: someone thinks something and B: subsequently acts in a manner even remotely consistent with that mental image, then C: our tendency to find "cause and effect" will likely bring us to the conclusion that we somehow willed the action. (ie. I was thinking about food several minutes ago and just now I grabbed a handful.)

However, Wegner is quick to point out that for many, when A: the thought previously engaged in does not precede B: an action within a certain period of time or when the action is very inconsistent with the previous mental images, then C: the actor may in fact deny that he/she consciously willed or had any control. (ie. the disconnection people often experience between thoughts and actions while intoxicated or perhaps the tendency for humans to despite mental pep talks to the contrary (I WILL NOT MOVE THIS PLANCETTE) find upon examination (feedback from muscle tension monitors) that our finger/arms are in fact moving a plastic device across the Oujia board!!!

Wegner also uses examples from split brain research, neurological disease, and several of his own ingenious experiments to highlight how the brain creates the illusion of conscious will!! I found the inserts on "Clever Hans" and "Facillitated Communication" particularly supportive to his
contention.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Jesse2
Free will is not absent, illusory or even redefined. Our choices are inextricable from elements in our genetic makeup or from what we have learned from our environment. The law is an imperfect means by which to 'correct' individuals who are some sort of minor or major threat to society or perhaps even themselves.

Of what purpose is moral judgement outside of the law? Perhaps as a tool for social inclusion/exclusion.

When I speak of ' free will ', choices are what I have in mind.

I alluded to this in my first post in this thread..

If there is no free will, it is a convincing illusion..

As I have suggested in the past, everyone who believes in determinism, should proceed to the nearest 10 story building and jump from the top.

Then those of us remaining, will discuss this subject again..

[Dymanic]

Diogenes, I found that not only was I unable to perform the experiment you suggested, but I was unable to force myself to consider it for even a moment.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Slim said:And btw, you are asking one of the fundamental questions that Franko used to ask of atheists here who believe in free will.

How does that make you feel?
It makes me want a definition of free will! Everyone keeps talking about it, but no one defines it. Maybe you're all really talking about free willy.

~~ Paul

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Slim said:
It makes me want a definition of free will! Everyone keeps talking about it, but no one defines it. Maybe you're all really talking about free willy.~~ Paul I like the dictionary definition:

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.

Like most things, free will is something that has a meaning based on context. For instance, If someone has your arms and legs physically restrained without a gag, you have the free will to yell but not the free will to leave the room.

In a general philosophical context, I'm not sure what free will means. I think people who defend the philosophical concept of free will often are defending it on the basis of belief in a 'soul' and/or the belief that a free will is necessary in order to pass moral judgement on others.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Diogenes, I found that not only was I unable to perform the experiment you suggested, but I was unable to force myself to consider it for even a moment.


Then it was obviously ' determined ', that you would not follow my suggestion. It couldn't possibly be about any choice that you made..:D

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Then it was obviously ' determined ', that you would not follow my suggestion. It couldn't possibly be about any choice that you made..:D Of course it was a choice that was determined. I'm sure that the survival instinct played a part in his determined choice. I should emphasize that there are many choices that cannot be explained in simple terms. That does not rule out causality.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jesse2
I like the dictionary definition:

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.

Like most things, free will is something that has a meaning based on context. For instance, If someone has your arms and legs physically restrained without a gag, you have the free will to yell but not the free will to leave the room.
Common misconception. If you took this idea and literalized it, then by technicality, all things that can be conceived by humans would exist (its easy to see how that is false).

Free will is a cognitive aspect. There is a such thing as "being held against your will", but although you are restrained you are still able to make decisions, but unable to act on them. Free will is debated as a cognitive process, your physical restraint arguement is not based on cognitive processes.

In a general philosophical context, I'm not sure what free will means. I think people who defend the philosophical concept of free will often are defending it on the basis of belief in a 'soul' and/or the belief that a free will is necessary in order to pass moral judgement on others.
I dont think that is true. I dont see human consciousness (or the aspect of human consciousness called "free will") to be anything magical or supernatural.

(Lets learn a little about Philosophy, the stuff I'm about to say can be found in any book on Ethics)
About the passing the moral judgement on others, morality is subjective (meaning morals are conceived in the mind rather than in the external world). "To have free will" means "to be responsible for your own actions" (remember, free will is a single term to describe many aspects involving human behavior). Many philosophers agree that free will is closely related to moral responsibility.

Free will is defined very much on "doing stuff". Free will is largely involved with the fact that a person is generally presented with more than one choice. In a previous post, I mentioned "the ability to do otherwise" which is one of the reasons which suggests free will.

Free will is also the ability to choose or choose not to do something. People choose on the basis of their desires, not all choices and require moral judgement.

Some people argue that people are can be motivated by a controlling desire, and therefore not able to will freely (an example might be sexual desire). This is untrue, a person chooses how they handle and/or satistfy the desire, the desire doenst shut off their brain and make the person do its biddings. This is why sex offenders are responsible for there actions (yes, the "I had no control over over myself" approach has been tried plenty of times...).

Other people try to say that an external but natural force (such as an implant) can manipulate a person's free will. Its very obvious to see where the flaw in that arguement is, although the person with the implant may have made rational and deliberate choices, they were not made at his free will.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Yahweh
If you took this idea and literalized it, then by technicality, all things that can be conceived by humans would exist (its easy to see how that is false). I don't understand what you mean.

Originally posted by Yahweh
Free will is a cognitive aspect. There is a such thing as "being held against your will", but although you are restrained you are still able to make decisions, but unable to act on them. Free will is debated as a cognitive process, your physical restraint arguement is not based on cognitive processes. Very well. Let us refer to the free will that is based purely on cognitive processes from hereon.

Originally posted by Yahweh
Some people argue that people are can be motivated by a controlling desire, and therefore not able to will freely (an example might be sexual desire). This is untrue, a person chooses how they handle and/or satistfy the desire, the desire doenst shut off their brain and make the person do its biddings. This is why sex offenders are responsible for there actions (yes, the "I had no control over over myself" approach has been tried plenty of times...).. I have to agree with you on this one. Simply put, if people are not trained to overcome their criminal impulses, something needs to happen (an affect from their environment) to 'correct' that individual.

But there's still this slippery thing about causes. Is there any decision that lacks causal factors? Furthermore, is there any portion of that decision which is free from causal factors?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Slim said:
It makes me want a definition of free will! Everyone keeps talking about it, but no one defines it. Maybe you're all really talking about free willy.

~~ Paul
Consciouness is "self-awareness". Free will is an aspect of consciousness which says humans do things because they want to.

Some people argue that there is no such thing as free will because humans are not responsible for their actions. They think somehow humans run around mindlessly and are incapable of doing things at their own accord... can you see how that is totally absurd.

(Does that help clarify free will at all?)

[Dymanic]

Free will either does or does not exist. This might be qualified by saying that human behavior occurs along a volitional continum; certainly there are at least some behaviors over which an individual has little or no control. But how much control is possible, and over what behaviors, is something that must be determined based on evidence alone; we cannot ascribe to a particular behavior an expectation of a certain level of control because that is what is required to maintain the integrity of our system of moral values; it is our system of moral values which must conform to our understanding of human behavior. Should we discover that human behavior is completely deterministic, the problem this causes for our system of morals must be solved by adjustments to that system, and not by attempts to alter the facts. That would itself be a moral outrage, in my opinion (one that could easily be overlooked of course, if it could be shown that the perpetrators couldn't help themselves. Hmmm...)

[drowden]

Free Will is real in the same sense that "sudden events" are real.



Dan Rowden

[Soapy Sam]

"Free will is what you think you have when your boundary conditions are beyond your comprehension."

"The stupider or more ignorant you are, the greater your capacity for unconstrained action."

"A moron has all the free will in the world, a genius is constrained by the facts."


-Just a small sample of Soapy Sam's Trite Sayings and Metaphysical Assertions list.
For the full list, write including a self-addressed plain postcard to-
A Philosopher,
Any address,
anywhere.

requesting a random response.

[Cinorjer]

The concept of free will must be reconciled with the universal law of cause and effect through time. The thinking goes, that everything happening in the universe now is the result of what happened just before this, and in turn that was determined by what was happening before that, all the way back to the beginning of the universe. Lacking consciousness, the atoms and molecules that make up the universe can not be said to have free will. You must have the "will" before you can assign that property. The universe operates only by action and reaction, leading to more action and reaction, but always in predictible directions. By this thinking, the fact that you're sitting there looking at a computer screen was predestined from the birth of the universe.

So free will is a matter of choice, and that requires a brain capable of making a choice. Of thinking, in other words. So, can our actions be predicted, if we could perform the impossible task of knowing enough about all the factors that enter the equation? In that case, free will is an illusion, but the distinction between this illusion and the reality of our lives is meaningless. It seems, to all extents and purposes, as if we have free will, and we'll never be able to tell the difference.

I would say our free will is a product of our ability to consider the consequences of our actions and direct our movement in the way we want. An atom hit by another atom cannot choose the direction it travels. The sun cannot look into the future, see where it's going to collide with another star, and change its motion.

Geeze, thinking about this sort of thing this time of night makes my head hurt. I think I going to exercise some free will and go watch TV for a while. Or maybe not.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
So free will is a matter of choice, and that requires a brain capable of making a choice. Of thinking, in other words. So, can our actions be predicted, if we could perform the impossible task of knowing enough about all the factors that enter the equation? In that case, free will is an illusion, but the distinction between this illusion and the reality of our lives is meaningless. It seems, to all extents and purposes, as if we have free will, and we'll never be able to tell the difference.

I would say our free will is a product of our ability to consider the consequences of our actions and direct our movement in the way we want. An atom hit by another atom cannot choose the direction it travels. The sun cannot look into the future, see where it's going to collide with another star, and change its motion. So, free will is only an illusion if we could 'perform the impossible task of knowing enough about all the factors that enter the equation' Since we cannot perform that task, does that make free will a real phenomenon? Yes, precisely because we need a word to define our ability to make choices, just as we need the word 'random' to define the roll of a pair of dice. If we could predict, with certainty, the outcome of such a roll, it would no longer be random.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
The concept of free will must be reconciled with the universal law of cause and effect through time. The thinking goes, that everything happening in the universe now is the result of what happened just before this, and in turn that was determined by what was happening before that, all the way back to the beginning of the universe. Lacking consciousness, the atoms and molecules that make up the universe can not be said to have free will. You must have the "will" before you can assign that property. The universe operates only by action and reaction, leading to more action and reaction, but always in predictible directions. By this thinking, the fact that you're sitting there looking at a computer screen was predestined from the birth of the universe.
I dont believe that is an accurate assumption. "Free will" stems from consciousness, and consciousness exists on at a higher level than the molecular level.

The fact that I'm sitting here at my computer is not predestined from birth, that would violate the law of Causality (the law that says you cannot really know an event is going to happen until it actually happens). Furthermore, it would violate the law that says "You will an action, and you can will otherwise".

So free will is a matter of choice, and that requires a brain capable of making a choice. Of thinking, in other words. So, can our actions be predicted, if we could perform the impossible task of knowing enough about all the factors that enter the equation?
If you've seen the movie "12 Monkeys", there is a part where author of the movie wrote in a line that said "You know what they did, those government guys must've scanned my brain into a computer, and generated every thought I was going to have in the next 10 years, that's how they've been following me".

In that case, free will is an illusion, but the distinction between this illusion and the reality of our lives is meaningless.
Free will is not an illusion. Its roots are more complex than "chemical reactions that occur in the brain". If that were only it, then there would be no consciousness. You cant compare human consciousness and free will to mixing baking soda and vinegar because they are non-analogous.

It seems, to all extents and purposes, as if we have free will, and we'll never be able to tell the difference.
I would say our free will is a product of our ability to consider the consequences of our actions and direct our movement in the way we want. An atom hit by another atom cannot choose the direction it travels. The sun cannot look into the future, see where it's going to collide with another star, and change its motion.

Geeze, thinking about this sort of thing this time of night makes my head hurt. I think I going to exercise some free will and go watch TV for a while. Or maybe not.
TV good, TV make me no have to think.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I dont believe that is an accurate assumption. "Free will" stems from consciousness, and consciousness exists on at a higher level than the molecular level. A higher level? On what basis? Consciousness is on a higher level of consciousness than is non-consciousness. That's like saying that green is on a higher level of green than is red. Unless you provide some other determining factor of "highness".

Originally posted by Yahweh
The fact that I'm sitting here at my computer is not predestined from birth, that would violate the law of Causality (the law that says you cannot really know an event is going to happen until it actually happens). It is easy to say that anything that has already happened was predestined to happen. To say something was predestined is not the same as saying that you knew it would happen. To say something is predestined to happen in the future is an attempt at prediction.

[Cinorjer]

I dont believe that is an accurate assumption. "Free will" stems from consciousness, and consciousness exists on at a higher level than the molecular level.

If you believe that there is something separate from our bodies that constitutes the "self" - call it spirit or soul - then you could say that consciousness resides in that spirit, and the laws that govern base matter have no bearing on the subject of free will. If by higher level you mean something else, you'd have to explain.

The fact that I'm sitting here at my computer is not predestined from birth, that would violate the law of Causality (the law that says you cannot really know an event is going to happen until it actually happens). Furthermore, it would violate the law that says "You will an action, and you can will otherwise".

For the first, all you seem to be saying is that we don't have a time machine to look into the future and psychic abilities are a joke. Of course I'd agree with that. But all you seem to be saying is that we don't have the ability to gather enough information to predict our actions. But that's because of the sheer complexity, not that it couldn't be done. For the second, the whole debate is whether this law actually exists, or is an illusion. It certainly feels like I have the ability to choose. Someone who knows me inside and out, such as my wife, can predict what I'll do in a broad sense. In that broad sense, our every action is governed by our individual personality, our memories and habits and beliefs interacting with the world around us. Complete freedom of action would only come from an insane mind. Much of what we do in life does not involve conscious decisions, after all. The question remains, are we ultimately players acting out a script or free agents? Since we can't stand outside of time, we simply have no way of knowing. There's no way of testing to find out, since the universe will look exactly the same to us no matter which is true.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jesse2
A higher level? On what basis? Consciousness is on a higher level of consciousness than is non-consciousness. That's like saying that green is on a higher level of green than is red. Unless you provide some other determining factor of "highness".
First there is the atomic level, thats atoms and stuff.
Then there is the molecular level, that'd be molecules.
...
Biological
...
Cellular
...
Multicellular
...
Organized mulicellular (such as animals with specific organs to perform functions)
...
And on and on

Its kinda like legos, a lego is fine. If you take a whole mess of legos, you can turn them into a lego tower. Lego tower exists on a higher level than lego block. (Note: I'm not inferring intelligent design)

[Jesse2]

So dogs and dolphins have free will too... right?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
If you believe that there is something separate from our bodies that constitutes the "self" - call it spirit or soul - then you could say that consciousness resides in that spirit, and the laws that govern base matter have no bearing on the subject of free will. If by higher level you mean something else, you'd have to explain.
Please, dont try to twist my words into something I didnt say.

Hey, I'm a better philosopher than a biologist, but I do have my training in etymology and biology (and Philosophy as it happens).

Consciousness is not a property of matter, obviously. Thats why atoms are no conscious (whaaaa? Really?). But the brain, made of matter, generates consciousness (specifically from the cerebral cortex). I'm not able to say much more without speaking out of my range of expertise. See, nothing magical, no souls, no spirits, purely explainable phenomena by purely natural means.

And in all seriousness, if you've followed my posts, I really wouldnt come off as the type to believe in chakra or any of that other bullplop.

For the first, all you seem to be saying is that we don't have a time machine to look into the future and psychic abilities are a joke. Of course I'd agree with that. But all you seem to be saying is that we don't have the ability to gather enough information to predict our actions. But that's because of the sheer complexity, not that it couldn't be done. For the second, the whole debate is whether this law actually exists, or is an illusion. It certainly feels like I have the ability to choose. Someone who knows me inside and out, such as my wife, can predict what I'll do in a broad sense. In that broad sense, our every action is governed by our individual personality, our memories and habits and beliefs interacting with the world around us. Complete freedom of action would only come from an insane mind. Much of what we do in life does not involve conscious decisions, after all. The question remains, are we ultimately players acting out a script or free agents? Since we can't stand outside of time, we simply have no way of knowing. There's no way of testing to find out, since the universe will look exactly the same to us no matter which is true.
Free will is a hotly debated subject in Philosophy. To say its all an illusion is not without its absurdities.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jesse2
So dogs and dolphins have free will too... right?
Yes they do.

Insects on the otherhand, everything I know about insects, their biology, their neurology, their psycology places more evidence on the "not self-aware".

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Please, dont try to twist my words into something I didnt say. (snip)
Free will is a hotly debated subject in Philosophy. To say its all an illusion is not without its absurdities. Is anyone here stating "It's all an illusion"?

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Yes they do.
So, now that you have stated that humans, dogs, and dolphins all have free will, can you point to a statement in this thread (or one that you'd like to make) that accurately defines what free will is? Can free will defined this way escape causality? Which causes can free will escape? I am repeating what Paul C. has asked, perhaps with slightly different wording.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jesse2
Is anyone here stating "It's all an illusion"?
I'm not sure if its relevant, but theres been more then the worlds fair share of Philosophers who've stated Free Will is all an elaborate illusion. Sorry, I cant think of any off the top of my head right now...

There is a book called Free Will and Illusion by Smilansky, it deals with both the "Free will is an illusion" and "Illusions? Ya sure" sides.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jesse2
So, now that you have stated that humans, dogs, and dolphins all have free will, can you point to a statement in this thread (or one that you'd like to make) that accurately defines what free will is?
In a minimalist nutshell, free will is the conscious ability to select a course of action at accord to ones desires (or willings).

Can free will defined this way escape causality?
No, but it escapes the idea of that the future is predetermined and inevitible (simply put, there is no such thing as fate).

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Yahweh
In a minimalist nutshell, free will is the conscious ability to select a course of action at accord to ones desires (or willings). Very well. With certainty, can one's desires or willings be separated from causes?

Originally posted by Yahweh
No, but it escapes the idea of that the future is predetermined and inevitible (simply put, there is no such thing as fate). Is it possible that the future is predetermined without us consciously being able to determine it?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Free will is a term used to describe the conscious ability of someone to make descisions at their own accord. Its completely absurd to believe consciousness and free will is an illusion or to believe in fate or devine will because if that were the case, it would conflict with the Law of Causality (which is the principle of or relationship between cause and effect). Fate and Devine Will are metaphysical, I dont believe in them. Free Will is physical (an aspect of self-awareness), I believe in it.

Do you believe in libertarian free will, or the hollow type of free will implied by compatibilism?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Jesse2
Very well. With certainty, can one's desires or willings be separated from causes?
Are you suggesting spontaneously generated willings? Well, I dont think there can be effects without causes, perhaps the causes from a spontaneous willing is vague or unknown (but still existant). Most of the desires people have tend to be influenced from prior events.

Is it possible that the future is predetermined without us consciously being able to determine it?
That is a perfectly valid Philosophical assumption, but it would violate the law of Causality and some kind of law of linear time (suggesting the future exist, we are just waiting to get there). It would also suggest humans have no free will, or that humans are puppets dancing about to some Godly being's devine will.

In my opinion (based on Philosophy and all that other stuff I spent my time learning about), there is no predetermined future.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Do you believe in libertarian free will, or the hollow type of free will implied by compatibilism?
Sorry, my brain has been fried a bit throughout the day (its been very busy).

Can you explain what those two terms are and how they differ?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Sorry, my brain has been fried a bit throughout the day (its been very busy).

Can you explain what those two terms are and how they differ?

Libertarian free will means we can act outside physical laws (so the physical world is not closed). This is the common mans understanding of free will. Compatibilism, on the other hand, means that although we know from our immediate experience that we have free will, we nevertheless at all times act in accordance with physical laws ie we have free will and physical laws can describe our behaviour brought about by our freely chosen actions (thus in this case determinism is compatible with free will).

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Libertarian free will means we can act outside physical laws (so the physical world is not closed). This is the common mans understanding of free will. Compatibilism, on the other hand, means that although we know from our immediate experience that we have free will, we nevertheless at all times act in accordance with physical laws ie we have free will and physical laws can describe our behaviour brought about by our freely chosen actions (thus in this case determinism is compatible with free will).
Well, I dont believe humans could act outside of the laws of physics (they could certainly will it, but their actions would be futile :D), so I'll go with the shallow type of free will. However, I dont believe the shallow type of free will is compatible with determinism because I dont believe the future is predetermined.

[Jesse2]

I'm going to answer my own questions here, for the sake of being practical.

Originally posted by Jesse2
Very well. With certainty, can one's desires or willings be separated from causes? No.

Originally posted by Jesse2
Is it possible that the future is predetermined without us consciously being able to determine it? It is possible. In fact, I think it is very likely. I am in very close agreement with what Bluegill said:

Originally posted by Bluegill
I finally reached the conclusion that there is no such thing as free will, but that since the world behaves exactly as if we DO get to make choices, then it's better to just accept the notion that we have free will.

Furthermore, while the concepts of determinism and free will can be fun to talk about, beliefs about either need not have any practical effect on real life. Criminals can still go to jail. In any event, I do not see how these discussions can threaten anyone's moral standards.

[Loki]

Yahweh,

Allow me to clarify Ian's quesiton for you. It should be "Do you believe in illogical libertarian free will, or the rational type of free will implied by compatibilism?"

However, I dont believe the shallow type of free will is compatible with determinism because I dont believe the future is predetermined.
Determinism and predetermination are not (necesarily) the same.

[Jesse2]

From http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

"Compatibilism, also known as "soft determinism" and most famously championed by Hume, is a theory which holds that free will and determinism are compatible. Properly understood, according to Hume, freedom is not an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires. Alternately, Hume maintains that free acts are not uncaused (or mysteriously self-caused as Kant would have it) but caused in the right way, i.e., by our choices as determined by our our beliefs and desires, by our characters."

I would add my own to this: That our choices are caused as well by our genetics and other determining causes throughout our lives.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Loki
Yahweh,

Allow me to clarify Ian's quesiton for you. It should be "Do you believe in illogical libertarian free will, or the rational type of free will implied by compatibilism?"

Determinism and predetermination are not (necesarily) the same.
Well in that case (along with what the Wikipedia article Jesse2 referenced), I would go with the crappy "soft determinism" (or compatibilism). If I were to go back to where I could have had a burrito and or a bowl of chili from Taco Bell, given the same inner and outer circumstances, I still would have made the same choice. Its still a choice I made freely, but I agree with Hume and his definition of compatibilism.

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by Yahweh
(along with what the Wikipedia article Jesse2 referenced Thanks. And please call me Jesse, ok? It's my real name. Hal made me become Jesse2.

[Cinorjer]

Please, dont try to twist my words into something I didnt say.

Sorry not trying to do that at all. I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding what you're trying to say. This is an interesting thread, but it's hard to keep the different voices straight sometimes. I suspect we're doing a lot of stating the same thing using different language. I see consciousness and the resulting free will as a product of various processes happening in the brain, what you call a higher level. The sum is greater than the parts, and has qualities that don't exist in the parts. When intelligence became able to overrule instinct, I believe consciousness and free will came into being.

Saying free will might only be an illusion of our minds does seem absurd on the surface, but that's irrelivant. Even consciousness is an illusion when looked at a certain way. To someone who believes in God, the idea that the universe could come into being without a God seems absurd. Fortunately, there's no way we'll ever be able to tell the difference between a predetermined universe and one we can change at will.

[elliotfc]

What does "within you" mean? I'm not saying my decisions are made by someone else. I'm asking what the sources of my decisions are, other than prior states of my brain and randomness. Where's the free part?

Hey Paul, this is just a hit and run mission for me right here.

"Within you" means you. You, and only you. Surely you can accept the concept of "you". You are Paul Alonglastname, I am Elliot Clonglastname. The source of your decisions is you. It has everything to do with you. That includes prior states of brain, and it also includes randomness.

As for the free part, you can make different decisions. Paul, take a break from reading this. Stand up. Do a jumping jack.

Now, you either did a jumping jack, or you didn't do a jumping jack. That is free will. You can explain it however you want. If you want to base it on brain states and randomness, that's fine by me. All I know is that you either did a jumping jack, or you didn't do a jumping jack.

The source of your decision, whatever it was, was you. As a Christian, I believe that I am the source of my decisions. We can disagree about what goes into, and what doesn't go into, those decisions. But it is indisputable that you had the freedom to make the decision to do a jumping jack or not to do a jumping jack. If that isn't freedom I don't know what is. If that isn't free will than I don't know what is.

If we can just stick with what we both agree, perhaps we can share the above as an acceptable conception of free will.

People seem to imagine some ethereal *I* making decisions, nonrandomly, without the weight of prior experience. I don't understand what that means. Either you base a decision on previous experiences, or you choose at random, or some of both. What other choice is there?

Right. There is no ethereal *I*. We are all concrete people, and to think that our concreteness is irrelevant to decision making is silly.

Free will is not some nebulous motive force. Free will is intrinsic to our state of being. We are created, we have creative ability, and we do with that ability as we will. I can theorize how that would work outside of human experience, but I can see how that works in human experience, and am content with that.

As for the dogma of free will, it only exists to explain the human condition. The implication is that humanity is responsible for its disconnect with God. With Adam and Eve, their free will was completely based on their experience. There was nothing nebulous about the Fall.

Of course Paul I don't expect you to accept the above paragraph, but perhaps you can see that the conception of free will, even in a religious mindset, is not too far off from your own conception of free will.

Unless, to you, free will is synonymous with soul, or conscience. I've never thought of free will that way, and I don't think Catholic dogma would define it that way, but I'm sure there are many who would use free will and soul interchangeably. Some people probably think of "free will" or "soul" as a slice of, as you would say, an ethereal God. That isn't how I see it. As for conscience, to me that is the Holy Spirit at work, and that is not free will or soul but something different. I'm obviously now getting away from free will, but I'm not sure if perhaps ideas are getting mixed up with each other.

-Elliot

[Jesse2]

Originally posted by elliotfc
"Within you" means you. You, and only you. What am I apart from my body and the consciousness that is generated by my brain?

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Jesse2
What am I apart from my body and the consciousness that is generated by my brain?

Why, a lost soul of course.

That's a tough question. Since I can only think as a physical person I can't really fathom what it's like to be separate. There are these near-death testimonies, and the astral-projection stuff. Who knows.

-Elliot

[Jesse2]

My point in asking this question is simply to bring us back to the point I keep hammering on, which is that while free will means we have choices, each choice is determined by factors both genetic and environmental; what we are born with, and what we learn.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Jesse2
My point in asking this question is simply to bring us back to the point I keep hammering on, which is that while free will means we have choices, each choice is determined by factors both genetic and environmental; what we are born with, and what we learn.

Agreed.

To speculate that free will may exist outside the human experience is mere speculation.

I am perfectly content with your conception of free will and the human experience.

-Elliot