Free will...

kelly1

Hello again!

Folks, I'd like to get a general idea of atheist's/agnostic's views on free will.

From the "why does God hate me" thread, A few have said that they hold a deterministic view in which there is no room for free will. i.e. that we are ultimately part of the machinery of the universe and we have no control over our actions. That everything we do now is ultimately determined by the big bang and the laws of nature.

Or am I going to far?

Noel.

Zillah

I propose the universe is one of three types:

- Deterministic
- Random
- Controlled by God.

The concept of freewill makes no sense in any of these. In a random universe your decisions are determined by a quantum coin flip. In a deterministic universe your decisions are determined by your environment and genes. If God is controlling everything then it is his will, not ours.

The nature or quality of the soul is completely undefined. To say "We have freewill because the soul gives it to us" is the same as saying "We have freewill because X gives it to us". That is not an argument that makes sense in the real world.

Is there a type of universe I'm missing Noel?

DinoBot

Zillah,

Surly in a random universe it is you who is doing the flipping of the coin.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

A few have said that they hold a deterministic view in which there is no room for free will. i.e. that we are ultimately part of the machinery of the universe and we have no control over our actions. That everything we do now is ultimately determined by the big bang and the laws of nature.

I think those objections were more "If God exists ..." objections

There are major logical problems between the idea of human free will and the idea of a omniscient God that exists outside of time.

An example demonstrating this came up in a previous thread on the Christian forum. Abraham was asked to kill his son by God. Now God, being omniscient and knowing the future already knows if Abraham will actually do what he is asked. So with God knowing that, is it actually necessary for God to go through with the request that Abraham kill his son, thus putting the son through the misery of believing that his father is going to kill him.

But if God doesn't go through with this request, the future in which Abraham does do this never exists, so how can God know from the future that Abraham would actually do it if the point where Abraham decides to do it never happens?

An omniscient God causes a lot of problems for a time line where the future is changeable. Essentially it appears to lock the future to one path, and nothing that happens at any point on that path can actually alter that, logically not even God.

But getting back to you original question. I believe that humans have free will in so far as the future is unknown (by anything) and more importantly it can be effected by what happens in the present.

Having said that it is impossible to test this because it is impossible for me to do something other than what I do. The only way to test if the future is truly determined in the present would be for me to go back and do something differently. Which I can't do.

So it is possible that there is only one single path and that our perception that decisions made in the present determine which future takes place may be simply an illusion, a consequence of not being able to see the future in the same way that if you close your eyes on a roller coaster you can't see the next turn, but nor can you change it.

Either way we don't notice because we lack the ability to re-test moments of time.

Pompey Magnus

I recently read research from a Harvard team which questions the existance of free will at all, and suggests that conscious will is not the cause of our actions. From what I remember the study required subjects to push a button at any random time of their choosing, however monitored brain activity showed that the experience of making the decision occured approximately 0.1 seconds after unconcious brain events were underway to set the action into motion. In other words the research indicated that free will is an afterthought and we wrongly infer that this afterthought is the cause of the action.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

A few have said that they hold a deterministic view in which there is no room for free will. i.e. that we are ultimately part of the machinery of the universe and we have no control over our actions.

I would entertain that as a distinct possibility. However in practical terms, that path is determined at such an atomic level that as far as our puny human minds are concerned the 'illusion' of free will is so real that it might as well exist.

That's enough for me, anyway.

Zombrex

A point to keep in mind as well is that atheists have no real need for free will to be real, while theists (because of the believe of a God outside time who judges us) it is a religious requirement.

Despite claims by theists, no free will does not mean we need to open all the prisons and let everyone out of them because we can't "blame" criminals for what they do. Such a claim seems to completely miss the point of prison in the first place :eek:

kelly1

Zillah wrote: »

I propose the universe is one of three types:

- Deterministic
- Random
- Controlled by God.

The concept of freewill makes no sense in any of these. In a random universe your decisions are determined by a quantum coin flip. In a deterministic universe your decisions are determined by your environment and genes. If God is controlling everything then it is his will, not ours.

The nature or quality of the soul is completely undefined. To say "We have freewill because the soul gives it to us" is the same as saying "We have freewill because X gives it to us". That is not an argument that makes sense in the real world.

Is there a type of universe I'm missing Noel?

Yes, you're ignoring or forgetting the possibility that we were created with free will. A God who forced us into being good, wouldn't actually be good.

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello again!

Folks, I'd like to get a general idea of atheist's/agnostic's views on free will.

From the "why does God hate me" thread, A few have said that they hold a deterministic view in which there is no room for free will. i.e. that we are ultimately part of the machinery of the universe and we have no control over our actions. That everything we do now is ultimately determined by the big bang and the laws of nature.

Or am I going to far?

Noel.

I don't hold a deterministic view and I don't believe in God. The existence of God does not necessitate free will or increase it as far as I am concerned.

From theistic view, "free will" is simply a fancy sounding buzz word to attempt to rebutt the "problem of pain" and "problem of evil". But when you examine it, it just falls apart. We would have more "freedom" or "free will" if there was no pain, no evil, no hell and had more evidence to establish the existence of God for then we could really choose whether to follow him or not.
Furthermore, does God have free will? Who gave it to him if no-one created him? Is it possible he just has it without being created. Well then it is possible to have free will without creater. Ergo it is possible to have free will without the need for a creater.

So all this free will talk is completely moot. We are still left with the inescapable problem, there is no evidence for God, it's just faith or a delusion.

robindch

kelly1 wrote:

they hold a deterministic view in which there is no room for free will.

For my part, I believe that the idea of "free will" is a poorly-defined and contradictory idea whose invention and development was made necessary by religious stories, so that they could make a loose kind of superficial sense. "Free will" fails to explain anything, is not supported by any evidence, and with ever fairly cursory examination, falls apart as a coherent idea.

Whether or not we really control our own actions is determined by how you choose to define the word "control" and "our". As far as I'm concerned, I maintain the illusion within myself that I am able to make choices freely and not in a coldly deterministic manner, despite overwhelming evidence (the behavior caused by eight pints, for example) to the contrary.

Pompey Magnus

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, you're ignoring or forgetting the possibility that we were created with free will. A God who forced us into being good, wouldn't actually be good.

He all but forces humans to be good though with his threat of eternal damnation if they don't. To say he doesn't is comparable to a mugger holding a knife to someone's throat and demanding they hand over their wallet or else have their throat cut, later saying in his defence "I never forced them to give me their money, I left them with the free choice not to" or in God's case: "I never forced you to sin, I left you with the free choice not to."

God does not give us free will and religious people who claim that morality is derived only from the Bible are in effect claiming that they do good only out of either fear of punishment or else desire of reward, neither of which have anything to do with free will as a dog can do exactly the same.

stereoroid

I take a slightly simplistic view, which is that our sense of free will has some recursion involved. When we need to make a choice, our options are constrained by various factors, including external limits ("what is possible"), and choices we have made in the past (hence the recursion). It all adds up to make our consciousness a very very complex program, which might give us the impressions of randomness and freedom (due to its extreme complexity), but a program nonetheless.

To quote Tony Blair, "Am I Bovvered?". No: the cumulative effect of all those other choices, and factors, makes the my sense of free will "good enough for rock and roll". Even if I had absolute free will in the philosophical sense, I couldn't exercise it anyway, in this real world.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

There are major logical problems between the idea of human free will and the idea of a omniscient God that exists outside of time.

I didn't bring up the subject of God originally. I want to get an atheistic opinions on the free-will debate. Let's leave God out of the equation initially (Sorry God!)

Wicknight wrote: »

So it is possible that there is only one single path and that our perception that decisions made in the present determine which future takes place may be simply an illusion, a consequence of not being able to see the future in the same way that if you close your eyes on a roller coaster you can't see the next turn, but nor can you change it.

Either way we don't notice because we lack the ability to re-test moments of time.

OK, it's possible but not the only possibility. Isn't it also possible that we have free-will and that our will determines our actions and our actions determine the future?

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, it's possible but not the only possibility. Isn't it also possible that we have free-will and that our will determines our actions and our actions determine the future?

Anything's possible if you're an atheist.

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't hold a deterministic view and I don't believe in God. The existence of God does not necessitate free will or increase it as far as I am concerned.

From theistic view, "free will" is simply a fancy sounding buzz word to attempt to rebutt the "problem of pain" and "problem of evil". But when you examine it, it just falls apart. We would have more "freedom" or "free will" if there was no pain, no evil, no hell and had more evidence to establish the existence of God for then we could really choose whether to follow him or not.

You're jumping the gun there. I didn't mention God in my OP. And this is the A&A forum!

starn

Ive always seen the whole free will arguement as being doomed from the start.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

For my part, I believe that the idea of "free will" is a poorly-defined and contradictory idea whose invention and development was made necessary by religious stories, so that they could make a loose kind of superficial sense. "Free will" fails to explain anything, is not supported by any evidence, and with ever fairly cursory examination, falls apart as a coherent idea.

Whether or not we really control our own actions is determined by how you choose to define the word "control" and "our". As far as I'm concerned, I maintain the illusion within myself that I am able to make choices freely and not in a coldly deterministic manner, despite overwhelming evidence (the behavior caused by eight pints, for example) to the contrary.

OK, so I'm clear, you're saying free will is an illusion and we actually no control over what we do and what happens to us. I don't want to get you wrong.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, so I'm clear, you're saying free will is an illusion and we actually no control over what we do and what happens to us. I don't want to get you wrong.

I think you are slightly missing Robin's point.

You seem to see no free will as the opposite of being able to control you actions. If you can control and determine your actions you have free will, if you can't you don't.

I think Robin's point is that we haven't in fact defined what we mean by control our actions and that it is possible that control isn't something that is actually relevant here at all.

This discussion reminds me a bit of discussing what came "before" the Big bang. The reality is that "before" doesn't apply because time started at the moment of the BB. But this is quite confusing and people still think of the moments before the BB in terms of a linear time line.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, so I'm clear, you're saying free will is an illusion and we actually no control over what we do and what happens to us.

I'm saying that the phrase "free will" as used by religious people is a meaningless concept because it is not defined in any clear, accurate and unambiguous way. Until somebody can define what they mean by the phrase, then everybody's going to be talking about what they mean by the phrase, not what anybody else means by it. Especially in an atheists' forum which, I'd imagine, will reject the implicit duality required by most if not all notions of "free will".

It might be an enjoyable way to pass a sunny Friday, but talking about "free will" without saying what you mean by it is as hopeless an activity as trying to catch a cloud of steam with a pair of fishnet stockings.

What I believe you want to discuss is how people decide between different courses of action, and the influence of the "conscious" and "unconscious" minds upon how these decisions are made, and how these feed back and forwards with the internal notion of "me" in a strictly Cartesian sense. But that's a much more specific topic.

lookinforpicnic

As robindch points out it is all about how you think about or define free will, if you believe free will has to come from some immaterial soul to be 'real' free will well then of course there is no such thing as free will, which I presume every atheist on this forum would agree (excluding atheists who believe in a soul???). But if you don't have this requirement, where instead free will is simply you exercising your ability to make stupid and rational choices (however that comes about), well then there is free will.

Zillah wrote: »

I propose the universe is one of three types:

- Deterministic
- Random
- Controlled by God.

The concept of freewill makes no sense in any of these. In a random universe your decisions are determined by a quantum coin flip. In a deterministic universe your decisions are determined by your environment and genes. If God is controlling everything then it is his will, not ours.

The concept of determinism makes no sense when applying it to human choice and action. Determinism just says that there is no inherent randomness.. everything is in principle predictable. How then does it follow that there is no free will? Why can't there be in a completely deterministic universe and in that world you have agents which carry out actions rationally. Choice and rationality can evolve in a deterministic universe and such patterns of behaviour are rightly called free will. You are simply paying credence to simplistic religious (soulpearl/unmoved mover) notions of free will by saying you can't have free will in a deterministic universe.

You might say that in principle (due to determinism) all your actions are predictable but so what, just because your actions are in some sense predictable (i.e. god does not jump in a critical moment and push you one way or the other, the deterministic firing patterns or your neurons do), this does not negate 'real' choice, as 'real' choice does not have to be unmoved choice or unprovoked, again simplistic notions of the self and silly religious ideas have infected our notion of choice and free will and it is those notions that are wrong and not the utility of the concepts of choice and free will.

Everything is not determined by your environment and genes, everything is determined by the mix in between, and that epicenter called you or I can is in the business of making choices, just because there is no quantum fluctuations in there doesn't mean its not 'real' free will (not that indeterminism would somehow give 'Real' free will).

pH

Yes I'd have to agree that a deterministic universe doesn't by definition mean that free will doesn't exist (though I do take on board robin's point that this is somewhat dependent on how you define the words 'free', 'will' and 'exists').

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

You're jumping the gun there. I didn't mention God in my OP. And this is the A&A forum!

I don't think you've clarfied what you mean by "free will" and this thread is rather pointless as we are trying to guess what you mean. Perhaps explain exactly what you mean by "free will" and exactly what your question is or opinion is?

JC 2K3

I could never get my head around the concept of free will.

If I don't have free will, there has to be something controlling me, a supreme force or being, ie. a God. Being an atheist, I guess I believe I have free will as I believe nothing exists to control me.

ztoical

kelly1 wrote: »

You're jumping the gun there. I didn't mention God in my OP. And this is the A&A forum!

No you didn't in the OP for this thread but you have in the other threads posted in the forum [like the "whats the point of this forum?" thread you started which seems amusing now as you seem to be doing alot of posting in this forum], you are a regular poster to the christain forums and at the drop of hat will post about being saved by god or jesus or the invisible pink unicorn so naturally people will have that assoication when they see a post by you.

This whole thread just feels like fishing exercise on your part of get people to say something that hopefully boxes them in and you can argue with some mumbo jumbo taken from a book thats been translated so many times from one language to another I doubt there's a single original word left in it.

Do I have free will? I don't know what that is so I can't tell you if I have it or not. I do know I'm not going to leave my decisions up to an organization of old men wearing silly hats who from the word go tell me as a woman I am less then them.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

I think you are slightly missing Robin's point.

You seem to see no free will as the opposite of being able to control you actions. If you can control and determine your actions you have free will, if you can't you don't.

I think Robin's point is that we haven't in fact defined what we mean by control our actions and that it is possible that control isn't something that is actually relevant here at all.

Surely having free will means having the ability to determine one's actions? If one is unable to determine one's actions, there can be no free will, can there?

How would you define free-will and what's wrong with the word control? Is determine better?

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

I'm saying that the phrase "free will" as used by religious people is a meaningless concept because it is not defined in any clear, accurate and unambiguous way. Until somebody can define what they mean by the phrase, then everybody's going to be talking about what they mean by the phrase, not what anybody else means by it. Especially in an atheists' forum which, I'd imagine, will reject the implicit duality required by most if not all notions of "free will".

It might be an enjoyable way to pass a sunny Friday, but talking about "free will" without saying what you mean by it is as hopeless an activity as trying to catch a cloud of steam with a pair of fishnet stockings.

What I believe you want to discuss is how people decide between different courses of action, and the influence of the "conscious" and "unconscious" minds upon how these decisions are made, and how these feed back and forwards with the internal notion of "me" in a strictly Cartesian sense. But that's a much more specific topic.

I didn't envisage the discussion being this complicated but I thought free will was a well understood concept.

My simple idea of free will is anything done wilfully without coercion.

I'm not trying to understand how people decide between different courses of action but rather how much freedom people actually have to make these decisions.

Maybe I'm out of my depth!

JC 2K3

kelly1 wrote: »

I didn't envisage the discussion being this complicated but I thought free will was a well understood concept.

My simple idea of free will is anything done wilfully without coercion.

But if you can't tell if you're being coerced, then are you really being coerced at all from your point of view?

What is coercion in this context?

Is the illusion of free will really any different to actual free will if it's impossible to tell the difference?

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm not trying to understand how people decide between different courses of action but rather how much freedom people actually have to make these decisions.

Humans can't fly, live for as long as they like, run as fast as they like, etc. So, in that sense, human free will is limited to what their body is actually capable of.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

I didn't envisage the discussion being this complicated but I thought free will was a well understood concept.

No, while it's popular, the phrase "free will" just doesn't explain anything, or make anything easier to understand. Rather the opposite really.

At a superficial level, free-will makes a kind of vague sense if you assume a dualistic world in which a non-physical mind operates a physical body. Effectively, the mind/soul in this scheme is treated much as a separate human being inside the skull, viewing and controlling events. But -- a bit the question of who created a creator god -- the question then becomes who runs the separate human being inside the skull? Another homunculus? Where does the control actually reside, and how is it exercised?

Apart from the philosophical objections, much recent neurological research indicates that the mind and the body are not separate and the brain plays quite a few tricks to maintain the illusion of continuous consciousness.

kelly1 wrote: »

My simple idea of free will is anything done wilfully without coercion.

As JC2K3 says, that simply moves the problem from defining "free will" to defining "wilfully" and "coercion". Does drinking eight pints of beer coerce me into singing songs and driving badly (things I usually don't do), or am I doing these things out of "free will", and if so, then how does physical alcohol control the non-physical mind/soul which commands the brain?

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm not trying to understand how people decide between different courses of action but rather how much freedom people actually have to make these decisions.

Again, I think you should be more specific -- what sense of "freedom" and under what conditions? Are we talking about physical freedom (ie, want to fly, but don't have wings), social freedom (to want to ask that girl to the flicks, but too embarrassed), biological freedom (want to have a baby, but am male), mental freedom (want to compose symphonies, but can't) or what I think you're referring to, which is the more self-referential choice-limiting schemes like tabu-based or subtle risk/reward-based frameworks? One good example of this being the common religious choice of "I'm free to choose to adhere to this religion which limits my choices not to do various things, including adhering to this religion" -- what does freedom to choose to adhere actually mean in this context?

As above, dealing with this issue coherently is not easy and it's often difficult to tell what's the object and what's the mirror.

bogwalrus

free will is insignificant. Only when humans are all knowing will they be able to make a decision where they will know the "full" consequences of their actions. In this sense of the idea of free will, because humans are limited in knowledge and will probably never be all knowing then the illusion of us being able to make a decision with a certain long-term desired outcome is apparent.

One fundamental thing on free will has to be said though. Every human has an effect on other humans. Your choices effect other humans though you do not see it.

aidan24326

To have a definition of freewill we would have to fully understand human consciousness first, and that's still some way off. Either way, we feel that we are in control of our own immediate future. I can choose to sit here and keep browsing the net, or get up and have a sandwich, or go to bed etc etc etc. Whether that is just an illusion doesn't really matter, it's experienced as something entirely real. So psychologically we do have freewill (I'm taking freewill as meaning the ability to control our own future timeline, or to at least have the very real 'experience' of being in control).

Whether or not the universe itself is entirely deterministic, I was under the impression that modern physics is more and more suggesting that it isn't. The sheer complexity means that we'll probably never know for sure anyway, so our illusion , if it is one, will happily continue I expect.

JoeB-

Hmmm.. while I agree completely that we 'appear' to have free will I would also think that it is most likely an illusion and we are no more free to 'choose' that a raindrop.

As experiments suggest, our brains make choices for us and then, after the fact, present some choices to our concious minds and allow us the illusion of choosing... a pretty weak form of free will.

It comes down to mind over matter... does our concious mind really have the capability to change the physicality of our bodies (brains)? If so, why do we not have the ability to affect matter outside our brains with our concious thoughts? ($1 million from James Randi if you have this ability). (If we choose to raise our right arm then our 'mind' has exercised itself over matter, by causing tendons to move or whatever, so why not 'choose' to make a glass or a table float?, what limits this choice?)

Conciousness and our minds are very interesting topics, progress will be made and someday (hopefully soon) we will have more answers. It all comes down to how the subjective experience (conciousness) arises from the action of our physical brains, this is the great trick.

I am a firm believer that someday we should be able to create 'conciousness' (and possibly the illusion of free will in a 'program' that we 'know' has no free will, what then for our own free will?)...

However creating conciousness has it's own problems.. i.e has it already happened?, would we know? would we believe it? are trees concious? is any complex processing machine concious? etc etc.

Kelly1 seems to suggest we were created with free will yet God knows our own choices before we make them... I don't understand this as free will at all... clearly we are constrained by Gods supposed foreknowledge of our choices?

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Again, I think you should be more specific -- what sense of "freedom" and under what conditions? Are we talking about physical freedom (ie, want to fly, but don't have wings), social freedom (to want to ask that girl to the flicks, but too embarrassed), biological freedom (want to have a baby, but am male), mental freedom (want to compose symphonies, but can't) or what I think you're referring to, which is the more self-referential choice-limiting schemes like tabu-based or subtle risk/reward-based frameworks?

To be more specific, I'm referring to moral/ethical choices that we're faced with every day. e.g.

- Do I walk past the beggar or stop and give him/her money.
- If I see someone drop money do I give it back to them or keep it?
- If I have a big row with a guy, do I hit him or try to calm down etc, etc.

I each of these cases the person makes a choice. The question is - am I truly free to make that choice or am I by nature limited in what choices I can make?

kelly1

bogwalrus wrote: »

free will is insignificant. Only when humans are all knowing will they be able to make a decision where they will know the "full" consequences of their actions. In this sense of the idea of free will, because humans are limited in knowledge and will probably never be all knowing then the illusion of us being able to make a decision with a certain long-term desired outcome is apparent.

Interesting answer. Why does one have to be omniscient to have free will?

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

To be more specific, I'm referring to moral/ethical choices that we're faced with every day. e.g.

- Do I walk past the beggar or stop and give him/her money.
- If I see someone drop money do I give it back to them or keep it?
- If I have a big row with a guy, do I hit him or try to calm down etc, etc.

I each of these cases the person makes a choice. The question is - am I truly free to make that choice or am I by nature limited in what choices I can make?

None of them necessitate a God. Unless you can show they do. If you can't this is all moot.

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

None of them necessitate a God. Unless you can show they do. If you can't this is all moot.

Again, I didn't mention God. I'm trying to understand the atheist view on free-will.

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

Again, I didn't mention God. I'm trying to understand the atheist view on free-will.

Fair enough Noel.
Ok here's my understanding, in Philosophy there is a causal view, where everything that happens has a cause.

So if you stop and give something to the begger, it is because perhaps because you were brought up that way, you used to be a beggar or because the molecules in your brain that dictate how much empathy you have and how charitable you are make you that way. Either way, upbringing, past experience or just molecular structure of your head makes you do what you do.

Free will would be the opposite in that there is a part of your brain that is not pre programmed and not influenced but can make decisions entirely freely.

My own view is that we are somewhere in between.

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Fair enough Noel.
Ok here's my understanding, in Philosophy there is a causal view, where everything that happens has a cause.

So if you stop and give something to the begger, it is because perhaps because you were brought up that way, you used to be a beggar or because the molecules in your brain that dictate how much empathy you have and how charitable you are make you that way. Either way, upbringing, past experience or just molecular structure of your head makes you do what you do.

What I'm getting from this is that one's actions are not really based on choice but that we have no alternative based on upbringing, past experience/molecules. Wouldn't it also be fair, in that case, to say that upbringing and past experience etc result in changes to the brain making consequent actions inevitable. Is that a fair statement?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Free will would be the opposite in that there is a part of your brain that is not pre programmed and not influenced but can make decisions entirely freely.

My own view is that we are somewhere in between.

If our thoughts come purely from matter (organic molecules/electrical impulses etc), how could any thoughts/actions be freely done. A machine does what it's told, it does not have reason and free will. Our brain is like a very advanced computer with inputs and outputs (according to some atheists). Is there part of the brain that works outside (transcends) the laws of physics (which the brain is subject to)?

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

Wouldn't it also be fair, in that case, to say that upbringing and past experience etc result in changes to the brain making consequent actions inevitable. Is that a fair statement?

consequent actions more probable not inevitable.

If our thoughts come purely from matter (organic molecules/electrical impulses etc), how could any thoughts/actions be freely done. A machine does what it's told, it does not have reason and free will. Our brain is like a very advanced computer with inputs and outputs (according to some atheists). Is there part of the brain that works outside (transcends) the laws of physics (which the brain is subject to)?

I think you are referring to the mind / body problem there.

I don't think there is any part of the brain that works outside the laws of physics / science. We may not know all the laws just yet though.

kelly1

JoeBallantine wrote: »

It comes down to mind over matter...

How can mind and matter be different? Isn't everything matter according to the atheist?

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Kelly1 seems to suggest we were created with free will yet God knows our own choices before we make them... I don't understand this as free will at all... clearly we are constrained by Gods supposed foreknowledge of our choices?

Just because God knows the future doesn't mean we don't have free will. He just knows what choices we're going to make without actually forcing us to do anything.

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

How can mind and matter be different? Isn't everything matter according to the atheist?

No that's called a materialist. Several atheists are known as mystics. Colin McGinn would be example.
His argument is that we have a limited understanding and there is something
outside that limit we will never understand.

Just because God knows the future doesn't mean we don't have free will. He just knows what choices we're going to make without actually forcing us to do anything.

I thought you weren't bringing God into it :-)

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

What I'm getting from this is that one's actions are not really based on choice but that we have no alternative based on upbringing, past experience/molecules. Wouldn't it also be fair, in that case, to say that upbringing and past experience etc result in changes to the brain making consequent actions inevitable. Is that a fair statement?

You are kinda skipping over what you actually mean by "choice"

What is choice except for the outcome of the chemicals in our brain?