Freedom of the will

dvpower

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Over all? No, as a concept it is fundamentally flawed since we can only react to stimuli based on the interaction of electricity and chemicals in our brains with the neurons that make up its matter. These are shaped by genetics and environment.

But the environment that we react to is (so far) incomprehensively complex. So, while theoretically, free will may not exist, for all intents and purposes, it does.

In the same way that while the random number generated by a computer isn't truly random; it is random enough.

Its a bit like asking the question 'Is the earth round?' in Pythagoras' time. The question was largely theoretical; for all useful purposes of the time the earth was flat (enough).

Joe1919

togster wrote: »

How can they happen if we are unaware of them or do you mean they are automatic? But automatic of what?

What freedom?

Automatic of our consciousness.

I tend to take a historical view of consciousness. i.e. Our consciousness is really a build up of knowledge and data on the biological brain, a sort of software running on hardware.
But we do have 'intuitive' or unconscious or 'automatic' processes in terms of them taking place below the level of consciousnesses. Most of our aesthetic judgements are like that, we like something because we like it, nothing more or nothing less. If we have to justify our aesthetic judgement, it is no longer aesthetic but cognitive.

When I say I make a free choice, I really mean that my consciousness has freely made that choice. However, my consciousness is determined by history(my experiences etc.) and biology, so really Freedom=self determinism. (compatibilist view).

Seeing freedom as different from determinism is really a hangover from the Dualist body/soul days.

Finally, be careful not to confuse determinism with fatalism.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=krU20sT9hfoC&pg=PA382&lpg=PA382&dq=confusing+determinism+with+fatalism&source=bl&ots=sLktAYDykR&sig=yQqceQA215GMdry1FrnDEEiREqg&hl=en&ei=yq82Sq-dHYWz-QazwoyhDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

ChocolateSauce

Simple answer: No.

Humans have partial free will, but we are also in the service of our biological limitations.

Húrin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Despite what some Theologians think, free will has nothing to do with the God question.

We don't need a creator to have free will. If we do, then God also needs a creator to have free will.

Contrary to what you and a number of other posters seem to think, I didn't set up this thread in order to "catch" atheists on some point that would force them to stop being atheists.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

Contrary to what you and a number of other posters seem to think, I didn't set up this thread in order to "catch" atheists on some point that would force them to stop being atheists.

No fear of that.

MrPudding

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No fear of that.

I was actually talking to a work colleague about this a couple of weeks ago. I have actually had nightmares about becoming religious. The thought of it fills me with dread, though thinking about it, I would imagine that is probably the devil.

I told him, and several other people, that if I did one day start to believe in god they are to do whatever it takes to make sure I get a brain scan. I hope it never comes to that.

MrP

Morbert

My gut instinct tells me that there is no free will, and that my actions are reducible to some probabilistic physics scheme.

But with that said, consciousness is a great mystery to me, and I certainly can't rule out the notion of free will until we know more about it.

Tim Robbins

Húrin wrote: »

Contrary to what you and a number of other posters seem to think, I didn't set up this thread in order to "catch" atheists on some point that would force them to stop being atheists.

I know. But you posted in the atheist forum not the philosophy one.

bnt

If you can spare an hour, I can highly recommend the following podcast episode: Radiolab: Stochasticity. It covers various topics related to randomness, including our tendency to see patterns and "purpose" where there isn't any.

In the opening example, a 10-year-old girl releases a balloon in the north of England, it flies 120 miles south, and ends up in the hands of another girl about the same age ... with the same name as the first girl. These two girls look alike, have similar tastes in clothes, even the same kinds of pets. What are the odds? Could that be a miracle?

In the final segment, there's an interesting report on the "sloppiness" researchers found at the genetic level in bacteria, and (by implication) in humans too. Down at the level where proteins are synthesised using RNA, it's a chaotic random mess, it seem, not the "clockwork" chemistry we would expect. Though the programme doesn't go this far, I think it also raises the possibility of "sloppiness" in the neural networks of our brains, and the effects of chemical factors such as dopamine in our decision-making processes. Fascinating.

kiffer

Do I believe we have free will? Yes and no, Depending on the scale at which you want to look, what you mean by free will and a number of other factors and assumptions...

Interestingly whether or not we actually have free will, I think we should try to behave as if we do...

kelly1

I find it amazing how many people consider themselves to be some kind of machines incapable of making choices. Folks, lets not fool ourselves.

Saying we have no choice in what we do is a cop out. Seems like a convenient way to side-step our responsibilities. Also a good excuse for not changing one's behaviour for the better.

If I see a poor person begging for money, I can choose to pass them by or stop for a chat and give them money. Or if I see someone drop money, I can choose to give it back to them or pocket it. We have a choice in these situations!

MrPudding

kelly1 wrote: »

I find it amazing how many people consider themselves to be some kind of machines incapable of making choices. Folks, lets not fool ourselves.

I don't thin you are really understanding what is being said here.

kelly1 wrote: »

Saying we have no choice in what we do is a cop out.

No. Saying you believe what is right and wrong is what is written in a 2000 year old book is a cop out.

kelly1 wrote: »

Seems like a convenient way to side-step our responsibilities. Also a good excuse for not changing one's behaviour for the better.

Not at all Noel. I understand why you think this, but you are not correct. I find it sad that you cannot understand why some of your fellow human beings don't require the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of eternal bliss to do what is right.

The posters that believe that at the lowest level we have no free will are not abdicating responsibility. They are simply saying that our behaviour is programmed at a level we have no control over. Luckily for us, if this is the case, the "system" that is doing the programming seems to think that we should be generally good to each other.

kelly1 wrote: »

If I see a poor person begging for money, I can choose to pass them by or stop for a chat and give them money. Or if I see someone drop money, I can choose to give it back to them or pocket it. We have a choice in these situations!

Yes, but what these posters are saying is that what you choose is influenced by this programming. Even if this is the case I do not see it as an excuse to pass the blame for one's actions.

MrP

Húrin

kiffer wrote: »

Interestingly whether or not we actually have free will, I think we should try to behave as if we do...

But that surely means you think we have free will? If we have the ability to choose to so behave?

MrPudding wrote: »

No. Saying you believe what is right and wrong is what is written in a 2000 year old book is a cop out.

Not at all Noel. I understand why you think this, but you are not correct. I find it sad that you cannot understand why some of your fellow human beings don't require the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of eternal bliss to do what is right.

Is this kind of tiresome language really needed here? It looks like the kind that always leads to bitter argument. I'm sure you know at this stage that Christianity isn't a cult of good behaviour. I was hoping to keep this discussion civilised.

MrPudding

Húrin wrote: »

Is this kind of tiresome language really needed here? It looks like the kind that always leads to bitter argument. I'm sure you know at this stage that Christianity isn't a cult of good behaviour. I was hoping to keep this discussion civilised.

Well excuse me. I am an atheist and I find it tiresome to constantly be accused of of simply bouncing through life doing whatever I feel like as there is nothing to moderate my behaviour.

Additionally, I thought my response was civilised. Perhaps you are a little sensitive. I never said christianity was a cult, well, not in this thread anyway...

MrP

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Is this kind of tiresome language really needed here? It looks like the kind that always leads to bitter argument. I'm sure you know at this stage that Christianity isn't a cult of good behaviour.

He was responding to Noel's charge that people hold non-religious views in order to side-step their 'responsibilities'. i.e. That people won't act responsibly without the carrot/stick of religion.

togster

Dades wrote: »

He was responding to Noel's charge that people hold non-religious views in order to side-step their 'responsibilities'. i.e. That people won't act responsibly without the carrot/stick of religion.

I didn't see him mention anything about religion. I thought this thread was about freedom of will?

If we don't have freedom of will doesn't that insinuate we are controlled by something other than ourselves.

Zillah

togster wrote: »

I didn't see him mention anything about religion. I thought this thread was about freedom of will?

If we don't have freedom of will doesn't that insinuate we are controlled by something other than ourselves.

The fallacy here is that you've assumed that "ourselves" is anything but a collection of "somethings".

I'm still amazed that every time this topic comes up I make a challenge for someone to make a thorough definition of what this "freewill" thing they're talking about is, no one does it, and yet we still get a whole load of people saying that it exists.

Dades

The "cop out" argument used is all-too-similar to that used to suggest people don't believe in gods so they can act without repercussions.

The suggestion that someone 'believes' something merely to excuse them self from responsibility is inherently flawed. You either believe something or you don't.

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

The "cop out" argument used is all-too-similar to that used to suggest people don't believe in gods so they can act without repercussions.

The suggestion that someone 'believes' something merely to excuse them self from responsibility is inherently flawed. You either believe something or you don't.

One can be biased towards accepting or rejecting certain propositions, assuming equal probability. As a rule, we're more likely to accept pleasant propositions than we are negative, ergo; heaven.

togster

Zillah wrote: »

The fallacy here is that you've assumed that "ourselves" is anything but a collection of "somethings".

And you don't? Who are you then?

Zillah wrote: »

I'm still amazed that every time this topic comes up I make a challenge for someone to make a thorough definition of what this "freewill" thing they're talking about is, no one does it, and yet we still get a whole load of people saying that it exists.

Free will? I guess i'm confused as well

For me free will is clarity of thought or decisions i make because i know it's the right thing to do, "instinct" if you like or adabtibility if you like. But that's just me. :rolleyes:

Zillah

togster wrote: »

And you don't? Who are you then?

Allow me to put it like this: You assert that a dichotomy exists between "ourselves" (a person) and "somethings" (something other than the person). The error here is that a person can be considered a collection of such things. A brain, which has been shaped by initial genetic designs/biases/patterns, experiences, diet, other people, other ideas etc.

To use a simile, you're claiming that the democratic election of a President can be disrupted by a given person exercising their vote. It's all part of the system.

For me free will is clarity of thought or decisions i make because i know it's the right thing to do, "instinct" if you like or adabtibility if you like. But that's just me. :rolleyes:

Woefully insufficient, this is nothing more than vague thoughts. From where does this will originate, of what is it composed?

kelly1

I never said anything about God/religion.

I'm saying that a claim of not having free will can be used as an excuse for immoral behaviour or the inability to change.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

I never said anything about God/religion.

I'm saying that a claim of not having free will can be used as an excuse for immoral behaviour or the inability to change.

I actually agree, I know people who behave like that and tend to run from their responsibility but it has less to with the free will that this thread is concerned with but more with the will to change or inability to change part of you statement.

togster

Zillah wrote: »

Allow me to put it like this: You assert that a dichotomy exists between "ourselves" (a person) and "somethings" (something other than the person).

I never said that tbh. I don't think there is any seperation between anything or anyone on this planet. Oneness.

Zillah wrote: »

The error here is that a person can be considered a collection of such things. A brain, which has been shaped by initial genetic designs/biases/patterns, experiences, diet, other people, other ideas etc.

I agree with your point. We are our brains, our bodies and our true conciousness. (Body, mind and "soul")

Zillah wrote: »

To use a simile, you're claiming that the democratic election of a President can be disrupted by a given person exercising their vote. It's all part of the system.

No it can't be disrupted, but it is changed in a way. Although the final outcome is the same, the overall process is changed.

Zillah wrote: »

Woefully insufficient

To you prehaps, but i don't base my life on facts on figures

Zillah wrote: »

this is nothing more than vague thoughts.

Not vague, no thought.

Zillah wrote: »

From where does this will originate, of what is it composed?

It originates within my body and it is composed of everything around us. The thing that brings everything into being.

Goduznt Xzst

togster wrote: »

For me free will is clarity of thought or decisions i make because i know it's the right thing to do, "instinct" if you like or adabtibility if you like. But that's just me. :rolleyes:

Lets see how deep into the rabbit hole you are willing (oh snap!) to go with this.

A few introductory questions:

Why did you choose the person who would give birth to you?
Why did you choose oxygen as the gas you would breath?
Why did you choose to live on Earth?

Ok, I cad, you had no freedom in these matters.

Lets examine instinct.

When you see a beautiful woman, why do you choose to find her beautiful?
When you meet a man with a knife in a dark alley, why do you choose to get scared?
In your day to day life, how do you choose when and how to use your emotions?
Why do you prefer the sensation of pleasure to pain?

Lets delve deeper, education:

Of all the facts and knowledge and wisdom you have formed from these in your mind which of them is unique? Which of them is only yours? Can you say with certainty that you have not learned one fact because someone else thought it to you or that another person thought you the skills and gave you the motivation to teach yourself this information.

Precisely what about your existence is free. You may have a will but it is constructed from a causal mentality which is not free.

and I quote:

Jaegwon Kim - “Whence a dilemma: If mind-body supervenience fails, mental causation is unintelligible; if it holds, mental causation is again unintelligible. Hence mental causation is unintelligible”

togster

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Lets see how deep into the rabbit hole you are willing (oh snap!) to go with this.

Niiice

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

A few introductory questions:

Why did you choose the person who would give birth to you?
Why did you choose oxygen as the gas you would breath?
Why did you choose to live on Earth?

Ok, I cad, you had no freedom in these matters.

I was brought into being by conciousness. The same conciousness that brings stones into being. I am part of this conciousness, so i had no "choice" in the conventional sense, but in effect i had.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Lets examine instinct.

When you see a beautiful woman, why do you choose to find her beautiful?

Everyone is beautiful. Some people have the same energy levels as i have and i can connect to them better. Then i am attracted to someone. I can recognise that someone is conventionally good looking but it is not the same as "beautiful" to me.

Again it's down to definitions

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Can you say with certainty that you have not learned one fact because someone else thought it to you or that another person thought you the skills and gave you the motivation to teach yourself this information.

Maybe not in the past, but now i learn things because I learn them, free from the teachers opinion (obvious or not) and prejudice to certain types of sources. An "open mind" if you will.

If you are learning about religion for example. Most people will have prejudices/thoughts of some sort towards it. Your learning will be colored because of these.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Precisely what about your existence is free.

Everything if i choose so. Again your definition of exsistence and mine are different, so my answer more than likely will not suffice :pac:

Goduznt Xzst

togster wrote: »

so i had no "choice" in the conventional sense, but in effect i had....

Some people have the same energy levels as i...

i learn things because I learn them

I'm sorry but that strikes me as pure tautological drivel. I'm finding it hard to find anything of substance to rebut tbh.

I can only echo what Zillah said earlier: "Woefully insufficient, this is nothing more than vague thoughts"

I'm out, because I think fundamentally you don't understand the postulation.

I came across a good paper on the subject a while back which I can only recommend that you read, and then do your own further research:

http://web.mac.com/david_sosa/SosaSite/Papers_files/FreeMental%21.rtf

Zillah

togster wrote: »

I agree with your point. We are our brains, our bodies and our true conciousness. (Body, mind and "soul")

My God I've failed again.

Dave!

togster wrote: »

Some people have the same energy levels as i have and i can connect to them better.

wat

Zillah

Duh, it's MAGIC!!! Dave.