Atheist friend says: "There is no free will, we are domino's"

[Charlemagne_III]

Repetitive studies show that we learn through mimicking as a child. For example; The toddler sees and experiences its mom rocking and soothing a crying baby. They learned then that is what we must do to a crying baby is rock it. With play practicing, we soon conditioned ourselves to do the same later on. On the other side of the street. A toddler sees and experiences the mother yelling and screaming at the baby to “Shut UP!” and barely attends to the cry. Soon , when those toddlers grow up, so do they do the same with their offspring.

                           With this knowledge that I speak of. How does one explain where free will comes in? With their biologic genetics and the way they were environmentally conditioned  in responses like these,  It was already ingrained in their head from infancy how they would act on that given situation! 

                           One of you might bring up the fact that not all children who were raised in a poor environment turn out like their primary caregiver. Which you are right. And what my atheist friends say is, it's a bio-social thing. BOTH the way you were raised AND what genes you have. Also, one thing JUST ONE SMALL THING like ONE gene or ONE simple act ( like an epic school teacher) could change a bad outcome to a good one. 

                           Still... where is the choice. That once, as a child, the teacher themselves too slowly were bio-socially "programmed" by others through out their life , who were bio-socially "programmed" , just like that child, and we are all nothing but pool balls in a billiard room bouncing off each other. Preconditioned. One person's life just merely effecting another, like domino's.
                                                                                 
                                                                                  How do you respond to that?
         
                                                                                                      Thanks!

                                                                                                               Janine

I have noticed that the most deterministic people on earth are atheists. And well they should be since they so often claim they have to be atheists and have no choice but to choose Nogod over God. But clearly they can choose God, since many an atheist has given up his atheism for God. That means he was free to choose God all along, and only at some point became aware of his freedom.

 

[oldcelt]

I have noticed that the most deterministic people on earth are atheists. And well they should be since they so often claim they have to be atheists and have no choice but to choose Nogod over God. But clearly they can choose God, since many an atheist has given up his atheism for God. That means he was free to choose God all along, and only at some point became aware of his freedom.

I guess I haven’t encountered the type of atheist you describe. Doesn’t it seem inconsistent to you as well?

John

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I guess I haven’t encountered the type of atheist you describe. Doesn’t it seem inconsistent to you as well?

John

Why would it?

 

[Trident_H]

I hate to say it, that most of what you guys said I said too. And my friends replied was that of Bradski . Atheist flaunt the fact that they believe we have no choice in “bad” behavior nor really care. That they indeed see others acts are mere reflections of previous actions and choices. Like a circular pattern that gets deeply more ingrained as they repeat it. And I put ‘bad’ in quotes, because they say that depending on that specific society , is what is determinant something “good” or “bad”. That kidnapping in some Asian countries are determined a rite of passage to marriage. But in the USA, it’s not just a law broken but an act of sin.

I wanted to understand him by an example. I said " is a rape just something that happened? That it wasn’t the rapist fault. That he was condition to make that choice". He said " even though it was a horrid act, the answer is yes, that most people are not conditioned to do such a thing". AND I want to clarify that my friend is NOT a psycho/social-path. That he is indeed just a confused soul that still does deep acts of charity towards others. And I say this with hatred towards him in my heart right now!

And to you Trident H, he would say that sobriety was something that was set in your path due to the path of others. That your “choice” to go relapse or not because of this information now, was already programmed in you because of your past knowledge, feelings, and interactions/conversations/opinions with yourself and others.

I hope someone can simply explain what it is I say to something like that.
Janine

At this point in the conversation Janine? I’d reach out and steal his wallet. You can then just smile and shrug.

I mean there’s daft. And then there’s daft. But to think a guy has no choice at all whether he drinks or stays sober. Or whether he rapes or stays in control is the ultimate of stupidity. I can’t believe someone would be that tricked up. I can’t believe someone would be that disconnected. Because this is the slide that doesn’t stop.

And no. Nothing forced me to write that. Just like nothing’s forcing me to finish this sentan–

 

[Bradski]

But to think a guy has no choice at all whether he drinks or stays sober.

You are confusing free will with the availability of choices. It is obvious that if you have only one choice then you have no free will in the matter (actually there can never be only one choice because you have the option of doing nothing as opposed to taking the only course of action).

But multiple choices does not therefore mean that you have free will.

If someone decided to get drunk one night, then there were reasons why he chose to do so. If he chose not to get drunk, then the reasons would be different. Even to the point of saying that he preferred drinking on that night as opposed to not preferring it.

If the situation is exactly the same every time he makes the call, then his decision will always be the same.

 

[esieffe]

The mantra of folks that need something to justify or blame their actions on.

 

[Trident_H]

You are confusing free will with the availability of choices. It is obvious that if you have only one choice then you have no free will in the matter (actually there can never be only one choice because you have the option of doing nothing as opposed to taking the only course of action).

But multiple choices does not therefore mean that you have free will.

If someone decided to get drunk one night, then there were reasons why he chose to do so. If he chose not to get drunk, then the reasons would be different. Even to the point of saying that he preferred drinking on that night as opposed to not preferring it.

If the situation is exactly the same every time he makes the call, then his decision will always be the same.

I just freely chose not to argue with you. Even though I have a really good answer.

Let’s do this again tomorrow and see if we both do the same thing, hey?

 

[Vico]

You are confusing free will with the availability of choices. It is obvious that if you have only one choice then you have no free will in the matter (actually there can never be only one choice because you have the option of doing nothing as opposed to taking the only course of action).

But multiple choices does not therefore mean that you have free will.

If someone decided to get drunk one night, then there were reasons why he chose to do so. If he chose not to get drunk, then the reasons would be different. Even to the point of saying that he preferred drinking on that night as opposed to not preferring it.

If the situation is exactly the same every time he makes the call, then his decision will always be the same.

Christians have *grace *available that make it possible for them to not be automatons.

 

[FractalFire]

You are confusing free will with the availability of choices. It is obvious that if you have only one choice then you have no free will in the matter (actually there can never be only one choice because you have the option of doing nothing as opposed to taking the only course of action).

But multiple choices does not therefore mean that you have free will.

If someone decided to get drunk one night, then there were reasons why he chose to do so. If he chose not to get drunk, then the reasons would be different. Even to the point of saying that he preferred drinking on that night as opposed to not preferring it.

If the situation is exactly the same every time he makes the call, then his decision will always be the same.

a) If this is true, then how do you get to any morality that says people “ought” to do something? (You may have missed or chose to ignore my previous question on this.)

b) You seem to be assuming determinism rather than proving it. You give no reason for your conclusion other than that you personally find it convincing.

c) Your conclusion seems consistent with a compatibilist definition of free will, which holds that free will exists so long as nothing *external *to ourselves influences us.

d) In this case, the mans own thoughts about the matter determine his actions. You say if you repeat the thoughts you repeat the actions, but how is that different from saying – if he were to choose the same thing, he would choose the same thing? It seems to be assuming what it wishes to prove, namely that the man’s inward reasons are also the same. For surely you do not deny that a man can take a different path if all his *outward *reasons are the same (ie his knowledge and circumstances, which are separate from himself), but his *inward *reasoning (what he is deciding in his head) is different. Your problem is that you are lumping them both together and thus have accidentally dragged the man’s free will (his inward thoughts about the matter) into the fray. Of course if you repeat a man’s act of free will he makes the same choice as he did before!

 

[Tomdstone]

If free will exists then surely, if you reran the film, you would make different decisions. And that makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Actually, I think that the film is already set and fixed in the mind of God. It is set far into the future as God knows all things, including everything that we will do in the future. So the film cannot be changed.

 

[Bradski]

a) If this is true, then how do you get to any morality that says people “ought” to do something? (You may have missed or chose to ignore my previous question on this.)

b) You seem to be assuming determinism rather than proving it.

I’m quite willing to concede that if free will does not exist then it causes enormous problems in the matter of blame. But I hardly think that that problem in itself means that free will must exist. You cannot argue: ‘You must be able to aportion blame, therefore free will must exist’.

And I’m not trying to prove determinism. My argument is that if determinism is true, and I can’t see any way that it isn’t (with the exception of quantum indeterminacy throwing a possible spanner in the works), then free will is an illusion.

It is an illusion because our decisions are based entirely on the situation as it stands at the time (which is determined) and our thought processes, which will always be the same under identical conditions. Because if that is not true, then our decisions are arbitrary.

Free will suggests not that you COULD choose differently (having a choice means just that), but that there are options that you would pick differently UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

If that is the case, then you will need to show how that is possible.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But multiple choices does not therefore mean that you have free will.

If someone decided to get drunk one night, then there were reasons why he chose to do so. If he chose not to get drunk, then the reasons would be different. Even to the point of saying that he preferred drinking on that night as opposed to not preferring it.

The reasons do not dictate the choice. Yes, some reasons are more powerfully attractive than others, but that does not mean they cannot be overcome by sheer force of free will as opposed to compulsion.

If people really believed that free will was an illusion, they would never blame themselves or anyone else for their bad choices. Everybody would be suffering the Flip Wilson disease.

“The devil made me do it.”

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Free will suggests not that you COULD choose differently (having a choice means just that), but that there are options that you would pick differently UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

If that is the case, then you will need to show how that is possible.

That scenario is impossible in reality.
How is anyone going to prove an impossibility?
I recall you making the same statement before.
Free will suggests that you have chosen to repeat it in spite of its clearly having been refuted to the satisfaction of every Catholic poster on this forum.
It’s your choice whether you open your mind and heart.
The farther from God the deeper into illusion one falls.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The reasons do not dictate the choice. Yes, some reasons are more powerfully attractive than others, but that does not mean they cannot be overcome by sheer force of free will as opposed to compulsion.

If people really believed that free will was an illusion, they would never blame themselves or anyone else for their bad choices. Everybody would be suffering the Flip Wilson disease.

“The devil made me do it.”

I agree. How silly. Everyone knows they can exercise free will in most situations. Even when one’s free will is repressed by external forces, people have limited choices they can make. That’s the whole point of being human.

I would say Bradski is playing “Devil’s Advocate”!

 

[Gorgias]

Your argument seems to me to be nothing more than: ‘You made a choice, you changed your mind, therefore free will’.

That’s close, but you’re missing the salient point: it’s not just that there are two choices – it’s that there’s nothing that you can point to that would explain why there are two different choices. Your response goes to extremes: “Oh, you’d never pick the restaurant in the bad section of town!”. No, perhaps not, but that’s not the scenario I’m suggesting. Rather, I’m looking at two choices, simply seconds apart, with no discernible deterministic forces to point to that explain the choices. One choice, followed by a different choice. In the absence of a determining factor, ‘free will choice’ is the logical conclusion.

And if you would make the same choice every time if all the conditions are exactly the same, then does it make any sense to say that you have free will?

You haven’t demonstrated “same choice every time”, however. In the context of a single example, if you show ‘same choice’, you’re just showing a strong preference in a particular context. If I pick sushi over steak 100% of the time, then you’ve only established that I really like sushi (and not that I have no free will).

If you want to argue that you COULD have gone to Bubba’s Greasy Grille and that therefore proves free will, then I’m not sure that’s a valid argument. Just because the choice is available, and there are always choices available, does not prove free will, because those choices exist if free will exists or not.

No, that’s not my argument, nor have I attempted to make that argument.

To prove it does, you have to convince me that any decision you make could have been different if the situation was EXACTLY the same. And in that case, you will need to show the reasons why you made one choice and then another. That I can’t see is possible. Because for every single choice you make, there are reasons which result in that choice. If the reasons are exactly the same, what on earth makes you choose differently if you had the opportunity again?

You offer an impossible thought experiment: one that requires, as its basis, repeatability of a single moment in time. However, the closest we can get is an approximation. Since the thought experiment is infeasible, I’m not certain how you can claim to prove your point (it would be kinda like saying “since the moon isn’t made of green cheese, therefore it’s true that the moon landings never happened!” ). However, it seems counterintuitive to suggest that, in the realm of things where any of a number of possible choices is plausible (i.e., not your example in which a person would always necessarily reach the same choice based on personal preference), that one selection and one selection only – in all cases – is the only solution.

The only time I think that that is possible is when you really can’t make up your mind and it is literally an arbitrary choice. A coin toss.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner!

If it’s “arbitrary”, then there is clearly the opportunity to make a given choice out of free will. “I like vanilla and chocolate chip ice cream; today, I choose vanilla.” How could this not be considered free will?

There are reasons which determine every single choice. The local diner versus Bubba’s was easy. So maybe you think that was an extreme example which proves nothing.

Basically, yeah. You picked a test case at the extremes, and are trying to extrapolate its answer to all cases. All that it proves is that there’s no situation in which any choice is possible (and not that there are no situations in which more than one choice is plausible).

But if you think about literally anything that you consciously do, there are still reasons for it. There is still an internal debate. You weigh the pros and cons automatically. You have information which you apply to the situation and yes, you make a decision, you make a choice.

This much is clear.

But that decision, that choice, will always be the same given the exact same circumstances.

This is less clear. How does it follow? Short of a materialist worldview (everything is computationally determinate), this cannot be claimed to be self-evident, as you seem to be claiming.

It’s like the operating system runs the software calls up stored information, applies all the applicable variables and k’ching…here’s the result. You are the operating system and the software is your thought process. They would be exactly the same if you were to rerun the film as many times as you’d like. The variables and the stored info is, by virtue of the situation being identical, is the same.

Except that you would have to prove that all we are is software running on wetware that’s explicitly deterministic. That’s not the case.

How do you get a different result each time? You don’t.

So… address my example, please. How is it that you explain editing, in the context of my example (in the time between typing and pressing “preview” and pressing “submit”)?

 

[Trident_H]

You are confusing free will with the availability of choices. It is obvious that if you have only one choice then you have no free will in the matter (actually there can never be only one choice because you have the option of doing nothing as opposed to taking the only course of action).

But multiple choices does not therefore mean that you have free will.

If someone decided to get drunk one night, then there were reasons why he chose to do so. If he chose not to get drunk, then the reasons would be different. Even to the point of saying that he preferred drinking on that night as opposed to not preferring it.

If the situation is exactly the same every time he makes the call, then his decision will always be the same.

So it’s the next day. And yesterday in answering this question I chose not to answer. Today I’ve decided to answer with only one word:

Peace.

 

[Bradski]

I agree. How silly. Everyone knows they can exercise free will in most situations. Even when one’s free will is repressed by external forces, people have limited choices they can make. That’s the whole point of being human.

That’s part of the problem. There seems to be absolutely no doubt that we have free will. But that doesn’t make it so.

I would say Bradski is playing “Devil’s Advocate”.

You’re not too far wrong, Christine. That’s why you may find a few phrases sprinkled about such as ‘it seems to me…’ and ‘it appears to be the case…’. I don’t want to be too adamant about my position because I am not 100% certain that it’s correct. As you said, it doesn’t seem credible that we don’t have free will – it’s obvious! But I’ve been thinking about this for some time and the position I’m taking is the direction I’ve been heading for some time.

That’s close, but you’re missing the salient point: it’s not just that there are two choices – it’s that there’s nothing that you can point to that would explain why there are two different choices. Your response goes to extremes: “Oh, you’d never pick the restaurant in the bad section of town!”. No, perhaps not, but that’s not the scenario I’m suggesting. Rather, I’m looking at two choices, simply seconds apart, with no discernible deterministic forces to point to that explain the choices. One choice, followed by a different choice. In the absence of a determining factor, ‘free will choice’ is the logical conclusion.

I used Bubba’s Grille as an easy example. But I think that you can extrapolate all the way down to the most insignificant choices. I can’t see why that wouldn’t be the case.

The fact is that there is always a reason for doing something. An arbitrary choice cannot be described as free will. You can’t say ‘heads for chocolate, tails for vanilla’ and then claim that you made a free will choice when you go for chocolate. Choosing not to go to Bubba’s was easy to understand. But actually picking chocolate instead of vanilla appears to be a lot more indeterminate. But there HAS to be a reason, otherwise it is a coin toss. And if there is a reason, then those reasons would have always applied in those circumstances.

If you have made a non-critical choice, it is quite common to say, if you were asked why you made it, something like: ‘I dunno, I just did’. But I don’t believe that that is credible. There was a reason, even if you weren’t consciously aware of it. And our subconscious plays a huge part in why we choose what we choose. See here for experiments that show this: smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/is-free-will-just-an-illusion-20160502-gojz2v.html

You haven’t demonstrated “same choice every time”, however. In the context of a single example, if you show ‘same choice’, you’re just showing a strong preference in a particular context. If I pick sushi over steak 100% of the time, then you’ve only established that I really like sushi (and not that I have no free will).

If the choice was sushi or broken glass, then it’s easy to see why you would choose one or the other. The reason between sushi and steak might not be so clear cut, but there will be a reason. And the reason will hold in all circumstances that are exactly the same. To that end, you will always make the same decision. The only reason you would make a different choice is if the circumstances were different. But you only have the one set of circumstances and there is only one choice.

Again, it makes no sense to say: ‘But I could have chosen differently’.

You offer an impossible thought experiment: one that requires, as its basis, repeatability of a single moment in time.

True. And I don’t know a way around this.

However, it seems counterintuitive to suggest that, in the realm of things where any of a number of possible choices is plausible (i.e., not your example in which a person would always necessarily reach the same choice based on personal preference), that one selection and one selection only – in all cases – is the only solution.

Yes, it is counter-intuitive. But that’s not an argument that can be used against it.

 

[Bradski]

If it’s “arbitrary”, then there is clearly the opportunity to make a given choice out of free will. “I like vanilla and chocolate chip ice cream; today, I choose vanilla.” How could this not be considered free will?

Having multiple choices does not equate to free will. Neither does making a choice on a coin toss. You need to make a decision, either consciously or subconsciously. I suggest (there’s them weasel words again) that for any given set of circumstances there can only be one choice.

Basically, yeah. You picked a test case at the extremes, and are trying to extrapolate its answer to all cases. All that it proves is that there’s no situation in which any choice is possible (and not that there are no situations in which more than one choice is plausible).

Again, I’m not arguing that having multiple choices or limited choices (there has to be two in all cases) affects free will at all. I am saying that for every choice made, there are specific reasons (external and internal) that would always apply.

So… address my example, please. How is it that you explain editing, in the context of my example (in the time between typing and pressing “preview” and pressing “submit”)?

Changing your mind doesn’t affect the situation. The first choice and the second have different circumstances. In the case of editing the post, I initially made a decision to write what I did (for whatever set of reasons that applied) and I edited it because the situation had changed. I had something I could proof-read and there were reasons to change it. Or not, as the case may be.

 

[oldcelt]

Why would it?

Simple, if there are no external constraints such as an intervening deity or fear of eternal damnation, what could possibly stand in the way of free will? Any internal constraints are placed on themselves voluntarily and, therefore, do not violate free will. In fact, they are part of it.

John

 

[Gorgias]

Having multiple choices does not equate to free will.

Actually, that’s not what I suggested. It’s not the presence of a multiplicity of choices that matters – it’s the presence of a choice having been made. Even if that choice is guided by a person’s “nature/nurture”, there is still a choice that’s made. (In fact, in order to argue the assertion, it would seem that you would need to demonstrate strict determinism – after all, simply saying “he’s made of physical matter and he has a certain upbringing” doesn’t prove strict determinism any more than saying that the mere presence of options proves free will!)

Neither does making a choice on a coin toss.

Actually, I would argue that it does. Here’s why: if I have a choice between two options, and I apply all the factors that you claim demonstrate determinism, but I decide to let the decision rest on a coin toss… well then, I’ve clearly made a personal decision, haven’t I? In that case, I would clearly have chosen – outside the forces you tout as deterministic – a course of action (from an exercise of free will) that leads to a choice being made. Making the choice “I’ll do X on heads and Y on tails” is precisely a free will decision!

I suggest (there’s them weasel words again) that for any given set of circumstances there can only be one choice.

Fair enough. You would need to substantiate that suggestion, though, in order for it to be a compelling argument, wouldn’t you?

Again, I’m not arguing that having multiple choices or limited choices (there has to be two in all cases) affects free will at all. I am saying that for every choice made, there are specific reasons (external and internal) that would always apply.

Again, that’s fair. However, your thesis doesn’t rest on there being ‘specific reasons’ – it only holds up if those specific reasons are fully deterministic in all circumstances. That’s what you haven’t demonstrated here, and that’s why (I claim) you haven’t proven your point…

Changing your mind doesn’t affect the situation. The first choice and the second have different circumstances. In the case of editing the post, I initially made a decision to write what I did (for whatever set of reasons that applied) and I edited it because the situation had changed. I had something I could proof-read and there were reasons to change it. Or not, as the case may be.

Again, reasons <> determinism. Reasons are – in a very real way – the proof of free will. After all, animals “make choices” (eat this plant or that one; hunt this antelope or that one; mate with this animal or that one); however, none of these are claimed to be exercise of free will. Rather, it’s the notion that we – as rational beings – have reasons behind our choices that we see the possibility of free will. Unless you jettison the notion of ‘reasons’ in favor of a strict, robot-like determinism, then the denial of free will doesn’t hold up.