Determinism and free will

[bleh_confused]

the idea that everything, including our thoughts and actions, are the result of a succession of causes all leading back to a first cause.

simply put, it makes since to me, and when i think about it it makes me question free will. here’s my argument

-everything has to have a cause (Aquinas and Newton and agree)

-our brains are made of particles. particles act in predictable ways

-our thoughts don’t come out of nothing so they must be caused by something prior, and that somehting must have been caused by something else prior, and so on and so forth until you reach a first cause

-our brains are made of particles, which act in predictable ways, so we can assume that if we knew all the conditions surrounding a person before they made an action, we would be able to determine what their action would be, because all the conditions would influence the particles in our brain to respond a certain way.

when this is applied to free will, things get tricky. if the particles in your brain just respond to stimuli in a certain way, you don’t really have a free choice about what you do, you can’t really choose your actions. you think you do because of consciousness, but the descision you reach is just your particles reacting to a certain stimuli.

in short, our actions are just our brains responding to stimuli, we don’t really choose our actions. the applications of this are huge, and it seems to make logical since.

so, what are your thoughts?

 

[davidv]

the idea that everything, including our thoughts and actions, are the result of a succession of causes all leading back to a first cause.

simply put, it makes since to me, and when i think about it it makes me question free will. here’s my argument

-everything has to have a cause (Aquinas and Newton and agree)

-our brains are made of particles. particles act in predictable ways

-our thoughts don’t come out of nothing so they must be caused by something prior, and that somehting must have been caused by something else prior, and so on and so forth until you reach a first cause

-our brains are made of particles, which act in predictable ways, so we can assume that if we knew all the conditions surrounding a person before they made an action, we would be able to determine what their action would be, because all the conditions would influence the particles in our brain to respond a certain way.

when this is applied to free will, things get tricky. if the particles in your brain just respond to stimuli in a certain way, you don’t really have a free choice about what you do, you can’t really choose your actions. you think you do because of consciousness, but the descision you reach is just your particles reacting to a certain stimuli.

in short, our actions are just our brains responding to stimuli, we don’t really choose our actions. the applications of this are huge, and it seems to make logical since.

so, what are your thoughts?

I think you too easily dismiss your ability to choose, sometimes in opposition to your primal urges.

 

[Poco]

the idea that everything, including our thoughts and actions, are the result of a succession of causes all leading back to a first cause.

simply put, it makes since to me, and when i think about it it makes me question free will. here’s my argument

-everything has to have a cause (Aquinas and Newton and agree)

-our brains are made of particles. particles act in predictable ways

-our thoughts don’t come out of nothing so they must be caused by something prior, and that somehting must have been caused by something else prior, and so on and so forth until you reach a first cause

-our brains are made of particles, which act in predictable ways, so we can assume that if we knew all the conditions surrounding a person before they made an action, we would be able to determine what their action would be, because all the conditions would influence the particles in our brain to respond a certain way.

Well, a strict materialist would probably look at things that way.
I know there’s a better way to say this but here goes… The “non-material mind” is separate from the “material brain”. The mind may function in conjunction with the brain, but it is still separate. So, while our knowledge of biology, chemistry and physics may allow us to predict how the “matter” or “particles” of the brain will react under certain conditions, the mind is still a separate entity.

Frank Sheed, in his book “Theology and Sanity” gives a much better explanation which he discusses the differences between spirit and matter. Those old Greek guys like Plato, Socrates et.al. also had some pretty good discussions along these lines.

Hope this helps!

 

[wanstronian]

the idea that everything, including our thoughts and actions, are the result of a succession of causes all leading back to a first cause.

simply put, it makes since to me, and when i think about it it makes me question free will. here’s my argument

-everything has to have a cause (Aquinas and Newton and agree)

-our brains are made of particles. particles act in predictable ways

-our thoughts don’t come out of nothing so they must be caused by something prior, and that somehting must have been caused by something else prior, and so on and so forth until you reach a first cause

-our brains are made of particles, which act in predictable ways, so we can assume that if we knew all the conditions surrounding a person before they made an action, we would be able to determine what their action would be, because all the conditions would influence the particles in our brain to respond a certain way.

when this is applied to free will, things get tricky. if the particles in your brain just respond to stimuli in a certain way, you don’t really have a free choice about what you do, you can’t really choose your actions. you think you do because of consciousness, but the descision you reach is just your particles reacting to a certain stimuli.

in short, our actions are just our brains responding to stimuli, we don’t really choose our actions. the applications of this are huge, and it seems to make logical since.

so, what are your thoughts?

I believe that free will is almost certainly an illusion, for the reasons you mention.

Those who say that the mind is separate from the brain have not a shred of evidence to support their assertion. In fact, there’s plenty of medical evidence that this is not the case. So there’s no real case here in support of free will.

 

[flyingfish]

Why do you think the implications of this are huge?

 

[tonyrey]

the idea that everything, including our thoughts and actions, are the result of a succession of causes all leading back to a first cause.

simply put, it makes since to me, and when i think about it it makes me question free will. here’s my argument

-everything has to have a cause (Aquinas and Newton and agree)

-our brains are made of particles. particles act in predictable ways

-our thoughts don’t come out of nothing so they must be caused by something prior, and that something must have been caused by something else prior, and so on and so forth until you reach a first cause

-our brains are made of particles, which act in predictable ways, so we can assume that if we knew all the conditions surrounding a person before they made an action, we would be able to determine what their action would be, because all the conditions would influence the particles in our brain to respond a certain way.

when this is applied to free will, things get tricky. if the particles in your brain just respond to stimuli in a certain way, you don’t really have a free choice about what you do, you can’t really choose your actions. you think you do because of consciousness, but the descision you reach is just your particles reacting to a certain stimuli.

in short, our actions are just our brains responding to stimuli, we don’t really choose our actions. the applications of this are huge, and it seems to make logical since.

so, what are your thoughts?

You are assuming the First Cause doesn’t have free will! Yet the First Cause must be immensely powerful and intelligent to create such an awe-inspiring and beautiful universe such as the one we inhabit. It is presumptuous to think our limited intelligence can impose limits on reality.

Our sole certainty is the fact that we are thinking. If we weren’t thinking we wouldn’t even know the universe exists - or anything else for that matter. It is absurd to believe the First Cause cannot think. The success of science demonstrates that the power of thought is far greater than blind purposeless processes. Thought implies free will because if we cannot choose what to think our thoughts are unreliable. We know how often our instincts lead us astray. The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!

 

[Ace_of_Spades]

the idea that everything, including our thoughts and actions, are the result of a succession of causes all leading back to a first cause.

simply put, it makes since to me, and when i think about it it makes me question free will. here’s my argument

-everything has to have a cause (Aquinas and Newton and agree)

-our brains are made of particles. particles act in predictable ways

-our thoughts don’t come out of nothing so they must be caused by something prior, and that somehting must have been caused by something else prior, and so on and so forth until you reach a first cause

-our brains are made of particles, which act in predictable ways, so we can assume that if we knew all the conditions surrounding a person before they made an action, we would be able to determine what their action would be, because all the conditions would influence the particles in our brain to respond a certain way.

when this is applied to free will, things get tricky. if the particles in your brain just respond to stimuli in a certain way, you don’t really have a free choice about what you do, you can’t really choose your actions. you think you do because of consciousness, but the descision you reach is just your particles reacting to a certain stimuli.

in short, our actions are just our brains responding to stimuli, we don’t really choose our actions. the applications of this are huge, and it seems to make logical since.

so, what are your thoughts?

If one were to accept a post Cartesian mechanistic materialist metaphysics then you would be correct.
However, if one were to reject that in favour of a more Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics one could also happily reject your conclusion.

 

[Ace_of_Spades]

I believe that free will is almost certainly an illusion, for the reasons you mention.

Those who say that the mind is separate from the brain have not a shred of evidence to support their assertion. In fact, there’s plenty of medical evidence that this is not the case. So there’s no real case here in support of free will.

If you would like a second opinion you would to well to read Edward Feser’s ‘Philosophy of Mind’. That might give you more of and insight into the whole nominalism vs realism debate.

 

[bleh_confused]

You are assuming the First Cause doesn’t have free will! Yet the First Cause must be immensely powerful and intelligent to create such an awe-inspiring and beautiful universe such as the one we inhabit. It is presumptuous to think our limited intelligence can impose limits on reality.

Our sole certainty is the fact that we are thinking. If we weren’t thinking we wouldn’t even know the universe exists - or anything else for that matter. It is absurd to believe the First Cause cannot think. The success of science demonstrates that the power of thought is far greater than blind purposeless processes. Thought implies free will because if we cannot choose what to think our thoughts are unreliable. We know how often our instincts lead us astray. The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!

even if the first cause is free, that doesn’t mean that we are. again, everything must have a cause, and our thoughts are no different. if particles act in a certain, predictable way, isn’t logical to say our thoughts are just brain particles responding to stimuli? you say thought implies free will, but what causes those thoughts, how can i have a thought that just comes out of nothing? its not logical
perhaps you could explain how thought implies free will a little more in depth. to me, the fact we realize who we are and that we’re thinking only means were conscious of activities going on in our brain.

Why do you think the implications of this are huge?

because if we have no free will, we can’t be culpable for anything we do. everything we did would be just the result of biology, and we couldn’t really be considered free, because external stimuli would be causing us to think and act like we do.

 

[bleh_confused]

Well, a strict materialist would probably look at things that way.
I know there’s a better way to say this but here goes… The “non-material mind” is separate from the “material brain”. The mind may function in conjunction with the brain, but it is still separate. So, while our knowledge of biology, chemistry and physics may allow us to predict how the “matter” or “particles” of the brain will react under certain conditions, the mind is still a separate entity.

Frank Sheed, in his book “Theology and Sanity” gives a much better explanation which he discusses the differences between spirit and matter. Those old Greek guys like Plato, Socrates et.al. also had some pretty good discussions along these lines.

Hope this helps!

how can the mind be seperate from the brain? that seems a tad bit ridiculous, our thoughts and decisions are made in our brain, this is scientific fact. how can our mind and our ability to choose exist outside the brain?

 

[Ace_of_Spades]

how can the mind be seperate from the brain? that seems a tad bit ridiculous, our thoughts and decisions are made in our brain, this is scientific fact. how can our mind and our ability to choose exist outside the brain?

It may or may not seem to be ridiculous to you but have you actually investigated the subject? Have you heard of Essantialism or hylemorphism?

I have found some links you might find intersting:

reading.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ld/Philos/dso/papers/Hylemorphic%20Dualism.pdf

reading.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ld/Philos/dso/papers/Hylomorphism%20and%20Individuation.pdf

Find more here:
reading.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ld/Philos/dso/dso.htm#articles

Also check out this fellow st-andrews.ac.uk/~jjh1/

“Immaterial Aspects of Thought” by James Ross
nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/43151/ross-immateriality.pdf

Thanks

 

[tonyrey]

You are assuming the First Cause doesn’t have free will! Yet the First Cause must be immensely powerful and intelligent to create such an awe-inspiring and beautiful universe such as the one we inhabit. It is presumptuous to think our limited intelligence can impose limits on reality.

I agree, bleh, that it is not a logical necessity but if we are not free why do we exist?

again, everything must have a cause, and our thoughts are no different.

There is no problem if we believe that we cause our thoughts. I am a cause, you are a cause and every person is a cause. In other words we are capable of self-determination.

if particles act in a certain, predictable way, isn’t logical to say our thoughts are just brain particles responding to stimuli?

It is logical if you believe our thoughts are produced by our brain but that assumption leads to other difficulties - including the problems of responsibility and rationality. if we are just machines or biological computers we should not be blamed or punished for what we do. The entire legal system is based on a false assumption!

you say thought implies free will, but what causes those thoughts, how can i have a thought that just comes out of nothing? its not logical

Your thoughts come out of your mind. If you think we are mindless you should not be participating in this discussion! What is the point of two mindless machines swapping programs?!

Perhaps you could explain how thought implies free will a little more in depth.

If we cannot choose what to think we cannot select the best explanations or answers to a problem. There are two possibilities here:

The first is that our decisions are made for us and we are in the terrible position of often knowing that the decision we are choosing is not the right one! But there is nothing we can do about it because we are helpless spectators of our thinking processes.

The second possibility is that we never know the decision we are choosing is not the right one! Ignorance is bliss…

In both cases being forced to think in a certain way means that more often than we shall reach the wrong conclusion. The reason is that** there are far more ways of being wrong than right**. If we have no control over our thoughts we are more likely to make mistakes. As I pointed out, our instincts very often lead us astray because they are automatic reflexes. Our thoughts would be in the same boat if they are caused by events and processes over which we have no control.

to me, the fact we realize who we are and that we’re thinking only means we’re conscious of activities going on in our brain.

That is true but you are producing rational arguments - or at least you think you are - and rational arguments presuppose the ability to choose the most probable or logical conclusions. We know for a fact that we are sometimes unreasonable. We also know that most of the time we reach the right conclusions. This is proved by the success of science and by our ability to survive in a very dangerous world. To be able to reach the right conclusions so often is a remarkable achievement and it is convincing evidence that we are free to choose not only what to think but also to decide which answers and solutions are true. We must be free in order to arrive at the truth so consistently…

What other explanation is there? Only that our thoughts are directly controlled by the First Cause. If that is the case the First Cause is directly responsible for all our evil decisions - which is absurd because evil is negative and cannot be a cause of any description.

 

[rvilbig]

-our brains are made of particles. particles act in predictable ways

-our thoughts don’t come out of nothing so they must be caused by something prior, and that somehting must have been caused by something else prior, and so on and so forth until you reach a first cause

-our brains are made of particles, which act in predictable ways, so we can assume that if we knew all the conditions surrounding a person before they made an action, we would be able to determine what their action would be, because all the conditions would influence the particles in our brain to respond a certain way.

Modern physics is not a closed system in which previous conditions absolutely determine future conditions. The outcomes of quantum mechanical experiments cannot be known in advance, and permit of variety of solutions, only one of which may be actualized. In the brain, the mind may choose one outcome instead of another, as Catholic physicist and U Delaware professor Stephen Barr has pointed out:

“uppose hypothetically that a person’s brain is in a state where quantum theory says that there are only two things that he can do, A and B, and that they have an equal probability of occurring. Obviously, since the laws of physics say that he must do A or B, and give no preference to A or B, it cannot be a violation of those laws for him to make either choice. His freedom of choice in such a case would be unconstrained by the requirement of satisfying the laws of physics” (Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, page 181).

I propose that these alternative quantum states, A and B, are the open and closed conformations of channel proteins, and when an individual chooses one, he effects an action potential corresponding to his will. Similar ideas have been put forth by Oxford Professor Roger Penrose in his book, Shadows of the Mind.

This is in complete agreement with Aquinas’ understanding of the soul: “[A] body is competent to be a living thing or even a principle of life, as “such” a body. Now that it is actually such a body, it owes to some principle which is called its act. Therefore the soul, which is the first principle of life, is not a body, but the act of a body; thus heat, which is the principle of calefaction, is not a body, but an act of a body…” (Summa I, q.75 a.1).

Hope this helps.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Poco]

I believe that free will is almost certainly an illusion, for the reasons you mention.

Those who say that the mind is separate from the brain have not a shred of evidence to support their assertion. In fact, there’s plenty of medical evidence that this is not the case. So there’s no real case here in support of free will.

Would you be so kind as to cite at least “some” of this “plenty of medical evidence” that free will is “almost certainly an illusion”?

Let me rephrase that. Would you be so kind as to cite at least “some” of this “plenty of medical evidence” that the “mind is not separate from the brain”?

 

[wwilligan]

The faculty of our free will does not reside in the “brain”. It resides in the human soul which is a direct creation by God. There are two faculties of the human soul, intellect whose object is knowledge and will whose object is love.

For more on this read The Human Soul and its relation to Other Spirits by Dom Anscar Vonier.

 

[antoniont1]

-our brains are made of particles, which act in predictable ways, so we can assume that if we knew all the conditions surrounding a person before they made an action, we would be able to determine what their action would be, because all the conditions would influence the particles in our brain to respond a certain way.

when this is applied to free will, things get tricky. if the particles in your brain just respond to stimuli in a certain way, you don’t really have a free choice about what you do, you can’t really choose your actions. you think you do because of consciousness, but the descision you reach is just your particles reacting to a certain stimuli.

(un?)Fortunately, we are not zombies. Although particles behave in strictly predictable ways, neurons operate slightly less predictably. Instead of a mechanical on/off, the probability of a neuron firing is a function dependent upon its (name removed by moderator)ut, and at the threshold, given the same (name removed by moderator)ut, the chance of the neuron firing is 50/50, so there you have place for freewill to jump in when subsystems of neurons are concerned with perception/cognition or decision making or what not.

Also, if you go down to the quantum level, I believe there’s place for some element of chance - where our mind (and the Holy Spirit or Satan) interacts with our brains, I think…

 

[flyfisher]

Why do you think the implications of this are huge?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

the idea that everything, including our thoughts and actions, are the result of a succession of causes all leading back to a first cause.

simply put, it makes since to me, and when i think about it it makes me question free will. here’s my argument

-everything has to have a cause (Aquinas and Newton and agree)

-our brains are made of particles. particles act in predictable ways

in short, our actions are just our brains responding to stimuli, we don’t really choose our actions. the applications of this are huge, and it seems to make logical since.

so, what are your thoughts?

You’re confusing your brain with your mind. This message comes to you from my mind via my brain.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I believe that free will is almost certainly an illusion, for the reasons you mention.

The reasons he mentioned are, presumptuous, incomplete and invalid.

Those who say that the mind is separate from the brain have not a shred of evidence to support their assertion.

You’ll be right if you can prove the mind is a material thing.

In fact, there’s plenty of medical evidence that this is not the case.

Care to post some of it? ANY of it?

So there’s no real case here in support of free will

He didn’t make a case for free will. He questioned whether it’s a valid concept. Neither of you has proven a thing.

If there’s no free will, you’re a robot. Is that what you believe?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

how can the mind be seperate from the brain? that seems a tad bit ridiculous, our thoughts and decisions are made in our brain, this is scientific fact. how can our mind and our ability to choose exist outside the brain?

My friend, you are making one presumptive statement after another. You presume your brain is stimulated independent of any action of your own. You presume the stimulation forces conclusions on you, even though you know the conclusions are different in the person next to you who is subject to identical stimuli. You presume, with no evdience whatsoever, that your mind IS your brain.

The brain is a physical thing; the mind is a function of the brain and is inanimate, just as joy, sorrow, anger and mirth, which are products of the mind, are inanimate

In your statement above you use the phrase, “our thoughts and decisions.” ‘Decisions’ implies free will or it would not be a decision. It would be an imposed conclusion. You really need to re-THINK this IDEA of yours.