Does free will truly exist?

[exnihilo]

Well, the fact that I exist is empirically testable. So your argument falls apart right there. To claim something as “self-evident” just because it seems right to you, does not make for a convincing argument I’m afraid.

There is no evidence that free will exists.

You are right about a strict definition of self-evidence. But I dont see how you can say that there is no evidence for free will. I experience deliberation and choosing. Every other person I’ve talked to that does not have a mental defect has also had the same experience. That is most certainly evidence. I guess it could all be an illusion but not a single sane person acts as if that is the case.

 

[Mark_Sutter]

Hey! This is my first post, and I find this particular topic very fascinating.

At this point, it seems you’re hung up on the definition of “free will.” Onenow1 offered that free will is “the ability to make a decision.” That’s a prerequisite for having free will, certainly, but not the essence of it.

The computer I’m typing on at this moment has the ability to make rational decisions, just as a human being does, yet no one would say that it has free will. Why is that? It’s because the computer’s decisions strictly follow from the programming and user-provided (name removed by moderator)ut, as effect follows cause. There is no free will for a computer because every decision can be predetermined if one knows the variables that go into making that decision.

So then, to have free will, any decision of the computer would have to be *indeterminate * until made. That is, even if you know every variable the computer is considering, and provided you know the decision algorithm used by the computer, you would still be unable to predict the decision the computer will make.

Therefore, assuming human beings with our large brains are merely biological, as opposed to silicon, computers, the definition of free will is as follows:
To have “free will,” a person’s decisions must not be constrained by the usual principles of cause and effect that apply to nonhuman computers, such that no ordinary computer with complete knowledge of the human computer and its (name removed by moderator)uts, motives, environment, quirks, and decision-making processes will be able to predict the decisions the human computer will make.

But what could give the decisions of a human mind the property of being indeterminate at all points in time prior to the decision being made? Well, one interpretation of quantum uncertainty holds that quantum systems are indeterminate until disturbed, so if we assume that quantum effects play a role in the brain and decision-making, it could be that this accounts for “free will.” That said, this would presumably reduce one’s decisions to a random probability distribution. Is “random will” equivalent to free will? Not really.

What then remains? Are human decisions caused–and thus constrained and unfree–or are they random? Neither solution amounts to free will as I would understand it. Seeing no other possibilities, I must conclude that humans do not possess free will. For that matter, neither would God himself, or Lucifer.

Suggesting that free will is a nonsensical construct uncomforts most people, because they imagine that no free will implies no moral culpability. I reject that notion, however, but such is a topic for another thread.

 

[tonyrey]

Empirical testability is irrelevant to whether or not you know of your own existence. I know that I exist, I don’t need a scientific test, because its within my immediate knowledge. Its pre-scientific knowledge; just like the fact that we have general knowledge of physical existence before we apply science to it, although self knowledge is more certain. To attempt to ignore this fact, by creating the further illusion that science must have a say first before I can know or express the certain fact that I exist, is a ridiculous joke, and you should know better.

Irrefutable! If we deny we exist we have no basis for any conclusions! Thoughts by themselves are insubstantial in more senses than one…

 

[tonyrey]

Hey! This is my first post, and I find this particular topic very fascinating.

At this point, it seems you’re hung up on the definition of “free will.” Onenow1 offered that free will is “the ability to make a decision.” That’s a prerequisite for having free will, certainly, but not the essence of it.

The computer I’m typing on at this moment has the ability to make rational decisions, just as a human being does, yet no one would say that it has free will. Why is that? It’s because the computer’s decisions strictly follow from the programming and user-provided (name removed by moderator)ut, as effect follows cause. There is no free will for a computer because every decision can be predetermined if one knows the variables that go into making that decision.

So then, to have free will, any decision of the computer would have to be *indeterminate * until made. That is, even if you know every variable the computer is considering, and provided you know the decision algorithm used by the computer, you would still be unable to predict the decision the computer will make.

Therefore, assuming human beings with our large brains are merely biological, as opposed to silicon, computers, the definition of free will is as follows: To have “free will,” a person’s decisions must not be constrained by the usual principles of cause and effect that apply to nonhuman computers, such that no ordinary computer with complete knowledge of the human computer and its (name removed by moderator)uts, motives, environment, quirks, and decision-making processes will be able to predict the decisions the human computer will make. But what could give the decisions of a human mind the property of being indeterminate at all points in time prior to the decision being made? Well, one interpretation of quantum uncertainty holds that quantum systems are indeterminate until disturbed, so if we assume that quantum effects play a role in the brain and decision-making, it could be that this accounts for “free will.” That said, this would presumably reduce one’s decisions to a random probability distribution. Is “random will” equivalent to free will? Not really.

What then remains? Are human decisions caused–and thus constrained and unfree–or are they random? Neither solution amounts to free will as I would understand it. Seeing no other possibilities, I must conclude that humans do not possess free will. For that matter, neither would God himself, or Lucifer.

Suggesting that free will is a nonsensical construct uncomforts most people, because they imagine that no free will implies no moral culpability. I reject that notion, however, but such is a topic for another thread.

A very warm welcome to the forum, Mark! There is another solution - that **we **cause our decisions. We are causes. In other words we are capable of self-determination…

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Take a child who was brought up in a violent environment and who knows nothing about love. Can such a person truly have free will in choosing between evil and love? The same goes for a child who is brought up in a loving family. Can such a child really choose hate when the rewards for love are so great?

Operant conditioning comes into play here. It is well documented that a person will choose whatever they perceive to have the greatest reward, and their environment will dictate which behaviors they perceive to have the greatest reward.

I’m more deterministic, and really feel that the choices we face are predetermined by learning in the environment. Even those behaviors connected with spirituality, are predetermined. Again, it comes down to operant conditioning in which we expect certain choices to have a spiritual reward through the grace of God, hence, we become spiritual.

… my dear friend ,

… my opine ia that the current free will is a punishment and the result of gaining the forbidden knowledge of good and evil by our first parents , we are meant to have true free will which only allows us the freedom in and to love , but we have a world of good and evil now and our wills have been altered so we must choose good or evil , rather than complete freedom within the confines of love , in reality or the garden of eden there is no good or evil or good or evil world or anything , only perfect love ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[exnihilo]

But what could give the decisions of a human mind the property of being indeterminate at all points in time prior to the decision being made? Well, one interpretation of quantum uncertainty holds that quantum systems are indeterminate until disturbed, so if we assume that quantum effects play a role in the brain and decision-making, it could be that this accounts for “free will.” That said, this would presumably reduce one’s decisions to a random probability distribution. Is “random will” equivalent to free will? Not really.

I have to admit to having very little understanding of quantum mechanics. But is indeterminate here not limited to meaning indeterminate from outside given our current knowledge and capabilities? Could it be that what is called indeterminate is so only because we are lacking full knowledge and skills to measure?

Randomness is very interesting. In computers all random numbers are not only predictable but calculable if you know all the (name removed by moderator)uts. Random numbers in computers rely on formulas and data all stored within the computer. To the average person they might seem random but they are not. If you know the formula and (name removed by moderator)uts you can know the output.

Some random number generators rely on human (name removed by moderator)ut such as moving your mouse to generate the random number. Whether this is truly random relies of course on if humans are truly random. There is no reason to think so.

What then remains? Are human decisions caused–and thus constrained and unfree–or are they random? Neither solution amounts to free will as I would understand it. Seeing no other possibilities, I must conclude that humans do not possess free will. For that matter, neither would God himself, or Lucifer.

Randomness often implies that something is not at all predictable. We need to draw a distinction between randomness and predictability. A freely made choice could be predictable. For instance it could be that humans have a truly free choice whether to escape from a burning building. Almost every human in every circumstance who is able will escape from a burning building. This does not imply lack of choice. This suggests that people want to live and understand the dangers of fire.

 

[Luke1983]

No in a sense yes in another.

No in a merely sociological atomistic cause-effect world. Yes and only free will that exists and/or matters believing in God or not.

A homie grown up in a hood has only a couple of choices for him hence aint free will but constrained will. Believing in God or not is pure free will because there is nothing in between you either do or you don’t believe in God those are all the options open. Believing in God maybe means not believing in the first place.

Choices for the homie are:

1. become a pro athlete
2. join a gang
3. be solo and easy prey who knows what will happen next

Options 1 and 3 self exclude if one doesn’t have the innate capabilities for 1) and 3) means having a hell of a life which will exclude itself anyway under those circumstances. Being alone and not affiliated in a gang if you’re in harlem means ending up dead. In one way or another you arre affiliated with someone who is in a gang…

So the option that remains is 2) and that is why most “choose” to be gangstaz. They don’t really have any other choice.

Watch the film the blind side. The options available to the guy were 2 or 3. He chose 3 then thanks to his foster parents he went to 1). But that’s the reason why they made a film out of it in the first place. Because it is something exceptionally great by the part of the foster parents who gave him the possibility of having 1) he went to college on a scholarship and only for playing ball. Otherwise he wouldn’t have ended in the nfl but probably scrubbing dishes. Without it being his fault either considering the environment.

Hence I don’t really believe in free will when it comes to sociological decisions. If all people had the opportunity and hence real free will to become rockstars, pro athletes or moviestars I think no one would work!.. Miners don’t work in mines cos they like it! But because its either that, stealing or begging to put food on the table. Hence already constrained will and not totally free.

 

[exnihilo]

A homie grown up in a hood has only a couple of choices for him hence aint free will but constrained will.

According to your standard only God could be free because only God has the power to do anything. Humans are limited by their nature and circumstance. Being a male I can not have children but that is not due to a lack of free will but my nature. Having choice is all free will requires. It does not require we can actually accomplish anything we want to.

Your definition of free will makes it more like magic. You are essentially saying that unless you are a magician, or God, you cant have free will. But there is nothing to indicate this is so. Yes, some choices are harder to make in terms of the worldly consequences. But your definition has absorbed the idea that material success is the greatest good. You seem to be saying one is only free if they can achieve material success through sheer will. That is not what people mean when they talk about free will.

 

[wanstronian]

Empirical testability is irrelevant to whether or not you know of your own existence. I know that I exist, I don’t need a scientific test, because its within my immediate knowledge. Its pre-scientific knowledge; just like the fact that we have general knowledge of physical existence before we apply science to it, although self knowledge is more certain. To attempt to ignore this fact, by creating the further illusion that science must have a say first before I can know or express the certain fact that I exist, is a ridiculous joke, and you should know better.

I am my body - a physical object. The existence of a physical object is an empirically testable proposition. My consciousness may be self-evident - but only to me. I know that I exist, you know that you exist. However, you cannot know that your choices are freely made, you can only observe that it seems that way to you… but the evidence is against you.

There is no empirical evidence of free will. No evidence that any particular apparent choice could have been made any other way - just retrospective analysis of the apparent options. Nobody has ever been able to show where this “free will” might come from. No evidence exists that thoughts and “choices” arise from anywhere other than our physical body. “Choices” can be influenced by chemical and physical manipulations of our brain, and neurological experiments have shown that “decisions” are made in our brain well in advance of our feeling that we’ve made a choice.

 

[wanstronian]

You are right about a strict definition of self-evidence. But I dont see how you can say that there is no evidence for free will. I experience deliberation and choosing. Every other person I’ve talked to that does not have a mental defect has also had the same experience. That is most certainly evidence. I guess it could all be an illusion but not a single sane person acts as if that is the case.

You certainly experience the appearance of deliberation and choosing, as do I. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that this is anything other than a delusion. Of course that doesn’t mean that we should just sit here in an infinite loop of self-doubt - just because free will is just an illusion it doesn’t mean we don’t act on those apparent choices, nor does it mean that those apparent choices aren’t actually good choices. It just means that, ultimately, these apparent choices are a deterministic output of the physical reality of the universe - of which we ourselves are part, of course.

 

[Y2K]

You are all mistaken.

exposingchristianity.com/

 

[tonyrey]

It just means that, ultimately, these apparent choices are a deterministic output of the physical reality of the universe - of which we ourselves are part, of course.

If the choices we make are predetermined we have no choice whatsoever! In other words we are neither responsible nor rational. It is extremely improbable that cogs in a machine will arrive at the truth because there are countless ways of missing the goal but only one correct solution!

 

[fisherman_carl]

Yes, we have free will. I can choose to drive on the left side of the road or the right side of the road. But the consequences will not be the same.

On a lighter note, when I first read your title I thought it said, “Does free willy truly exist?”

 

[onenow1]

Yes, we have free will. I can choose to drive on the left side of the road or the right side of the road. But the consequences will not be the same.

On a lighter note, when I first read your title I thought it said, “Does free willy truly exist?”

Perfect,Carl ! In Eden, God gave the command, not to eat of a certain tree, He did not say, you can’t; as a matter of fact, God implies we are able to disobey His command,and must be willing to take the consequences, without freedom of will a command would be unnecessary. So yes right from the get go we are free, even as Eve decided to disobey; the same goes today we can disobey God, as he shows us throughout the scriptures; or disobey and suffer the Eternal consequences . I hope this makes sense !

God Bless

 

[Spirithound]

There is no empirical evidence to support the existence of free will.

How would one develop a falsifiable experiment regarding free will?

<<weee!! 5000 posts!!>>

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

I think the notion that because free will is not empirically verifiable and therefore we shouldn’t believe we have free will is question begging. It assumes that the only things that we should believe, the only true things, are things that can be empirically verified… which I don’t accept.

Of course we have free-will, although there are many many influences on our choices. There are influences like age, temperament, and natural talent. All of these play a role in how we choose and respond to certain situations. Someone good at math and clumsy with a hammer is more likely to become an engineer than a construction worker. A teenager might willfully choose what is contrary to their parent’s expectations in order to be rebellious or a toddler might sporadically grab a shiny object in front of them. These influences don’t PROVE that the person didn’t have a choice in the matter. Family upbringing is another strong influence on choice, but again nobody can really be reduced to nothing more than a product of their upbringing. There are always stories of people growing up in bad neighborhoods in poor circumstances rising above their natural environment. There are also people who grow up in good circumstances with good moral examples who turn out to live reprehensible lives. Prevailing fashion trends, popular ideologies, and other social influences also play a large role in how people choose their lives but this doesn’t mean that people are unfree in what they believe or what kind of music they like. Unfree human actions are things like perspiration, digestion, and respiration not falling in love, playing basketball, or debating free will.

Since many who don’t believe we have free will are ready to admit that “it certainly seems as if we do” or “free choice is nothing more than an illusion”, I say that the free-will position is the default, the normal position and it is up to somebody to prove otherwise. After all I almost didn’t respond to this thread. I certainly didn’t have to. Why did I respond to this thread rather than the other 3 I’m keeping up with? Just because I drink coffee every morning and I’ve created a disposition for coffee which will give me a headache if I don’t get my coffee in the morning, doesn’t mean that every time I wake up and drink coffee I’m not freely-choosing to do so. For instance, I gave up coffee for lent a few years ago in spite of coffee headaches. I think that the case of overcoming drug addiction strongly suggests that we have free will. It takes a lot more than determinism to give up the bottle or the pipe. It takes a rational free-choosing person. Or how about a relationship? The man has bad habits and the girl wants the man to change, if he doesn’t change then she’s going to leave. CERTAINLY the girl is assuming that the man has the choice to change, that if he so chooses he can change his behavior and he is more than an organism with a fixed set of behavioral patterns.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

continued…

I would say that the most obvious objection to having no free will is the case of morality. Morality assumes that humans are 1. )voluntary and 2) Knowledgeable. If we didn’t know the act was wrong then we can’t be held accountable for it (or at least we’re much less culpable). If we didn’t have any choice in the matter, then it isn’t something we should be punished for anymore than a row of falling dominoes should be punished. If we don’t have the choice of performing actions other than what we performed, then we shouldn’t be held responsible anymore than particle A should be held responsible for bumping into Particle B.

What is the difference between a tree falling on somebody’s house and killing them in a hurricane and a person who deliberately chops down a tree next to your bedroom with the intention of the tree falling down and killing you? The falling tree in a hurricane is just following the laws of nature and gravity while the person who chops down the tree so that it falls on you has the added variables of an intellect and a will. If we didn’t have free will then there would be no difference between these 2 cases. If we didn’t have free will then both cases would be the inevitable result of a determined universe with fixed physical laws.

If we didn’t have the choice to choose otherwise, then it is absurd to try and sway people to act “morally” and punish people who have acted “immorally”. I think that it is much easier to deny free will in theory than in practice. Countless day to day experience attest to this fact. I think of an employee getting fired because he continually shuts down the pizza shop 20 minutes early every night. Or the bad friend who promised to help his friend move early the next morning but decided to go out to the bar till 4 am and over slept because of that choice. Whether you’re the employer or the friend who needed help, it would be absolutely ridiculous to fire the employee or get mad at the bad friend for the very fact that THIS IS JUST THE WAY THE UNIVERSE HAPPENED TO HAVE TREATED YOU and the party’s “responsible” had no choice in the matter. The physical laws of the universe just so happened to determine the way these events unfolded and any attempt to be mad at the “guilty” persons would be just as absurd as getting mad at gravity for causing objects to fall to the ground or getting mad at light for reflecting or getting mad at triangles for having a sum total of angles that add up to 180 degrees.

 

[hazcompat]

yes, free will exists. I keep trying to give it back. It just gets me in trouble,

peace

 

[exnihilo]

You certainly experience the appearance of deliberation and choosing, as do I. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that this is anything other than a delusion.

No, the evidence is our experience. You could say the evidence is not compelling, but it is evidence. I think the evidence is very compelling. What is even more compelling is that no one who disclaims free will lives as if they believe it. If someone breaks into a deniers car and the culprit is apprehended the denier isn’t going to say:

‘All is forgiven and dont give me back what you stole. You couldn’t help it. You were ordained since time began to do this’.

 

[jsaldar]

I believe free will exists.

When we decide to do something we always think of the ramifications of our actions before we even do whatever it is that we are about to do.

For example, when we wake up we have been conditioned to go to work, school or whatever. One day we can wake up and decide not to go to work, school etc… even though we have been conditioned to do so. We think about the results of not going and weigh them, then we make that decision. If we didn’t have free will we would be like robots. Everybody would do what was conditioned (programmed) for them to do.