Does free will truly exist?

[tonyrey]

The absence of free will has zero impact on the way we live our lives.

 

[exnihilo]

If you take the entirely reasonable view that concepts are contained within the processing of the brain, and furthermore that, as all available evidence suggests, the processing of the brain is entirely a physical process, then concepts are the result of physical processes, and are maintained by physical processes. Just because you can’t pick up a concept and put it in your pocket, that doesn’t mean that it’s not a product of physics.

Concepts are not at all possible in a material world. There is not categorization apart from a rational mind. A computer will not develop concepts.

The absence of free will has zero impact on the way we live our lives. It doesn’t mean we have no sense of moral outrage; it doesn’t mean we can’t believe in and strive for justice; it doesn’t even mean we shouldn’t attempt to make choices. Just because free will is most likely an illusion, that doesn’t mean that the illusion doesn’t work for us. The realisation that free will is an illusion doesn’t stop us from acting as though it were real - in fact we have no choice, ironically.

We could still have moral outrage because even though denying free will we would still experience the reality of it. If free will is an illusion then it would seem that everything is an illusion. Why would you trust your brain if it gives you the false sense of choice? Denying free will is denying all other human experience as being real.

People operated for millenia under the illusion that the sun revolved around the earth, with no impact on their day-to-day lives. Why? Because ultimately, it made no difference. In the daily lives of 99% of us, it still doesn’t. We still call it sunset and sunrise - geo-centric terms if ever I heard any. Why? Because the model works. Even though we know that it’s an illusion, it’s still a working model. The illusion of free will is the same. Even though it’s an illusion, it doesn’t affect how we live our lives. I can still perceive that I’ve made a decision, even though ultimately I had no real choice.

We can certainly continue to operate just fine if people deny free will and deny the consequences of their claim. Again, no one wants to deny the consequences. They still want to use words like justice and right and wrong and even beauty when such words would have no meaning in the world they claim exists.

• We have evidence that the brain is a physical entity.
• We have evidence that the brain is responsible for consciousness, emotion, thought, understanding, and so on, because we can see that the functioning of the brain can be altered chemically or by damage (physical influences, in other words), and that these alterations can manifest changes to consciousness, emotion, thought, understanding, and so on. In fact, we can broadly predict which effects will be caused by which alteration.
• We have no evidence whatsoever that there is any interaction between the brain and any non-physical phenomenon.

So if the brain is a physical entity, operating under the laws of physics and influenced only by physical phenomena, and if physics is deterministic, then there can be no free will.

Add to this, recent experiment in neuroscience have shown that a “decision” is made in the brain before the subject is even aware of having made this “decision.”

We know that the brain and mental activity are very closely linked. We know that the brain shows change when we think something the same as our hand moves when we will it to move. We know that chemicals, surgery, and stimulation can affect our mental activity. But that is not proof of that the mind does not exist.

We have plenty of evidence that the mind interacts with non physical things in that we experience choice and we have abstract ideas like geometric forms, justice, morality, and beauty. If the mind were purely physical it could not cogitate on these abstract metaphysical ideas. The imagination is more proof of the minds metaphysical nature. The imagination is able to cogitate on things that dont exist in the real world.

The problem you have is that by denying will and the metaphysical nature of the mind you have cut down the very science you believe destroys the mind. If there is no rational mind there is no logic by which to demonstrate anything you claim. If my mind is just an illusion then all that I think must be questioned and is just as likely to be an illusion as the will. In short if what you say is true I have no reason to believe any of your claims.

 

[tonyrey]

Concepts are not at all possible in a material world. There is not categorization apart from a rational mind. A computer will not develop concepts.

We could still have moral outrage because even though denying free will we would still experience the reality of it. If free will is an illusion then it would seem that everything is an illusion. Why would you trust your brain if it gives you the false sense of choice? Denying free will is denying all other human experience as being real.

We can certainly continue to operate just fine if people deny free will and deny the consequences of their claim. Again, no one wants to deny the consequences. They still want to use words like justice and right and wrong and even beauty when such words would have no meaning in the world they claim exists.

We know that the brain and mental activity are very closely linked. We know that the brain shows change when we think something the same as our hand moves when we will it to move. We know that chemicals, surgery, and stimulation can affect our mental activity. But that is not proof of that the mind does not exist.

We have plenty of evidence that the mind interacts with non physical things in that we experience choice and we have abstract ideas like geometric forms, justice, morality, and beauty. If the mind were purely physical it could not cogitate on these abstract metaphysical ideas. The imagination is more proof of the minds metaphysical nature. The imagination is able to cogitate on things that dont exist in the real world.

The problem you have is that by denying will and the metaphysical nature of the mind you have cut down the very science you believe destroys the mind. If there is no rational mind there is no logic by which to demonstrate anything you claim. If my mind is just an illusion then all that I think must be questioned and is just as likely to be an illusion as the will. In short if what you say is true I have no reason to believe any of your claims.

Bravissimo! An excellent refutation of materialism.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Concepts are not at all possible in a material world. There is not categorization apart from a rational mind. A computer will not develop concepts.

We could still have moral outrage because even though denying free will we would still experience the reality of it. If free will is an illusion then it would seem that everything is an illusion. Why would you trust your brain if it gives you the false sense of choice? Denying free will is denying all other human experience as being real.

We can certainly continue to operate just fine if people deny free will and deny the consequences of their claim. Again, no one wants to deny the consequences. They still want to use words like justice and right and wrong and even beauty when such words would have no meaning in the world they claim exists.

We know that the brain and mental activity are very closely linked. We know that the brain shows change when we think something the same as our hand moves when we will it to move. We know that chemicals, surgery, and stimulation can affect our mental activity. But that is not proof of that the mind does not exist.

We have plenty of evidence that the mind interacts with non physical things in that we experience choice and we have abstract ideas like geometric forms, justice, morality, and beauty. If the mind were purely physical it could not cogitate on these abstract metaphysical ideas. The imagination is more proof of the minds metaphysical nature. The imagination is able to cogitate on things that dont exist in the real world.

The problem you have is that by denying will and the metaphysical nature of the mind you have cut down the very science you believe destroys the mind. If there is no rational mind there is no logic by which to demonstrate anything you claim. If my mind is just an illusion then all that I think must be questioned and is just as likely to be an illusion as the will. In short if what you say is true I have no reason to believe any of your claims.

Well done!!! I could not have said it better my self; which makes it pretty darn good.

 

[exnihilo]

Bravissimo! An excellent refutation of materialism.

Thank you. And some fine posts in this thread by you as well!

Well done!!! I could not have said it better my self; which makes it pretty darn good.

Thank you. Also some good posts by you in this thread.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I don’t think the issue is back and white, either we free to choose or not, but to what degree are we free to choose. So much of our choices in free will are predetermined from our environment and unconscious. On the other hand, there exists certain critical moments were we have a free choice in conscience. In Freudian terminology, this is when the ego is free to choose between the superego and the id. Choices consistent with the superego leads to an increased in ego development.

 

[exnihilo]

I don’t think the issue is back and white, either we free to choose or not, but to what degree are we free to choose. So much of our choices in free will are predetermined from our environment and unconscious. On the other hand, there exists certain critical moments were we have a free choice in conscience. In Freudian terminology, this is when the ego is free to choose between the superego and the id. Choices consistent with the superego leads to an increased in ego development.

I disagree. The ability to choose is absolute. What you are saying is that our desire for comfort, our experience, our education, and our consciousness play a role in this choice. This is no different than saying that our sight plays a role in our choice. These are all (name removed by moderator)uts to our facility of choice.

I have red-green colorblindness. If you asked me to choose something based on the color red I might well fail. That does not mean I cant choose it just means I am limited in ability.

The Scripture speaks of seering a consciousness. The more bad decisions you make the easier it is to make other bad decisions. The same is true for the opposite. The consciousness is like most other aspects of our human nature in that it can be built up or destroyed. But along the way real choices are being made otherwise no one could ever reverse the course they are on.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The ability to choose is absolute.

What about the spiritual reflexes of the unconscious? Surly there exist an unconscious that limits our free will. In this sense we are obligated (through a reflex) to do the will of God or Satan, depending on who has control of our unconscious at a particular moment in time. What I’m talking about here goes beyond thoughts and reflect critical moments of stress.

Free will also limited in thought. A child who grows up in a violent environment does not have LOVE in their repertoire of thoughts, and as such are not always free to choose between love and hate. This type of limited free will is especially limiting during critical moments of mental stress.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Excellent post # 60 indeed, Exnihilo. Perhaps you might enjoy what I wrote on the issue:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/naturalism_is_true.htm

 

[Robert_Sock]

The ability to choose is absolute.

Think here too about “instinctive” behaviors that bypass the thought process. Crowd psychology is but one example where people will instinctively go along with a crowd without really engaging in the thought process.

One example of where free will is not absolute and we must conclude that free will is limited.

 

[wanstronian]

What facts about the universe? We’re not talking about the Law of Inertia here. Even if we are ruled by our instincts, human choice (or “choice,” if you prefer) is in no way analogous to any series of physical cause-and-effect occurrences.

When I ask you to lay out for me the equation that causes one person’s “choice” and then ask why other people in similar situations “choose” a different action, you’ve got nothing other than your own black box. Therefore, your conclusions are also inexplicable, have undetectable (and therefore sourceless) factors, your own missing evidence.

I’m talking about the fact that my opinion requires no supernatural intervention. Yours clearly does - or where do you suppose free will comes from?

I prefer to stand with another poster who said that he has the experience of making a choice. I have the experience of phenomena that I have not chosen, even phenomena very intimate to myself: I do not choose to make my heart beat, I do not make the choice to breathe (most of the time). However, I do have the experience of making a choice, and I have the experience of it being very difficult, on occasion. If my choices were predetermined, this should not be an experience of mine.

Well, you have the perception of this experience. The same as we have the perceptionthat the sun goes around the earth. The only difference is we know (well, most of us) that this perception is false.

I’m not aware of any explanation of where free will comes from, if not from within our brains. If it comes from within our brains then it is a physical process, therefore deterministic, as far as we can tell.

 

[wanstronian]

That is clearly false because fatalism is a fact of life. When people believe they cannot change something - like corruption - they make no effort to do so.

You continue to demonstrate that you don’t get this at all. There is a difference between watching decisions being made, and the experience of making those decisions. I don’t claim that we don’t make decisions, I just claim that there is no choice about which decision we make.

You are jumping the gun! If we didn’t have free will it is extremely improbable that we would even be aware of the fact.

Your rationale for this statement is…?

Heliocentrism doesn’t affect the way we live because it is not related to the way we regard ourselves.

The difference being what, exactly? The point is that the model works, so we use it, successfully. That the model is wrong doesn’t actually matter to our everyday lives.

The evidence simply shows that the brain is the instrument with which the mind expresses itself and controls the brain. It is a lump of tissue which doesn’t even know it exists!

1. Do you regard truth as a physical phenomenon?
2. If so explain what it is.

It is an abstract concept held within the mind. The mind is a physical entity, as far as we know.

Therefore “truth” is a product of physical processes. Like everything.

1. If not explain how a lump of tissue can grasp an abstract concept.

Well, I don’t know how, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. It seems you’re reverting to type here again, demanding precise and intricate detail for any theory which you personally reject, knowing that such detail doesn’t exist; while simultaneously believing in supernatural jiggery-pokery for which ZERO evidence exists. Really, you should try to at least be consistent!

The decision is not made in the brain at all!

No? Where then? Please provide evidence - tell you what, provide an explanation to the level of precision you demand of others. That should be good for a laugh.

Nor do we have any idea of the way in which the mind is related to the brain.

Depends what you mean. The mind is the product of the brain’s processes. From that perspective, the relationship is quite clear. The mind is not a separate entity. This has been shown beyond reasonable doubt

If you reject the reality of the mind and its decisions “you” - as I have pointed out - do not exist. Nor does consciousness. There is just a network of minute electrical impulses which have no reference to anything beyond themselves.

And this network constitutes “me.” What you’re saying is like saying, “Rocks don’t exist. There is just a structure of atoms which have no reference to anything beyond themselves.” If you deny the fact that superstructure can come about from the conglomeration of substructures, then you’re simply denying reams of evidence. In which case there’s not a lot of point talking to you!

 

[wanstronian]

Concepts are not at all possible in a material world. There is not categorization apart from a rational mind. A computer will not develop concepts.

Concepts are not at all possible in a material world? What a silly notion! Why ever not?

We could still have moral outrage because even though denying free will we would still experience the reality of it. If free will is an illusion then it would seem that everything is an illusion. Why would you trust your brain if it gives you the false sense of choice? Denying free will is denying all other human experience as being real.

Why trust the brain? Well, for a start, what choice do we have? Secondly, as I have stated again and again, an absence of free will does not equate to random insane behaviour. Our brains aren’t suddenly going to tell us all to go jump off the nearest cliff. The brain is a generally trustworthy instrument.

We can certainly continue to operate just fine if people deny free will and deny the consequences of their claim. Again, no one wants to deny the consequences. They still want to use words like justice and right and wrong and even beauty when such words would have no meaning in the world they claim exists.

Jeez, why are you guys having so much trouble understanding this stuff? Justice, and right and wrong are still perfectly valid words in a world with no free will. Our sense of right and wrong have evolved - literally and metaphorically - and are passed from generation to generation. Call them memes if it’s a familiar word. But they are influences on the brain of the recipient, just as the promise of punishment and reward are influencing factors on the decision being taken.

We know that the brain and mental activity are very closely linked. We know that the brain shows change when we think something the same as our hand moves when we will it to move. We know that chemicals, surgery, and stimulation can affect our mental activity. But that is not proof of that the mind does not exist.

No, but there’s no proof that the mind does exist, other than as a direct result of the process of the brain. So unless you want to introduce an entirely unnecessary complication (and for what reason, other than to try and justify your own opinion?), then it makes sense to assume the most efficient and evidential position.

You know, I might be wrong about all this. I don’t know for sure. But until someone can show me evidence not only that the supernatural exists, but also that it provides a better explanation than the natural, I’ll stick to the latter.

We have plenty of evidence that the mind interacts with non physical things in that we experience choice and we have abstract ideas like geometric forms, justice, morality, and beauty. If the mind were purely physical it could not cogitate on these abstract metaphysical ideas.

Echoes of Tony’s assertion here. Why not?

The imagination is more proof of the minds metaphysical nature. The imagination is able to cogitate on things that dont exist in the real world.

That proves nothing! Give me one example, and I’ll give you a set of real-world items that contribute towards the concept you provide.

The problem you have is that by denying will and the metaphysical nature of the mind you have cut down the very science you believe destroys the mind. If there is no rational mind there is no logic by which to demonstrate anything you claim. If my mind is just an illusion then all that I think must be questioned and is just as likely to be an illusion as the will. In short if what you say is true I have no reason to believe any of your claims.

Well, this is a very poor argument, and I’ve addressed it already. I don’t know why you guys are still making it.

But you got one thing right - you have no reason to believe any of my claims. Unless you value science. If you don’t, then you can go right ahead believing any old nonsense you like.

 

[wanstronian]

Bravissimo! An excellent refutation of materialism.

You’d like to think so! But unfortunately, it’s built on false - or at least baseless - premises, and so the conclusions are unsafe.

 

[wanstronian]

Thank you. And some fine posts in this thread by you as well!

Thank you. Also some good posts by you in this thread.

Get a room…!!

 

[exnihilo]

What about the spiritual reflexes of the unconscious? Surly there exist an unconscious that limits our free will. In this sense we are obligated (through a reflex) to do the will of God or Satan, depending on who has control of our unconscious at a particular moment in time. What I’m talking about here goes beyond thoughts and reflect critical moments of stress.

If we had no will then we could not change behavior. Yes, we do tend to act reflexively sometimes. But we can condition these reflexes. That is the reason for training for physical activity. But you can also train your mind. Mental training is often as much a part as physical training for stressful situations like sports, the military, police work etc.

Free will also limited in thought. A child who grows up in a violent environment does not have LOVE in their repertoire of thoughts, and as such are not always free to choose between love and hate. This type of limited free will is especially limiting during critical moments of mental stress.

I wouldn’t say a child in such an environment does not have love. They have an imperfect love. But we all experience imperfect love from our fellow man. Only God shows perfect love. While a child’s environment might expose him to deficient love that does not mean he never experiences love. It also does not mean he can not understand the idea.

 

[exnihilo]

Concepts are not at all possible in a material world? What a silly notion! Why ever not?

Concepts require a rational mind. Concepts are abstract. No non-human creature has ever demonstrated the capacity for abstract thought. Abstract thinking involves thinking about that which is immaterial. So without immaterial things there are no concepts.

Why trust the brain? Well, for a start, what choice do we have? Secondly, as I have stated again and again, an absence of free will does not equate to random insane behaviour. Our brains aren’t suddenly going to tell us all to go jump off the nearest cliff. The brain is a generally trustworthy instrument.

Indeed, what choice do we have. Without choice we can not judge things as true or false since there is no thinking going on. There is only predestined chemical reactions. Having a good argument relies on a rational mind understanding the argument and judging its merit. If all we do when considering an argument is respond based on a chemical necessity then we are not truly considering the argument.

Our sense of right and wrong have evolved - literally and metaphorically - and are passed from generation to generation. Call them memes if it’s a familiar word. But they are influences on the brain of the recipient, just as the promise of punishment and reward are influencing factors on the decision being taken.

I’d like to know what evidence you have of this claim? And what do you mean by evolved here? I certainly agree that over time some ideas concerning morality can change. But how do you know they evolved? Or by evolved do you simply mean changes slightly. What mechanism causes them to change over time in your material world?

No, but there’s no proof that the mind does exist, other than as a direct result of the process of the brain. So unless you want to introduce an entirely unnecessary complication (and for what reason, other than to try and justify your own opinion?), then it makes sense to assume the most efficient and evidential position.

There is evidence the mind exists. That evidence is our experience. It is really that simple. You dont seem to understand that implications for asserting that one of our most basic experiences is a fraud.

That proves nothing! Give me one example, and I’ll give you a set of real-world items that contribute towards the concept you provide.

Proves nothing? So the ability to think about things you have never directly experienced is meaningless? That seems to me the root of human creativity and invention.

Well, this is a very poor argument, and I’ve addressed it already. I don’t know why you guys are still making it.

Actually its a very solid argument and there is no way to argue against it. But you can certainly just dismiss it.

But you got one thing right - you have no reason to believe any of my claims. Unless you value science. If you don’t, then you can go right ahead believing any old nonsense you like.

Well prove to me science using science (hint, you cant). And then prove to me why science isn’t another illusion of my brain that seems to want to trick me by having my consciousness think that it is making thousands of choices during the day when that is not so.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Yes, we do tend to act reflexively sometimes. But we can condition these reflexes.

Thanks for addressing my post!

To the degree we sometimes have reflective behavior we must conclude that free will is limited.

Where we may disagree is the frequency of these reflective behaviors. I content that they happed more frequently than not. For example, snapping back in ager when somebody angers us. Yes, we can sometimes condition these behaviors so that another behavior becomes instinctive, such as acting in kindness when somebody angers us, but the reflex remains in control, and again, we must conclude that free will is limited, and not absolute.

 

[exnihilo]

To the degree we sometimes have reflective behavior we must conclude that free will is limited.

Where we may disagree is the frequency of these reflective behaviors. I content that they happed more frequently than not. For example, snapping back in ager when somebody angers us. Yes, we can sometimes condition these behaviors so that another behavior becomes instinctive, such as acting in kindness when somebody angers us, but the reflex remains in control, and again, we must conclude that free will is limited, and not absolute.

I’d not be willing to conclude that. Consider breathing. Most of the time our breathing is automatic. It occurs without us consciously thinking about it. At the same time we can control our breathing through conscious thought. That our minds can control some activity that most often occurs without thinking is evidence of the great power of our mind.

Reacting with anger could be like breathing. Most of the time we reflexively react but we can always control that. We are really always choosing to allow the reflex rather than control it. Thus we always are exercising our will when we allow the reflex.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I’d not be willing to conclude that. Consider breathing. Most of the time our breathing is automatic. It occurs without us consciously thinking about it. At the same time we can control our breathing through conscious thought. That our minds can control some activity that most often occurs without thinking is evidence of the great power of our mind.

Reacting with anger could be like breathing. Most of the time we reflexively react but we can always control that. We are really always choosing to allow the reflex rather than control it. Thus we always are exercising our will when we allow the reflex.

I guess we’re both free to think our own ways on free will. I would encourage anyone reading this to consider the unconscious antecedents to free will, which causes limitations of choices. Unconscious reflexes are beyond the control of our conscious efforts!