Does free will truly exist?

[Rachel_Malloy]

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone to keep their posts charitable and free from personal attacks and name calling.

God bless-

Rachel

 

[wanstronian]

If we have no choice we are not responsible for the decision.

That’s true in an absolute sense, but it is still rational to hold people accountable for their decisions. The threat of punishment and/or the promise of reward are valid (name removed by moderator)uts into the decision process. Why am I having to repeat myself?

We wouldn’t be able to choose what to think or what conclusions to draw…

We can’t choose what to think anyway - that’s a demonstrable fact.

It matters because we live **according to **the way we regard ourselves. If we think we have no choice we make no effort to force ourselves to act in any particular way. We just let ourselves be carried along by our inclinations - hoping for the best…

Not at all. You’re seeing a lack of free will as equivalent to not making decisions. The two are not the same thing at all. Again I’m repeating myself - this isn’t difficult to understand, so I wonder whether you’re deliberately failing to grasp it because you have no rebuttal to my actual argument. Either way, you’re arguing against a straw man.

How is it “held”? How can a material brain “hold” an abstract concept? With its electricity?

I’m not sure that the exact mechanism is known. If you play true to your previous form, you’ll doubtless see this as a reason to completely reject the theory, as you hold others to a far higher degree of explanatory precision than you can offer for your own point of view. Why are you so scared of, “I don’t know?”

As far as **you **assume…

No - as far as we (meaning humans) know. You may think you know otherwise, but you are unable to provide the slightest evidence. You conflate belief with knowledge, where your own opinion is concerned.

Then we should able to locate it and observe it. Where is it? What does it look like?

It looks like a brain, and it’s in our heads. It’s easily observed, chuntering away processing our thoughts and feelings.

You’re reverting to type here again by making a virtue out of ignorance!

It is a virtue - the virtue of honesty - to admit that one does not know, when one does not or cannot know. By contrast, it is a vice - the vice of smug arrogance - to pretend to know what cannot be known. Which is what you appear to be doing.

There is ZERO evidence for your natural jiggery-pokery because all evidence whatsoever exists in your mind as the result of inference from - and interpretation of - what you perceive. The only certainties are your thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions - which your mind inconsistently relegates to electrical activity inside the skull you inconsistently call “yours” because according to “your” hypothesis there is no “you”, just a body…

There is billions of tons of evidence for the natural world - none whatsoever for any supernatural phenomena. You can keep throwing that old “evidence is in your mind” fallacy out for all you’re worth, but it’s just a crock and I think you know it.

The decision is made by your intangible mind of which are directly and precisely aware, whether you admit it or not. I shall roar with laughter if you dare proclaim yourself a mindless body!

No, I don’t proclaim that. The mind is the result of the physical process of the brain.

Can I remind you that I asked for evidence, not baseless assertion? You’ve given me plenty of the latter, none whatsoever of the former. Do you have evidence? Or do you consider that your arbitrary opinion equates to fact? Talk about roaring with laughter!

In your intangible imagination!

I assume from that worthless comment that you have no actual rebuttal. I’m not surprised.

By whom? When? Where? How?

By neuroscientists the world over. Wake up man, science is popping yet another one of your superstitious bubbles!

Are you comparing yourself to a rock? That explains a great deal!

In the sense that both I and a rock are composed of physical matter, then yes. You’re clearly far happier resorting to childish taunts than providing a single iota of worthwhile (name removed by moderator)ut. It was ever thus, as far as I can remember.

There’s not the slightest point in discussing the matter with you if you’re convinced a rock is in the same category as a person. Your argument is worthless if that is the best analogy you can offer. You have succeeded beyond your wildest dreams - in destroying the rational foundation of your arguments by eliminating yourself in favour of an atomic superstructure of atoms which have no control over, or understanding of, what they are doing…

Atomic autonomy is a comic metonymy! Or a moron’s oxymoron…

Fine - if you have no rebuttal (and clearly you don’t otherwise you would have presented it by now), I acknowledge your ungracious withdrawal from the discussion.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

That’s true in an absolute sense, but it is still rational to hold people accountable for their decisions.

Why is it still rational to hold people accountable for actions they had no control over? What do you mean by holding them accountable and what is “it” that will judge them if in fact nobody has the freewill to rationalize?

The threat of punishment and/or the promise of reward are valid (name removed by moderator)uts into the decision process. Why am I having to repeat myself?

What meaning or relevance can such ideas have in a world where everybody acts purely out of impulse rather than rational freedom? I have no freedom to recognize, appreciate, or avoid the consequences of my bodies actions.

Why am I having to repeat myself?

Because what you are saying doesn’t make any logical sense; as usual.

We can’t choose what to think anyway - that’s a demonstrable fact.

That depends on what is meant by choosing what to think. Well this seems to contradict everything you have just said, even though you have not and neither has anybody demonstrated that we have no freewill over what thoughts we entertain.

Not at all. You’re seeing a lack of free will as equivalent to not making decisions.

If there is no freewill, then there is no rational decision maker. The concept of human rational decision making becomes meaningless without the freedom to make decisions, accept in a purely analogous sense. If there is no freewill, then there are only actions, not rational decisions.

 

[wanstronian]

Why is it still rational to hold people accountable for actions they had no control over? What do you mean by holding them accountable and what is “it” that will judge them if in fact nobody has the freewill to rationalize?

It is still rational because, as I’ve said several times in this thread, the threat of punishment is a valid environmental factor that affects the processing of the brain. Therefore it is instrumental in the decision being made by the brain. If the individual was no longer held accountable, then this would no longer be a factor.

Let me make this absolutely clear, because you all seem to be having trouble grasping this very simple concept:

The brain is not a sealed system. It takes its (name removed by moderator)uts from its environment. Any environmental factor has the potential to affect the neurons within the brain, therefore influencing its processes. Experience, threat of punishment, promise of reward etc. - they’re all valid influencers.

I genuinely don’t get why none of you can understand this - presumably you understand the principles of physical cause and effect? So why can you not see how it applies here also?

What meaning or relevance can such ideas have in a world where everybody acts purely out of impulse rather than rational freedom? I have no freedom to recognize, appreciate, or avoid the consequences of my bodies actions.

I haven’t said that everybody acts purely out of impulse. Nor have I said that you don’t have the ability to recognise consequence. You’re straw-manning (again). Stop being disingenuous please.

Because what you are saying doesn’t make any logical sense; as usual.

It does, it’s just that you’re refusing to consider it because it seems to you like you have free will. As long as you put your own opinion above the findings of science, then you’ll never be rational enough to understand these concepts, let alone argue them effectively.

That depends on what is meant by choosing what to think. Well this seems to contradict everything you have just said, even though you have not and neither has anybody demonstrated that we have no freewill over what thoughts we entertain.

Well, the classic example is, “Don’t think of a pink elephant.” You can’t help yourself briefly thinking about it. A more robust challenge would be, “Think that your wife is called Mike.” If you can choose what to think, then this should be no problem for you. Let me know how you get on.

What we think is a result of our experiences and observations of our environment, interpreted according to the way our brain sees the world. Your belief in the supernatural allows you to believe that you have free will, because it allows you to reject the most efficient worldview - that of materialism - in favour of a less efficient and baseless one. Therefore you believe in a mechanism that allows us to override the chemical and physical processes of our brain… although you appear to be unable to prove the existence of, or even identify, such a mechanism.

If there is no freewill, then there is no rational decision maker. The concept of human rational decision making becomes meaningless without the freedom to make decisions, accept in a purely analogous sense. If there is no freewill, then there are only actions, not rational decisions.

This is not the case. The lack of free will does not preclude rational decisions. You haven’t been paying attention, or you just don’t want to understand; I don’t know which.

 

[tonyrey]

If we have no choice we are not responsible for the decision.

It is not rational because according to you everyone is compelled to act as they do by physical causes.

We can’t choose what to think anyway - that’s a demonstrable fact.

So you can’t choose your conclusions?

It matters because we live according to the way we regard ourselves. If we think we have no choice we make no effort to force ourselves to act in any particular way. We just let ourselves be carried along by our inclinations - hoping for the best…

Not at all. You’re seeing a lack of free will as equivalent to not making decisions. The two are not the same thing at all.

Decisions which have physical causes are not **our **decisions.

How can a material brain “hold” an abstract concept?

I’m not sure that the exact mechanism is known.

I’m absolutely sure. Otherwise it would be in the headlines!

You may think you know otherwise, but you are unable to provide the slightest evidence. You conflate belief with knowledge, where your own opinion is concerned.

Ditto.

Then we should able to locate it and observe it. Where is it? What does it look like?

It looks like a brain, and it’s in our heads. It’s easily observed, chuntering away processing our thoughts and feelings.

Is this an opinion or a fact?

It is a virtue - the virtue of honesty - to admit that one does not know, when one does not or cannot know.

Then admit you don’t **know **that everything is physical.

There is billions of tons of evidence for the natural world - none whatsoever for any supernatural phenomena.

The only certainties are your thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions. What else?

The mind is the result of the physical process of the brain.

“is”! What about the virtue of honesty?

Can I remind you that I asked for evidence, not baseless assertion? You’ve given me plenty of the latter, none whatsoever of the former. Do you have evidence?

Ditto.

By neuroscientists the world over.

References?

In the sense that both I and a rock are composed of physical matter, then yes.

Then you and the rock are subject to the same physical laws and you are merely an unaccountable cog in the universal machine: all your physical and mental activity is the result of forces beyond your control. All your opinions, reasons and decisions are determined by your heredity and environment. You are incapable of “making up” or changing your mind and are merely an impotent spectator of events…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It is still rational because, as I’ve said several times in this thread, the threat of punishment is a valid environmental factor that affects the processing of the brain. Therefore it is instrumental in the decision being made by the brain.

You are using words that have no meaning given your world-view. You are abusing the meaning of those words in such a way that would suggest that either you don’t understand what they mean or that you are being deceptive; possibly self deceptive, because of a desire for some reason or other to maintain disbelief and thus remove yourself from the kind of responsibility and moral accountability that is intrinsic to the Christian word-view.

The problem is, In your hypothetical world an action is no more a decision then morality is objective. It is not a “decision” by the brain. Its is simply a reaction; cause and effect. There is no rational decision or reasoning involved. While there are certainly processes in the brain, nobody is reasoning. There is no “i” who “ought” to be held accountable; and to imply that there is, given your world-view, would amount to nothing more than folk psychology. Responsibility applies to persons with freewill, not chemicals or processes. They are responsible and thus can be held accountable precisely because they have freewill, and the very concept is a manifestation of that knowledge. Its because they could have freely chose otherwise that we judge them as immoral or guilty.

Without freewill, its just chemicals reacting to other chemicals, deterministic processes, that may or may not be influenced by the environment; its irrelevant either way. Labeling it as reasoning is like saying that the processes involved in the natural development of a rock was a rational process simply because it was coherently ordered; which is ridiculous. And It doesn’t become more reasonable simply because we have involved conceptual information when speaking about the brain. The same problem arises. If we agree that the brain produces concepts and that the brain itself is a product of its physical environment and not something separate from it, then it follows necessarily that If i am not freely producing those concepts, then concepts are simply the sum total of all physical events in the universe and thus the universe as a whole is responsible for those events or concepts; if thats what you want to call them. So should we punish the universe and hold it morally accountable? That it was ordered coherently is irrelevant and is no more a valid argument for moral accountability than suggesting that windows xp is guilty and should be punished for erasing your most prised information simply because the software involved complex processes which executed with out your saying so. If a bird craped on your head, you wouldn’t hold the bird or the poo responsible and thus morally accountable would you? At least no rational person the right side of an insane asylum would!!! So why would you hold a human organism morally accountable if they came along and pooped in your face?!!! And how can you judge if you have no conceptual freedom. (name removed by moderator)ut-output alone does not imply the presence of rationality and it certainly doesn’t imply moral accountability. Your use of those words, in the context in which you have chosen their function, are a distortion of their true meaning and thus you have produced nothing more than a straw-man, a red herring, and a profoundly empty argument.

Your whole world-view is a ridiculous joke and was certainly not worthy of a rebuttal. People should know that such ideas are logically untenable and do not reflect our experiences or the scientific data. But alas the world is imperfect and people more likely will do anything to escape the responsibility that God has placed on our shoulders.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I haven’t said that everybody acts purely out of impulse. Nor have I said that you don’t have the ability to recognize consequence. You’re straw-manning (again). Stop being disingenuous please.

I said that you don’t have the “freedom” to recognize consequences or the freedom to truly “reason” to the knowledge of those consequences. What ever your brain does, it does regardless of you and in spite of logic; and thus you have no (name removed by moderator)ut potential in terms of what the brain thinks. There is no reason to think that the brain must be logical about the world or have true knowledge about things in the world; and if it does contain true knowledge it is not because the brain is designed to or is ordered toward that end by an intellect. Thus any information in the brain, given your world view, is a produce of non-rational processes. There is no “rational you”, if your world view is correct. Thus what meaning or use can science have given your world view? Thus it Is you who is “straw-manning (again)”. Not to mention that you keep contradicting yourself.

It does, it’s just that you’re refusing to consider it because it seems to you like you have free will.

If i don’t have freewill, then the brain and the body acts on nothing more than physical impulse. That environmental factors are involved in causing that impulse is irrelevant and besides the point. Its all physical activity.

As long as you put your own opinion above the findings of science, then you’ll never be rational enough to understand these concepts, let alone argue them effectively.

I have no freewill in mind or body, thus it is not “my opinion”, and so i hardly see the point in you holding me responsible for bodily processes over which i have no control. You fail to realize that your argument presuppose the freedom to think, reason, and change ones opinion. such is imply not logically possible in a purely physical world.

Your flawed philosophy is not science.

What we think is a result of our experiences and observations of our environment, interpreted according to the way our brain sees the world.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This is not the case. The lack of free will does not preclude rational decisions. You haven’t been paying attention, or you just don’t want to understand; I don’t know which.

You have given us nothing more than one long string of assertions which do not correspond to reality or human experience. It is you who has not been paying attention.

The brain, assuming a purely physical world, is nothing more than the sum of its non-rational parts and its environment. You have no rational basis to conclude from that fact that the brain by itself or with its environment is rational. In fact the evidence strongly suggests that the self conscious rational mind is more than the sum total of the brain. You are simply asserting that the brain is rational because you know that you are rational and you dedicated to circular naturalism; hence the circular arguments and conclusions about the minds relationship to the brain, and the ridiculous idea that beings without freewill are still morally responsible and thus accountable for their actions. You want your cake and eat it; but i am afraid thats not logically possible in this case.

 

[tonyrey]

You have given us nothing more than one long string of assertions which do not correspond to reality or human experience. It is you who has not been paying attention.

The brain, assuming a purely physical world, is nothing more than the sum of its non-rational parts and its environment. You have no rational basis to conclude from that fact that the brain by itself or with its environment is rational. In fact the evidence strongly suggests that the self conscious rational mind is more than the sum total of the brain. You are simply asserting that the brain is rational because you know that you are rational and you dedicated to circular naturalism; hence the circular arguments and conclusions about the minds relationship to the brain, and the ridiculous idea that beings without freewill are still morally responsible and thus accountable for their actions. You want your cake and eat it; but i am afraid thats not logically possible in this case.

Bravo! Your last three posts are a tour de force!

 

[Curious_Seed]

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.

Does free will truly exist?

Assuming free means non-predetermined, of course, it is not free: who is not predetermined, by his/her heritage?

Assuming free means without limits, of course, it is not free: who is without any limits?

Assuming free means access to any choice, of course, it is not free: who has available all choices?

So, of course, free will does not truly exist.

 

[Spirithound]

Does free will truly exist?

Assuming free means non-predetermined, of course, it is not free: who is not predetermined, by his/her heritage?

I would like to see your proof that one’s heritage accounts completely for one’s choices.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I would like to see your proof that one’s heritage accounts completely for one’s choices.

He cannot give you any proof or evidence, he hasn’t really thought it through. Not to mention he has a straw-man understanding of freewill, that isn’t really what people mean by freewill.

Even if somebody did do something because of their heritage, this still would not be valid proof that the person did not freely choose to follow their heritage. It would merely mean that the persons choices were influenced by their heritage. Its not enough to say that a person did this or that thing because of his or her heritage, since this only proves that the person had a reason for choosing something; it doesn’t tell us how the person chose that thing.

 

[Robert_Sock]

My contention is still that free will is limited.

Take for example strong sexual urges; a person truly does not wish to masturbate, and has no intention to masturbate, but eventually does so anyways because he/she is overwhelmed with sexual passion.

Again, reflexes is another case where free will is limited. Take for example where we want to act nice, but we snap back in anger due to an unconscious reflex. The power of unconscious behavior over overt behavior is well documented in psychology, and cannot be denied. These theories involve psychodynamic as well as classical behaviorism. The influences of the unconscious on overt behavior is far more common than the average person realizes!

 

[Spirithound]

My contention is still that free will is limited.

Take for example strong sexual urges; a person truly does not wish to masturbate, and has no intention to masturbate, but eventually does so anyways because he/she is overwhelmed with sexual passion.

All we have to do to disprove this point is to produce a person who has never masturbated.

However, you are speaking of something different than what I mean by free will. Free will is not in itself limited. It either exists or it does not. However, there are thousands of things which prevent us from choosing from the full complement of options, every day. What you have given above is properly spoken of as one’s degree of moral strength. In the properly-ordered soul, the intellect (free will) rules over the passions (sexual urges).

 

[Robert_Sock]

All we have to do to disprove this point is to produce a person who has never masturbated.

However, you are speaking of something different than what I mean by free will. Free will is not in itself limited. It either exists or it does not. However, there are thousands of things which prevent us from choosing from the full complement of options, every day. What you have given above is properly spoken of as one’s degree of moral strength. In the properly-ordered soul, the intellect (free will) rules over the passions (sexual urges).

In my frame of thinking, all we would have to do is find a single instance in which a person was driven to masturbate due to an intense libido to show that free will is limited.

 

[Spirithound]

In my frame of thinking, all we would have to do is find a single instance in which a person was driven to masturbate due to an intense libido to show that free will is limited.

In the instance that you are referring to, I would say more precisely that free will is hindered rather than limited. A limit implies an imperfection in the thing itself, while a hindrance prevents a whole and complete thing from manifesting itself fully. In your frame of thinking, I agree that our free will is hindered in uncountable ways every day, however the will itself is still underlying. This goes back to St. Thomas Aquinas’s teaching regarding whether the will rules, or is ruled by, the passions.

 

[grannymh]

My impression is that free will, in the sense of completely random choice, does not exist. However, life as we live it presents us with possibilities that we may choose between. What those possibilities are may depend upon the circumstances into which we are born, but which of the available possibilities we go with still depends upon the particular configuration of our individual minds; so for all meaningful conceptions of free will, yes, we have it - but if you consider the ‘me’ to be independent of the body and its circumstances, maybe this won’t satisfy.

The sense of completely random choice is both new and very interesting to me.

There is a Catholic notion that while human will is oriented to seeking the ultimate good, it can choose a lesser good. Would this be related to the particular configuration of our individual minds both in the sense of our physical brain and in the sense of our non-physical intellective powers which do not fit under the proverbial microscope?

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Simeon_Hovey]

How then does one explain the behavior of a soldier going into battle? Every ounce of my being, the first time, was screaming at me to run *, the first time I was so scared that I froze – literally – a sergeant had to push me to get me started. In subsequent fights I moved on my own volition.

As a new Christian one thing I used when determining if something was God’s will is that almost always it wasn’t what I wanted to do. Another was whether or not there was any reward or benefit for me in doing the thing – almost always there wasn’t.*

 

[AndyF]

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.

Yes. God ensures that every human is graced with an adequate sanctifying conscience. It suffices until the Word becomes the Moral law in the believer’s life, after which it serves to compliment his Faith. It is a conscience that needs to be honed through right choices. It’s effect is diminished by ignoring it’s direction, however, the responsibility to it’s proper formation is not, nor does this diminishing cause any mitigation for responsibility of the act.

Andy

 

[Robert_Sock]

Unconscious reflexes is case where free will is clearly limited. Take for example where we want to act nice, but we snap back in anger due to an unconscious reflex. The power of unconscious behavior over overt behavior is well documented in psychology, and cannot be denied. These theories involve psychodynamic as well as classical behaviorism. The influences of the unconscious on overt behavior is far more common than the average person realizes!