Freaked out!. (neuroscience is beginning to debunk free wil?!?!)

[grannymh]

I have never come across a compelling argument for free will.

When your car breaks down and you take it to a mechanic, a good mechanic won’t tell you, “there is no reason why the car broke down, it just did”, they may tell you, “I don’t know why it broke down, but that is because I am yet to find out why”. Naturally enough, there has to be a cause for the breakdown, perhaps the tire blew out, or the radiator overheated. While humans are infinitely more complex, they are still subject to the causal chain of the universe and it will be significantly difficult to find what caused certain actions, but neural processes are not magical and we are getting better at understanding them. To believe that we are completely free to chose, is to believe that at some point, within our brains, the causal chain breaks and that we may chose a completely random and sporadic outcome. Freewill is an illusion, albeit a very convincing one.

Perhaps the problem is partially the result of grammar. “Will” is the noun. “Free” is the adjective.

 

[jimmy]

I have never come across a compelling argument for free will.

When your car breaks down and you take it to a mechanic, a good mechanic won’t tell you, “there is no reason why the car broke down, it just did”, they may tell you, “I don’t know why it broke down, but that is because I am yet to find out why”. Naturally enough, there has to be a cause for the breakdown, perhaps the tire blew out, or the radiator overheated. While humans are infinitely more complex, they are still subject to the causal chain of the universe and it will be significantly difficult to find what caused certain actions, but neural processes are not magical and we are getting better at understanding them. To believe that we are completely free to chose, is to believe that at some point, within our brains, the causal chain breaks and that we may chose a completely random and sporadic outcome. Freewill is an illusion, albeit a very convincing one.

The problem with this is that all of experience shows that we have free will. There are times when we choose the hard thing to do when it would be much easier to do something else. Sure, science says that everything follows a law and is predictable, but just because that is their approach doesn’t mean that is the way of the universe in its entirety. So you define the universe as behaving in one way, and then if something seems to not follow your rule it is only because you don’t understand how yet.

Reading your post, I thought you were gonna go along the lines that there is a reason for your actions. You don’t just act in a vaccuum, every action you take has a purpose and so it isn’t free. It follows upon certain preconceptions and certain experiences in life. If you would have said that, I would have agreed somewhat, except I would say that you choose the reasons and purpose that drive you.

But this doesn’t really imply that free will doesn’t exist. Is it free if it is random? If my actions are completely random, and they have no purpose or reason, are they free? I don’t think so. I would be just as much of a slave as if my actions we predetermined, except my master would be chaos.

 

[inocente]

Free will is an ability or function of the spiritual principle in human nature. Our natural instinct for survival is an ability or function of the material principle in human nature.

Please notice that I used human in my original statement: “Free will is the human ability to go against our natural instincts for survival.” I did not mention the many examples of animals acting heroically.

Perhaps, I should clarify my position. I am using the Catholic definition of human nature which is that human nature is an unique unification of *both *the material *and *spiritual worlds.

Hi, it’s been a long time, nice to see you, how you doing? I’ve a bad respiratory infection and have come back to CAF in between coughing fits.

I suggest that free will is an incoherent concept, since the only possible test is: humans have free will, non-humans don’t. In other words if you could converse with a subject but not discover whether they are human, you’d have no way to decide whether they possess free will. Whereas as soon as you knew whether the subject was human, you’d also know whether they have free will.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, it’s been a long time, nice to see you, how you doing? I’ve a bad respiratory infection and have come back to CAF in between coughing fits.

I suggest that free will is an incoherent concept, since the only possible test is: humans have free will, non-humans don’t. In other words if you could converse with a subject but not discover whether they are human, you’d have no way to decide whether they possess free will. Whereas as soon as you knew whether the subject was human, you’d also know whether they have free will.

Nice to see you too. It has been a long time since we have posted with each other.:sad_yes:
And it has been longer than that since I have seriously posted about free will. That is if you can call anything “serious” which comes out of the mouth of a granny.

How about if I agree with you, with some modification, that at times “free will” is an incoherent concept. Incoherent because normally free will in humans is only partially understood.

In the “only partially understood” aspect, I can probably agree with this comment: “I suggest that free will is an incoherent concept, since the only possible test is: humans have free will, non-humans don’t.”

Perhaps the problem with the test idea is the fault of grammar. In my humble opinion, “Will” is the noun. “Free” is the adjective. Also “will” has so many definitions that one almost needs to clarify will each time it is used. Normally, I consider the will as an ability or function which is inherent in human nature. Thus, the first evaluation of a “subject” one is conversing with would be to determine if the “subject” itself is human.

Does that make sense? Or am I saying the same thing you are, but from a different perspective?

 

[inocente]

Nice to see you too. It has been a long time since we have posted with each other.:sad_yes:
And it has been longer than that since I have seriously posted about free will. That is if you can call anything “serious” which comes out of the mouth of a granny.

How about if I agree with you, with some modification, that at times “free will” is an incoherent concept. Incoherent because normally free will in humans is only partially understood.

In the “only partially understood” aspect, I can probably agree with this comment: “I suggest that free will is an incoherent concept, since the only possible test is: humans have free will, non-humans don’t.”

Perhaps the problem with the test idea is the fault of grammar. In my humble opinion, “Will” is the noun. “Free” is the adjective. Also “will” has so many definitions that one almost needs to clarify will each time it is used. Normally, I consider the will as an ability or function which is inherent in human nature. Thus, the first evaluation of a “subject” one is conversing with would be to determine if the “subject” itself is human.

Does that make sense? Or am I saying the same thing you are, but from a different perspective?

It definitely makes as much sense as anything else that’s come out of granny’s mouth.

We’re probably very close, but I worry that if it can’t be tested then it can never be meaningful. A human and an alien walk into a bar, and the barman says sorry we don’t serve aliens because you don’t have free will. If humans automatically have free will and aliens automatically don’t, really we’re just saying that our thoughts and the alien’s must somehow be different without being able to say why.

It kind of feels like a prejudice, the same strange logic that made some people think blacks and whites were different races, so unless free will has application outside our species, it makes me suspect that the concept is fatally flawed and it’s better not to believe in such things for the good of our souls.

 

[Reivax]

The problem with this is that all of experience shows that we have free will. There are times when we choose the hard thing to do when it would be much easier to do something else. Sure, science says that everything follows a law and is predictable, but just because that is their approach doesn’t mean that is the way of the universe in its entirety. So you define the universe as behaving in one way, and then if something seems to not follow your rule it is only because you don’t understand how yet.

This is why it is illusive, because it seems counter-intuitive to say that we don’t have freewill, but it is just as counter-intuitive to say that not all actions (within the physical universe) have a cause. Yet when we look deeper, we find that freewill is the more problematic thesis. Determinism is problematic emotionally, because we don’t like the idea of having no control over our lives, but the universe is indifferent, it does not care about our desires. Free will is problematic physically, because it allows for sporadic and random uncaused events that must lie within our brains, and this causes all kinds of problems. Occam’s razor slices away free will.

Reading your post, I thought you were gonna go along the lines that there is a reason for your actions. You don’t just act in a vaccuum, every action you take has a purpose and so it isn’t free. It follows upon certain preconceptions and certain experiences in life. If you would have said that, I would have agreed somewhat, except I would say that you choose the reasons and purpose that drive you.

Well technically the reason for my actions is that they are predetermined, so they have a reason in the sense that they are not sporadic or random, they follow a causal chain.

But this doesn’t really imply that free will doesn’t exist. Is it free if it is random? If my actions are completely random, and they have no purpose or reason, are they free? I don’t think so. I would be just as much of a slave as if my actions we predetermined, except my master would be chaos.

I suggest it does imply that free will does not exist. It is possible to define free will in such a way that it is completely compatible with a deterministic universe (this is known as compatiblism), but hard determinism saves the trouble and really cuts to the chase, reflecting how things really are. I fail to see how compatibilism isn’t merely a different interpretation of the same deterministic universe, in which free will is defined as being a sub-deterministic process - (that doesn’t sound very ‘free’ to me). You have to remember that being a ‘slave’ may be undesired, yet our desires have no bearing on the truth. Why should we assume that the universe works for us? It is reasonable to think that the universe is indifferent, it is not hostile or kind.

 

[Reivax]

Perhaps the problem is partially the result of grammar. “Will” is the noun. “Free” is the adjective.

Well it makes the most sense to define free will as:

“the ability to make a decision that is completely unrestrained by any outside influence”

I know this is not the perfect definition, and we can get picky, but it will come close to this if it is reflecting what the majority of people understand by the term ‘free will’.

 

[jimmy]

This is why it is illusive, because it seems counter-intuitive to say that we don’t have freewill, but it is just as counter-intuitive to say that not all actions (within the physical universe) have a cause. Yet when we look deeper, we find that freewill is the more problematic thesis. Determinism is problematic emotionally, because we don’t like the idea of having no control over our lives, but the universe is indifferent, it does not care about our desires. Free will is problematic physically, because it allows for sporadic and random uncaused events that must lie within our brains, and this causes all kinds of problems. Occam’s razor slices away free will.

I beg to differ, if I care about my free will then the universe cares. If me and all my actions are just part of the chain of reactions that was set off at the big bang, then I am the universe. So the universe does care. As I mentioned above, it is ironic that the universe is determined to fret over its own lack of free will.

I don’t see how Occam’s razor slices away free will. You haven’t simplified anything in that way. You still have a supposedly blind universe that happens to also be aware and think its free.

You have also accepted the fallacy that your principle that everything is the result of chemical or physical reactions extends to everything in the universe, even what you can’t or haven’t studied. NonEuclidean geometry is based on the idea that Euclidean geometry makes this exact same error.

Well technically the reason for my actions is that they are predetermined, so they have a reason in the sense that they are not sporadic or random, they follow a causal chain.

It is also part of the causal chain that the universe would question itself over whether it is free. The universe is playing both sides of the board.

Frankly, I am not impressed by determinism. It doesn’t affect me emotionally though because it is nonsense. It is an irrelevant concept that doesn’t affect a persons life. I will live as if I am free to do what I want, even if I believe determinism is true. The only thing it might do is assuage your guilt for anything you have done wrong because hey it was already determined. But it won’t change your life.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

When free will proponents say that “I made this decision”, what do they mean by “I”?

What is the “I” that is doing the deciding?

 

[grannymh]

When free will proponents say that “I made this decision”, what do they mean by “I”?

What is the “I” that is doing the deciding?

Are you referring back to Cartesian extreme dualism?

“I” is the whole human nature of a living free will proponent. Recall that human nature is an unique unification of rational soul and decomposing anatomy. “What” sounds like someone is trying to locate the “spiritual will” either in the back of the brain or the seat of one’s pants.

 

[grannymh]

It definitely makes as much sense as anything else that’s come out of granny’s mouth.

We’re probably very close, but I worry that if it can’t be tested then it can never be meaningful. A human and an alien walk into a bar, and the barman says sorry we don’t serve aliens because you don’t have free will. If humans automatically have free will and aliens automatically don’t, really we’re just saying that our thoughts and the alien’s must somehow be different without being able to say why.

It kind of feels like a prejudice, the same strange logic that made some people think blacks and whites were different races, so unless free will has application outside our species, it makes me suspect that the concept is fatally flawed and it’s better not to believe in such things for the good of our souls.

I am trying to get away from Cartesian extreme dualism. (I was nailed for this when I first landed here.)

If a barman wants to base his decisions regarding service on whether or not a living organism, e.g., a human, alien, or chimp, has free will, so be it. In a broad sense this is prejudice. But this does not automatically prove that human free will can be considered separately from human nature. Nor should we look at human nature in a dualistic sense by wanting to put its [free] will faculty to an external test or application outside the human body. Human will cannot operate without human’s rational intellect.

 

[inocente]

I am trying to get away from Cartesian extreme dualism. (I was nailed for this when I first landed here.)

If a barman wants to base his decisions regarding service on whether or not a living organism, e.g., a human, alien, or chimp, has free will, so be it. In a broad sense this is prejudice. But this does not automatically prove that human free will can be considered separately from human nature. Nor should we look at human nature in a dualistic sense by wanting to put its [free] will faculty to an external test or application outside the human body. Human will cannot operate without human’s rational intellect.

I think it’s a good idea to try to do without all dualities, but let’s not go there.

Traditional free will is, imho, now a redundant concept.

It used to be thought that everything is a totally predictable chain of cause and effect, a strictly deterministic clockwork universe, and embarrassingly that would include us, so free will was invented as a get-out clause and with one bound we were free.

But in the last hundred years we’ve learned that nature is far grander and more subtle than any previous generation could have realized, and as a result the old clockwork universe idea is just wrong. And if it’s wrong, we no longer need the free will get-out clause.

Imho we have free will not because humans are magically different from everything else but because it’s just mathematically bound to happen in any highly complex system. Philosophers will of course mutter that it’s all about math these days, but it’s also poetic that You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars - Desiderata

 

[inocente]

I think it’s a good idea to try to do without all dualities, but let’s not go there.

Traditional free will is, imho, now a redundant concept.

It used to be thought that everything is a totally predictable chain of cause and effect, a strictly deterministic clockwork universe, and embarrassingly that would include us, so free will was invented as a get-out clause, and with one bound we were free.

But in the last hundred years we’ve learned that nature is far grander and more subtle than any previous generation could have realized, and as a result the old clockwork universe idea is just wrong. And if it’s wrong, we no longer need the free will get-out clause.

Imho we have free will not because humans are magically different from everything else but because it’s just mathematically bound to happen in any highly complex system. Philosophers will of course mutter that it’s all about math these days, but it’s also poetic that You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. (Desiderata)

 

[grannymh]

I think it’s a good idea to try to do without all dualities, but let’s not go there.

Traditional free will is, imho, now a redundant concept.

It used to be thought that everything is a totally predictable chain of cause and effect, a strictly deterministic clockwork universe, and embarrassingly that would include us, so free will was invented as a get-out clause and with one bound we were free.

But in the last hundred years we’ve learned that nature is far grander and more subtle than any previous generation could have realized, and as a result the old clockwork universe idea is just wrong. And if it’s wrong, we no longer need the free will get-out clause.

Imho we have free will not because humans are magically different from everything else but because it’s just mathematically bound to happen in any highly complex system. Philosophers will of course mutter that it’s all about math these days, but it’s also poetic that You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars - Desiderata

Free will was invented by God, the Creator, and freely given to humankind as a gift included in human nature.

 

[jimmy]

Imho we have free will not because humans are magically different from everything else but because it’s just mathematically bound to happen in any highly complex system. Philosophers will of course mutter that it’s all about math these days, but it’s also poetic that You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars - Desiderata

If the concept of free will makes any sense, then it can’t be simply a stage in a series of reactions. By reducing it to a mathematical certainty, that is what you have reduced it to. Maybe your quote is true, but I wouldn’t use math to make that point

 

[Viewscreen]

I much prefer the idea of CHOICE over free will. What we have choice over is here and NOW, staring us in the face as it were. And it is up to us to CHOOSE that which will benefit us and the world most. Theoretical second-guessing of how one “should” have acted is utterly besides the point.

 

[Reivax]

I beg to differ, if I care about my free will then the universe cares. If me and all my actions are just part of the chain of reactions that was set off at the big bang, then I am the universe. So the universe does care. As I mentioned above, it is ironic that the universe is determined to fret over its own lack of free will.

Just because your actions are part of a chain of reactions that was set off at the big bang, that does not imply that you are the universe. You are making a big step, and not giving me sufficient reason to accept it. The universe is defined as all existing matter and space, while you are are only a tiny fragment of that. It is bizarre that you’d posit that you are all existing matter and space just because you are part of a causal chain. There is no evidence to suggest that the universe is an emotional entity that even has the capacity to care, however it is naturally indifferent by not having this capacity as it lacks concern.

I don’t see how Occam’s razor slices away free will. You haven’t simplified anything in that way. You still have a supposedly blind universe that happens to also be aware and think its free.

Occam’s razor is an optimizing tool, not a simplifying tool. It does not just point to the simplest explanation, it points to the explanation that introduces the least unnecessary entities. Determinism provides a complete and efficient thesis as to how the universe works, while free will has many issues such as, how it is possible for uncaused, free actions to materialize which are random and sporadic, causing a break in any pre-existing causal chain. This is an unnecessary assumption to make which would most likely require the introduction of unnecessary divine entities.

You have also accepted the fallacy that your principle that everything is the result of chemical or physical reactions extends to everything in the universe, even what you can’t or haven’t studied. NonEuclidean geometry is based on the idea that Euclidean geometry makes this exact same error.

Well this is how science works, when evidence comes through of a system that goes against the principle of determinism, i’ll be more than happy to accept it, but so far it hasn’t. Therefore it is more reasonable to assume determinism, as it fits with observation and has not been falsified.

Frankly, I am not impressed by determinism. It doesn’t affect me emotionally though because it is nonsense. It is an irrelevant concept that doesn’t affect a persons life. I will live as if I am free to do what I want, even if I believe determinism is true. The only thing it might do is assuage your guilt for anything you have done wrong because hey it was already determined. But it won’t change your life.

Fortunately you don’t have to be impressed by determinism, because your personal beliefs do not reflect how things actually are. Yes, I too will live as if I am free to do what I want, but this has nothing to do with how things actually are. I too agree that there are not that many implications for the world being determined, but I am still interested in what is a more accurate interpretation of reality.

 

[inocente]

Free will was invented by God, the Creator, and freely given to humankind as a gift included in human nature.

I’ve never noticed that in scripture and would be interested in a reference. If it’s not in scripture then for me it’s not part of revelation. Though either way it’s still not a logical argument of course.

Actually, there seem to be a number of places were the bible says we don’t have free will, e.g.:

*The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. - Gen 6:5

Lord, I know that people’s lives are not their own; it is not for them to direct their steps. - Jer 10:23

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. - John 8:34

and all who were appointed for eternal life believed - Acts 13:48

For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie - 2 Th 2:11*

 

[inocente]

If the concept of free will makes any sense, then it can’t be simply a stage in a series of reactions.

Don’t see why not, we naturally talk of our thought processes as being a series (“a train of thought”, “on second thought”, etc.)

By reducing it to a mathematical certainty, that is what you have reduced it to. Maybe your quote is true, but I wouldn’t use math to make that point

Not a certainty, a probability. It’s the very lack of certainty in complex systems that tips them over the edge.

 

[grannymh]

I’ve never noticed that in scripture and would be interested in a reference. If it’s not in scripture then for me it’s not part of revelation. Though either way it’s still not a logical argument of course.

Actually, there seem to be a number of places were the bible says we don’t have free will, e.g.:

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. - Gen 6:5

Lord, I know that people’s lives are not their own; it is not for them to direct their steps. - Jer 10:23

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. - John 8:34

and all who were appointed for eternal life believed - Acts 13:48

For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie - 2 Th 2:11

Continuing from this statement in post 71, “Free will was invented by God, the Creator, and freely given to humankind as a gift included in human nature.” Next, we should look at both the general purpose of free will and the primary purpose of will itself. The primary purpose of human will is to seek eternal happiness beyond the decomposition of our anatomy. It is for our own good, that our will can freely respond with love for God Who calls all humans to share in His divine life through knowledge and love.
Scripture sources: Genesis 1: 26-30; John 3:16; and chapter 14, Gospel of John.

What the Catholic Church has been doing for centuries is to view Scripture as a whole in which God reveals Himself through Divine Revelation culminating in Jesus Christ, “Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation.” Yet, even though the public revelation of God’s plan for human beings was completed, it has not been made completely explicit. It is the province of the Catholic Church to gradually grasp its full significance over time.

Jesus said plainly and simply “I will not leave you orphans” … “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name–He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (Chapter 14, Gospel of John)

Just as St. Paul learned from the Hebrew Scriptures about the connection between Adam, the first human being, and Jesus Christ, True Man and True God (Romans 5: 12-21), the Catholic Church learns Divine Revelation from studying all of Scripture to obtain the big picture. In addition, there were great scholars who lived in or close to the Apostolic Age who contributed to Catholicism’s knowledge of Divine Revelation. Because of the presence of the promised Holy Spirit, from Pentecost forward, a protocol was established to insure the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

To answer Inocente’s request for a scripture reference for human free will, please understand that I learned Catholic doctrines before opening a bible. I still have not read all 50 chapters of Genesis. Like some people before me, I follow the logic of
Catholicism.

I realize that Inocente said in post 75: “If it’s not in scripture then for me it’s not part of revelation. Though either way it’s still not a logical argument of course.” That is his choice according to his worldview and I respect that even when I disagree.

When I first landed on CAF, there was an atheist who referred to his “experience” of free will which is not the same as an “illusion” of free will. When an atheist, with an extremely different worldview, referred to an experience, I began to understand the universality of the free will concept.

Obviously, not every human action is a result of free will. Many actions are the result of habit or the result of normal limitations. In my worldview, it is the human “experience” of free will, even though its reality might be denied, which is the “reference in Scripture” in the sense that Scripture presents the wonder and mystery of human nature.