Free will?

[bri89]

I can not discern the freedom God has granted us. In the Christian view freewill is forced upon us, we don’t have the choice not to choose. We must choose salvation through Christ or be damned eternally, I see that as an ultimatum and not a free choice. If it is my soul that is at stake, I will believe as I am compelled and not through objective and disinterested analysis. I am not capable of thinking or acting freely when my life is at stake. I may choose Christ, but it will be a compulsory decision.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Not exactly the same… but in my circles making a decision is based upon analysis and problem solving. And if that process happens in the subconscious to a certain degree, then exercising our will is also contingent upon our non-conscious brain actitivy. Besides we do not know how the will’s decision making process works. As the study insinuates, it might very well be partially subconscious.

Obviously decisions are based upon analysis. That goes without saying, but to argue that because some analysis takes place subconsciously that decisions are made unconsciously is plain bad logic. Reading a chart is not playing the tune. Just because you read the chart with your eyes doesn’t mean you blow the horn with your cornea.

Reference to stupidity is a strange “argument”.

Yes, pity and novelty are stupid. Merciliss utilitarianism and mechanical existence are much more sensible and joyful approaches to life. Regardless, it is an undeniable possibility, however strange it may seem. To give a more everyday analogy, how often have you heard some one say, “I really shouldn’t, but…” The implication being that they have analyzed the situation and determined that a certain course of action is not in their best interests, but they have consciously chosen to do it anyway.

No, it is not a strawman, it is just sarcasm. After all “conservatism” is the name of the game, clinging to the “authorities” of some bygone era, even if those concepts have been amply refuted by by advancement of science. It is also obvious that it is very hard, sometimes impossible to change the ingrained supertitious worldview, so I would not be very surprised if a few people would still subscribe to this particular facet of the Aristotelian “teaching”.

a) Science has not refuted free will, despite a couple of sensationalistic news articles and overpublicized studies with dubious results and poor methodology. Oh, and the obligatory celebrity scientist endorsements.

b) Modern Aristotelians hold to Aristotle’s metaphysical ideas, not his scientific ones.

c) If “conservatism” is the name of our game, “the blind march of an aimless progress” is yours. Studies have already shown that eliminating belief in free will makes people more dishonest and selfish, which is kind of a fitting counterpoint to the denial of it. After all, why should a simple change of belief in the source of one’s agency so uniformly degrade human behavior? More likely, people feel this gives them a license, a freedom, if I may be so bold, to be less ethical… after all, it’s not like they have a choice!

 

[prodigalson2011]

You have the ad hominem fallacy down to a T . First it was scientists don’t know what they’re talking about because they don’t call themselves philosophers, now all True Christians™ must believe whatever you happen to believe.

It remains that arguing has never once changed the truth and as I said, currently the jury is out on the evidence.

P.S. I also note you offered no counterpoint to my observation that 60% accuracy on a 50/50 proposition is not impressive.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Right, but I may not be a practicing Catholic, but I still believe in God and Jesus and his teachings. Therefore I am a Christian.

And even so, people make decisions off of what the Bible teaches. For instance you shall not kill. Well, I bet the thought has crossed your mind at some point to kill another person. You would be lying if you said it didn’t. I bet that that commandment had some influence on your decision. You could have thought “Well, if I kill someone then I will go to hell.” Then you didn’t have free will because it was determined that you weren’t going to kill the person because you didn’t want to go to hell because the Bible said you will go to hell if you kill someone. You had the choice, but you weren’t going to. Your decision was based off of that commandment and not going to hell.

If the Bible said “YES! Killing is fine! It is morally wrong though.” Not know the consequences just that, your decision might have been different. So know you have the thought that killing is fine because the Bible says it’s fine. So you might have been inclined to kill that person and maybe not even given it a second thought.

I think you missunderstand free will. As a Catholic you should know that a well formed conscience is formed according to the Teachings of the Catholic Church. The fact that a person may not have come to the Faith until later in life and that these Teachings were given to him and formed his conscience more fully does not remove his Free Will. He may still act according to these teachings or not. No one " forces " him to act either way.

In fact the Bible indeed teaches that all men have a free will. It doesn’t use those words but the fact it tells us that we are judged according to how our lives corresond to the teachings of Old and New Testaments, and especially as reiterated by Our Lord and the Apostles. So, in fact, determinism cannot be held by any Christian.

 

[inocente]

Such experiments have been conducted while observing the eye-movements of chess players. The movement was detected by a narrow infrared beam which reflected from the eye. As the player contemplated a move, the eye movements concentrated on a specific part of the board, as the player “tried” out the ramification of a move. Then the eye went and concentrated on another piece, and the ramifications of its possible moves. Now, so far there is nothing surprising.

Then came a very rapid eye movement, concentrating on a special part of the board, - RIGHT BEFORE the “Eureka” moment - right before the player realized what the “best move” will be! The subconscious “worked out” the details of the best move, BEFORE the player was aware of it. Of course that does not disprove the existence of “free will”, but it does disprove that the “will” must be conscious, and it shows that the brain is much more complicated than it was previously thought. Only a small portion of our thinking process happens in the conscious area. I experienced this phenomenon many years ago, when I played a lot of chess, and created and solved many chess problems. One morning I woke up with a very nice chess problem in my mind. I did not have to sit down and solve it… I already had the solution. All that was done in the subconscious.

That’s a cute experiment. It brought to mind of those eye tracking helmets being developed for fighter pilots. It would mean that the pilot could target something before even being consciously aware. Boom! So the engineers will need to design the safety systems on the assumption that choices are made subconsciously, whether or not they happen to believe the metaphysics.

Of course this looks like a “threat” to those, who probably still feel uncomfortable with the idea that Aristotele was wrong, and have problems with realizing that the brain is more than a cooling organ for the blood, or a simple “conduit” which is somehow coupled to the “soul”.

It’s a wi-fi router which transmits non-physical photons, otherwise known as nontons.

 

[inocente]

You have the misunderstanding of an ad hominem down to a T. My remark about the inconsistency of your Christianity and embrace of free will denial were a standalone statement, not part of my argument. And, yes, all Christians must believe in free will. Free will is a necessary condition for moral responsibility, and moral responsibility is essential to Christianity. I suppose you’d be just as insulted if I said all Christians must believe in God.

We’re called Christians, not Free-Willians . Many Christians have probably never even heard the term free will. We all simply take it as obvious that we’re not being controlled remotely and so are responsible for the choices we make. The bible assumes the same, along with just about everything else including our entire systems of law and morality.

Whether some philosophers in ivory towers equate determinism with fatalism is irrelevant to real life.

And that’s a gross misunderstanding and/ or distortion of my remark on scientists. I said that they are attempting to draw philosophical deductions from scientific observations and in many cases they are not very good at it. Science finds data, it does not make metaphysical declarations. It’s a simple case of jurisdiction.

It’s unlikely that scientists get a permission slip from the philosophers’ union to avoid demarcation disputes.

Science is rather more than finding data. It is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical world, and the resulting body of knowledge.

That body of knowledge rests on objective observation, not on the many various opinions of philosophers.

 

[inocente]

P.S. I also note you offered no counterpoint to my observation that 60% accuracy on a 50/50 proposition is not impressive.

Au contraire, I said (post #31) “Some scientists have questioned the protocols of these experiments and so currently the results are controversial, but future experiments should overcome the teething problems. Currently the jury’s out.”

When protocols are tightened, a real effect is amplified while a false effect attenuates. We need to wait and see which.

Though I’d speculate it’s real. Consciously we’re unaware of a lot of work going on behind the scenes, so it wouldn’t surprise me if thoughts are kind of like getting served a meal in a restaurant – it was all prepared and ready in the subconscious kitchen before arriving at your table of consciousness.

(Apologies for that awful analogy, best I could come up with )

 

[Trurl]

Obviously decisions are based upon analysis. That goes without saying, but to argue that because some analysis takes place subconsciously that decisions are made unconsciously is plain bad logic.

So do you have some real good evidence, that all the mental process regarding decision making ALWAYS happens in the conscious part of the brain? We simply do not know the details. And since a huge part of our brain activity happens below the conscious level, it is reasonable to assume that decision making happens - at least partially - in that area.

Of course, all this is hot air. “Free will” only needs a few components: 1) the agent must be source of the decision (there is no external force), and 2) there must be at least two choices which lead to the desired result. How the decision making happens, is irrelevant.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So do you have some real good evidence, that all the mental process regarding decision making ALWAYS happens in the conscious part of the brain? We simply do not know the details. And since a huge part of our brain activity happens below the conscious level, it is reasonable to assume that decision making happens - at least partially - in that area.

Of course, all this is hot air. “Free will” only needs a few components: 1) the agent must be source of the decision (there is no external force), and 2) there must be at least two choices which lead to the desired result. How the decision making happens, is irrelevant.

I’m game.

The grace (power) of God, internally (within the will itself) provides sufficient impetus (and no more than necessary) to counterbalance impulsive forces acting external to the will. This abundant grace is operative in every choice that the individual faces and always makes possible (minimally) two choices.

You might contend that God is a force external to the will and therefore not a part of the will itself. However, that assumes that the will creates itself, which it doesn’t, or that God, by creating the will, cannot endow it with the autonomy to freely choose between its Creator and the external forces, even though he provides the power, but not the determination to do so.

As you say, how this happens is irrelevant.

How the eye manages light is a different issue from how you, as a subjective being, are able to experience or “see” that light.

 

[prodigalson2011]

So do you have some real good evidence, that all the mental process regarding decision making ALWAYS happens in the conscious part of the brain? We simply do not know the details. And since a huge part of our brain activity happens below the conscious level, it is reasonable to assume that decision making happens - at least partially - in that area.

Of course, all this is hot air. “Free will” only needs a few components: 1) the agent must be source of the decision (there is no external force), and 2) there must be at least two choices which lead to the desired result. How the decision making happens, is irrelevant.

I don’t think it is reasonable to assume that decision making happens below the conscious level and, yes, I think there is a very basic experience common to all relatively psychologically balanced people that provides a very, if I may be redundant, self-evident piece of evidence that it typically does take place on a conscious level. And that is this: when making a decision, we are CONSCIOUSLY aware of a) an array of potential choices and b) a fair amount of the possible ramifications of those choices, and we typically make our decisions based on our most well informed and formed conclusions from that data.

The subconscious, it seems to me, will contribute biases, impulses, proclivities, etc., but a healthy mind can override (or at least attempt to override) these factors. Absolute success is not necessary. Even being able to attempt to go against deeply ingrained patterns of thought and behavior is evidence of an independent will. If there were not something separate to oppose our lower drives, whence the struggle?

And, actually, while I’m thinking about it, to go back to the study I was discussing with inocente earlier, this is a good point at which to note the other failure of the study, besides its decidedly dubious results: it fails to distinguish between informed/important and random/inconsequential choices. If, as I have proposed, the subconscious contributes impulses/proclivities, etc. to our conscious mind we should fully expect random/inconsequential choices, such as pushing a useless button, to be frequently decided by these subconscious impulses because they don’t matter enough to deliberate upon–there is no moral consequence for pushing one button rather than the other.

 

[Trurl]

I don’t think it is reasonable to assume that decision making happens below the conscious level and, yes, I think there is a very basic experience common to all relatively psychologically balanced people that provides a very, if I may be redundant, self-evident piece of evidence that it typically does take place on a conscious level. And that is this: when making a decision, we are CONSCIOUSLY aware of a) an array of potential choices and b) a fair amount of the possible ramifications of those choices, and we typically make our decisions based on our most well informed and formed conclusions from that data.

The subconscious, it seems to me, will contribute biases, impulses, proclivities, etc., but a healthy mind can override (or at least attempt to override) these factors. Absolute success is not necessary. Even being able to attempt to go against deeply ingrained patterns of thought and behavior is evidence of an independent will. If there were not something separate to oppose our lower drives, whence the struggle?

And, actually, while I’m thinking about it, to go back to the study I was discussing with inocente earlier, this is a good point at which to note the other failure of the study, besides its decidedly dubious results: it fails to distinguish between informed/important and random/inconsequential choices. If, as I have proposed, the subconscious contributes impulses/proclivities, etc. to our conscious mind we should fully expect random/inconsequential choices, such as pushing a useless button, to be frequently decided by these subconscious impulses because they don’t matter enough to deliberate upon–there is no moral consequence for pushing one button rather than the other.

None of this is more that your personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that, of course, as long as you are aware of this fact. Obviously I cannot present any evidence that some or most of the decision-making happens in the subconscious - it is impossbile to know. I am simply “playing the percentages” - since most of our brain activity occurs in the subconscious, it stands to reason that the decision which appears in the conscious part has “already” been decided in the subconscious.

BUT, as I said before… none of this is relevant. As long as the decision making is WITHIN the decision maker, we have an assumption of free will. The procedure is NOT important.

Of course, there is no way to “prove it”. In order to PROVE it, we would need to take a snapshot of the current state of affairs, store the snapshot “outside” the universe (which is already impossible), then “rewind” the universe, and allow the decisions happen again. If there would be a different decision, then free will would be PROVEN. Otherwise the jury still would be “out”. Who cares? We act as if we could make free choices. We hold people responsible for those choices… now if we could prove that this freedom is illusiory… then the proverbial substance would REALLY hit the fan.

 

[prodigalson2011]

None of this is more that your personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that, of course, as long as you are aware of this fact. Obviously I cannot present any evidence that some or most of the decision-making happens in the subconscious - it is impossbile to know. I am simply “playing the percentages” - since most of our brain activity occurs in the subconscious, it stands to reason that the decision which appears in the conscious part has “already” been decided in the subconscious.

It is only my personal opinion that most people are aware of what they’re doing when they do it? And that they are aware that they could do otherwise? I beg to disagree.

The key difference between the conscious and the subconscious is that we are mostly, if not totally, unaware of what is going on in our subconscious. Our conscious mind is dealing with the world around us as we experience it and whatever urges, impulses, etc. arise into our conscious mind must, by the very nature of arising into consciousness, pass through our conscious mind. So the obvious implication is that, with the exception of reflexive or unconscious actions, our decisions pass through the filter of our conscious mind before we carry them out. Simple experience and observation will confirm this to anybody. Have often do we have “second thoughts” about what we’re inclined to do? How often do we have a strong urge to do something but refrain because of our conscious moral and practical knowledge? How often do we fight to resist an urge to say something mean spirited or to act improperly? These are conscious struggles.

BUT, as I said before… none of this is relevant. As long as the decision making is WITHIN the decision maker, we have an assumption of free will. The procedure is NOT important.

This is a seriously defective idea of free will. If the decision making is performed by blind biological processes, which have themselves been formed by external events (other people, environment, etc.) it is neither free nor willed. The procedure is of utmost importance, for free will requires agency (i.e. a mind free to make conscious decisions.)

Of course, there is no way to “prove it”. In order to PROVE it, we would need to take a snapshot of the current state of affairs, store the snapshot “outside” the universe (which is already impossible), then “rewind” the universe, and allow the decisions happen again. If there would be a different decision, then free will would be PROVEN. Otherwise the jury still would be “out”. Who cares? We act as if we could make free choices. We hold people responsible for those choices… now if we could prove that this freedom is illusiory… then the proverbial substance would REALLY hit the fan.

Really, I think enough people are becoming convinced by the pseudo-scientific philosophies of celebrity scientists like Dan Dennett and Sam Harris, not to mention the “great” (and I use the term grudgingly) atheistic/materialist philosophers of the post-“enlightenment” era, that I think the “proverbial stuff” is already hitting the fan. As mentioned before, diminishing belief in free will has been shown to correspond to an increase in dishonest and antisocial behavior. Western civilization is on the decline and the results are not going to be pretty.

“Who cares?” Famous last words of a dying culture, those are.

 

[Trurl]

It is only my personal opinion that most people are aware of what they’re doing when they do it? And that they are aware that they could do otherwise? I beg to disagree.

Most people, most of the time. Which does not equate to “everyone, all the time”.

The key difference between the conscious and the subconscious is that we are mostly, if not totally, unaware of what is going on in our subconscious.

Exactly. So how can anyone make a positive claim that they “know” what goes on “down there”?

Our conscious mind is dealing with the world around us as we experience it and whatever urges, impulses, etc. arise into our conscious mind must, by the very nature of arising into consciousness, pass through our conscious mind. So the obvious implication is that, with the exception of reflexive or unconscious actions, our decisions pass through the filter of our conscious mind before we carry them out. Simple experience and observation will confirm this to anybody. Have often do we have “second thoughts” about what we’re inclined to do? How often do we have a strong urge to do something but refrain because of our conscious moral and practical knowledge? How often do we fight to resist an urge to say something mean spirited or to act improperly? These are conscious struggles.

Undeniable. Most people, most of the time.

This is a seriously defective idea of free will. If the decision making is performed by blind biological processes, which have themselves been formed by external events (other people, environment, etc.) it is neither free nor willed. The procedure is of utmost importance, for free will requires agency (i.e. a mind free to make conscious decisions.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will also plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ As long as those biological processes are not “determined” (only influenced) by external events, then the decision making is free. The exact biological procedure is not know as of now. Many people forget (or never knew) that not all laws of nature are “deterministic” rather “stochastic”, unpredictable. No one can tell how these unpredictable events influence the decision making process.

Western civilization is on the decline and the results are not going to be pretty.

O tempora, o mores! - since Cicero these lamentations have been around. There are always doomsday predictions, there are always people who dream about the “good old times”. Well, the good old times are TODAY!

 

[prodigalson2011]

Most people, most of the time. Which does not equate to “everyone, all the time”.

Nor did I claim it to. Nor is it necessary for it, too. Because some people are blind, does that make sight an illusion?

Exactly. So how can anyone make a positive claim that they “know” what goes on “down there”?

Who is making such a claim? Not I. The only claim I am making is that any action we choose to take we, typically, become consciously aware of before we perform, at which point our powers of reason can be and, usually, are either employed or consciously ignored or rejected.

It seems to me that those who deny free will seek not only to elevate the role of the subconscious mind, but to eliminate the role of the conscious mind.

Undeniable. Most people, most of the time.

Ergo, free will is the normative condition of the human being.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will also plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ As long as those biological processes are not “determined” (only influenced) by external events, then the decision making is free. The exact biological procedure is not know as of now. Many people forget (or never knew) that not all laws of nature are “deterministic” rather “stochastic”, unpredictable. No one can tell how these unpredictable events influence the decision making process.

I beg to disagree. Leaving aside all the scholarly sophistry, free will, of the traditional moral variety, requires CONSCIOUS decision.

O tempora, o mores! - since Cicero these lamentations have been around.

I must confess I find it quite amusing that you have chosen to quote a man speaking shortly before and about the demise of the Roman Republic, whereupon a much more oppressive, barbaric and decadent empire rose in its wake–which is exactly where we’re headed. The decay of Rome spread out over 4 or 5 centuries. We in the modern west are over 2 centuries in to our “cultural crisis”, initiated by the rise of materialism, and to the discerning eye the effects are already readily visible. You have unwittingly backed my point.

There are always doomsday predictions, there are always people who dream about the “good old times”. Well, the good old times are TODAY!

For a Christian, every day is a joyful day, but these times are not good times. But, indeed, as St. Paul said, " If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!’"

And let’s not kid ourselves… most people are not having a good time nowadays. Witness the epidemic of mental illness, depression, suicide, broken families, etc… All in the pursuit of “liberation” and “fun.” But to quote a wise old bishop, “The condition of having a good time is that you shall not always be seeking to have a good time!”

 

[Neildown]

I’m guessing no one read what I posted on the first page of this thread?

 

[fhansen]

I’m guessing no one read what I posted on the first page of this thread?

I enjoyed your synopsis and considered it to be aligned with Catholic teaching on free will/ “predestination”:

**600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
**

 

[Neildown]

I enjoyed your synopsis and considered it to be aligned with Catholic teaching on free will/ “predestination”:

**600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
**

Thanks! I actually wasn’t aware of this being in the Catechism - I’ll have to find a copy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m guessing no one read what I posted on the first page of this thread?

I did read it and found it to be an interesting analogy. Have you considered, though, that a fundamental difference between God and the helicopter observer is that unlike the mere observer, God is actively creating the river as the boat travels on its course and, additionally, God is simultaneously putting new boats and new children into the river based upon the choices made by other “boaters.” This makes God’s role much more of a dynamic one than the solitary boat analogy makes it appear to be.

I do not mean this to be a criticism, but only to ask what implications you see this has for your analogy?

 

[Neildown]

I did read it and found it to be an interesting analogy. Have you considered, though, that a fundamental difference between God and the helicopter observer is that unlike the mere observer, God is actively creating the river as the boat travels on its course and, additionally, God is simultaneously putting new boats and new children into the river based upon the choices made by other “boaters.” This makes God’s role much more of a dynamic one than the solitary boat analogy makes it appear to be.

I do not mean this to be a criticism, but only to ask what implications you see this has for your analogy?

It would have been better illustrated if I had added some of what you’ve just said actually. Adding other boaters and detailing the creation process definitely adds depth to the concept. It gives a clearer overview of the affect personal choices can make via the exercise of free will, and how it’s employed within God’s creation.

God’s creating of the river as the boat goes along, I sort of agree with, though I don’t think it would fit with the original intent of the essay. The river already being complete was part of my illustration of the fact that He can look over time, because He exists outside of it, and know what’s going on - hence why prophecy always comes true. Though the river in itself is an illustration of time, it’s beginning and end were more or less symbolic of the single boater’s lifespan. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks! I actually wasn’t aware of this being in the Catechism - I’ll have to find a copy.

When all else fails, read the directions.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM ( Catechism )