Free Will

[AndyP]

It would seem to me that there are several ways of looking at this question.

Theologically.
Perhaps the easiest to pin down. As Kentcara2003 pointed out, an explanation and assertion of the existence of free will can be found in the CCC. Also:
“ He Himself made human beings in the beginning
and then left them free to make their own decisions” (Ecclesiasticus 15:14).
Interestingly as this is a deuterocanonical book, there is nothing quite so explicit within non-Catholic bibles that I can find.

There has been a couple of posts about predetermination (and other words that may mean the same thing or something similar). I feel that definition is important here. God is outside of time and therefore knows all of our stories from beginning to end. So we read:“…everybody whose name has not been written down since the foundation of the world in the Sacrificial Lamb’s book of life.” (Rev 13:8)
Does this mean that it is impossible to truly have free will? I have this example.

I go to a football (soccer) match and see team A loose 1-0.
I use my time machine to go back in time to before the match.
Just because I know the result, does this mean that the players have lost their free will? Will my knowing stop team B’s striker from scoring a goal?
No. Why would it?

Now I could in theory go and talk to the goal keeper of team A and tip him off of the danger of team B’s striker, especially around 15 minutes into the second half.
Does the goal keeper still have free will?
Well yes I think he does, but I may have influenced his decision making.
(And I would have to be God to know the repercussion of a 0-0 draw.)

Scientifically or shall we say rationally, as per Bradski’ post.

But yet you do make a decision. Free will means that under the same circumstances you could make a different decision.
If the exact conditions were repeated, and you make the same decision, then it denies free will.

This is illogical. What you are saying is if the first decision is A, then the second decision has to be B. That is the opposite of free will. Have I misunderstood you?

If the exact conditions were repeated and you make a different decision, then it is arbitrary. Nothing changed. Literally nothing, including your mental state, changed.
If you say that your mental state would be different, even if all conditions were exactly the same, then you are saying that your mental state is independent of any conditions.
Conditions + State of mind = decision.
C + S = D
If C and S are always the same, then so is D. Therefore C and S determine D. There are no other options. Any given set of circumstances plus a given state of mind will result in only one decision being made. That is, you don’t get to choose, independently of C and S, what D will be. You have no choice.

Bradski, I think that you agree that exact duplication of the conditions is an impossibility, but for the sake of argument let’s assume that it is possible.
I assume that you are in this argument referring to the physical action of the brain as a machine. This is along the lines of standard classical Newtonian physics where A+B=C (or even C + S = D). I was under the impression that it was well known that Classical Newtonian physics breaks down at quantum levels. Parts of the brain work at these levels. Under Quantum Physics, A+B can = F via P and Q. I am sorry, Bradski, I don’t agree with you.

The philosophical take
My common sense tells me that I do have free will. I am free to choose between different courses of action.
I accept that there will be conditions and influences of many kind that will affect what decision I make, and some of these may be involuntary.
I don’t think we can know for sure just how free we actually are.

Personally, I hope that God prods me to the right path.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

If the conditions and your mental state change then one would assume that any decision you make, being dependent upon the conditions and your mental state, would also change.

Free will, at least as I understand the term, means that you have more than one choice in any given situation and you could freely choose any one. So if you are thirsty and it!s a hot day, you might choose to have a beer. If you are thirsty and it’s a cold day, you might decide to have a coffee. But how can we tell if these are free will decisions?

The conditions and your mental state will never, in reality, be exactly the same, so it is impossible to tell in any given situation. But if we were to imagine the conditions and your mental state as being EXACTLY the same, then could you choose differently?

Conditions + State of mind = decision.

C + S = D

If C and S are always the same, then so is D. Therefore C and S determine D. There are no other options. Any given set of circumstances plus a given state of mind will result in only one decision being made. That is, you don’t get to choose, independently of C and S, what D will be. You have no choice.

Surely you can see that your equation is not consistent with your own understanding of free will: if C and S are given, then, according to your understanding of free will, your decision could be D1 or D2 or D3 or…

Besides, shouldn’t you use at least a system of integral differential equations to try to represent human behavior? Don’t we foresee at least the short term future when we are acting? How do you accommodate that in your equation?

 

[o_mlly]

Why in your view do so many of us fail to achieve this state of sanctifying grace / informed conscience? I refer to world history, or even the history of Christianity and/or its present state in the world.

First of all, saving me is a full-time job. Having written that, I would venture to say that coming from western civilization materialism (as in the Rich Young Man) blocks the voice of conscience calling us to be other-oriented. Self-centeredness can be described as the common denominator for all seven of the capital sins.

 

[fred_conty]

Hi,

Just had a discussion with one of my sons.

How can we know if we have been given 100% free will?
My answer was “I don’t know”.

How would we know?

Andy

Is a mouse able to push over an elephant just because he wants to?

The limits to freedom are connected to our own limitations.
As Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Hairy, “A man has got to know his limitations.”

But other than that, we are free to say “yes” or “no” whether right or wrong. Is there a case where this is not true?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

There once was an interesting debate (although some would say pretty morbid). It started with the case of a man who killed his wife in a so called “passion crime”. He claimed that till the point he actually shot her, he was aware that the “sanest” thing he could do is to walk away. But he didn’t.

We each have a conscience, if your man had obeyed his conscience and walked away, he would have given up his right to free will. However, he chose to disobey his conscience and thereby exercised his choice to shoot.

The question was- if there would be a way to turn back the time and have him relive the same situation could the end result be different? Him walking away. Or no matter how many times that scene would be relieved his actions would be the same.

My gut feeling would be that he shoots every time, but how many times do you do this experiment? If he shoots 49 times, then he walks away on the 50th, when do you stop the experiment?

However, if he shot his wife once, and she died, you would have to bring her back to life to shoot her again.

My head hurts.:banghead:

 

[Nyx]

My gut feeling would be that he shoots every time, but how many times do you do this experiment? If he shoots 49 times, then he walks away on the 50th, when do you stop the experiment?

However, if he shot his wife once, and she died, you would have to bring her back to life to shoot her again.

My head hurts.:banghead:

Yes, it is not possible and it will remain only a debate (and thus we can never know for sure what the answer is). I guess the experiment would end when you could prove it one way or another. If he relives the scene 50 times and every single time his actions are the same (he kills her) you could say that while he might have been aware of an alternative, in that situation and in that state of mind- well, he will always act in the same way.
If even once he chooses to walk away you can conclude that he had a choice and he would have been able to act differently in that situation (and give weight to the free will position).

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, it is not possible and it will remain only a debate (and thus we can never know for sure what the answer is). I guess the experiment would end when you could prove it one way or another. If he relives the scene 50 times and every single time his actions are the same (he kills her) you could say that while he might have been aware of an alternative, in that situation and in that state of mind- well, he will always act in the same way.
If even once he chooses to walk away you can conclude that he had a choice and he would have been able to act differently in that situation (and give weight to the free will position).

The experimental sciences require repeatable experiments to prove their assertions. The “experiment” described above is not repeatable and, therefore not valid in either proving or disproving the reality of free will.

If these conditions of exactness in conditions that are imposed on this experiment to prove free will were imposed on all the experimental sciences then science would not provide any advance in knowledge. Therefore, no scientist would accept this experiment as valid.

A design of experiment that is repeatable to demonstrate free will is your life. Conversion is a change of heart, a process in time. Have you always chosen to do or be the same? Select choices in the moral realm of doing good or evil. Answer for yourself.