How to refute the "bell and the dog" theory that rejects free will

[Auntie_A]

Try this:

Not all dogs respond to the bell.

Most dogs eat anything and will seek out food as a matter of instinct but some do not. The bell tests are so artificial in that these dogs are locked up and controlled. I might be just as predictable in a lock-up.

All that tells us is how we behave when we are in captivity and when we are hungry.

A better test would be to lay out a nice raw steak and a helpless rabbit and see where the dog goes to eat. And what would you conclude? Animals get hungry?

The bell thing addresses habit which is in our nature. We need certain habits, repeats, and rituals to survive and thrive. We have in our nature the ability to change habits too, although that can be a bit rough for some.

What this all says about our free will, as a gift from God, to choose between right and wrong, I don’t see the connection.

The more interesting test is the cookie test with its follow-up studies that watch the success of persons who can delay gratification versus impulsivity. And the results of that test would be interesting if someone worked over time with the impulsive kids and helped them learn how to delay gratification for success and then measured that result,

As you can see, I am very skeptical about drawing conclusions from tests. I am interested in scientific testing but skeptical about the purpose or intention, the process, and the interpretation.

 

[Lion_IRC]

The devil’s advocate could say "I do! Nothing exists but me!

Even the devils advocate has free will ability to decide whether or not to join in the conversation.

‘The devil’s advocate could say…’

 

[Vicktoria]

As you can see, I am very skeptical about drawing conclusions from tests. I am interested in scientific testing but skeptical about the purpose or intention, the process, and the interpretation.

Try this: Test yourself. Find a habit you don’t like having, and change it. Gradually, over time, works best for me. It’s much harder to argue with results that you prove to your own self =)

~V~

 

[Lion_IRC]

What I meant by my earlier comment is maybe when we do an act of love such as starving in order for your child to have enough food to eat…the “stimuli/reward” is the child being healthy because you love the child more than your own life.

Not every living being makes the same choice in such a situation. Some eat their own children.

One might be skeptical of free will if there was no unpredictability.

…Same thing with the torture situation. The “stimuli/reward” would be to know God will reward you if you don’t give in but you will be chastised if you betray him in the heat of torture.

Glad you mentioned God - who has the ultimate freedom of will/ability. Did God really create humans (sons and daughters) with no free will?

When torture is invoked, I think the freewill question becomes irrelevant for the same reason as God doesnt punish people for actions over which they had no control.

…I don’t know. I’m getting a headache from thinking about this too much uch:

LOL
Trying too hard to make a complicated atheistic theory - that we have no free will - fit the reality of our existence and the very real observed examples of human volition, can have that effect.

Rocks moving involuntarily with no contingent, causal intent is a theory which lacks explanatory power.

A theory which gives you nothing but the HOW and never the WHY, leaves the human mind confused, wondering and perplexed.

But Occams Razor says we should stick to the simplest explanation in trying to satisfy our uncertainty.

Surely, the true, God-given existence of sentient free will answers the how and the why and is a more satisfying and conclusive answer.

 

[laircy]

Expanding on what I said earlier, the objection is essentially something along the lines of, “if someone does something it’s only because x y z. Therefore we don’t have free will.”
Every time a reason for doing something is pointed to, that’s supposed to prove we don’t have a choice.
The parent only starves him/herself because it would be a “reward” to let the child eat.
So what?
Why on earth else should they do it? Because the thought randomly happened to pop into their mind? If we were bound to do things randomly instead of after considering our options, that would be the opposite of free will.

 

[davidv]

How do we as Catholics and pro-free will people refute the argument that our “conscious” actions are only the result of a stimuli in the brain?

Such as when we ring a dinner bell the dog will always come even if there is no dinner. Just like I our actions only happen if our brain is stimulated by something.

At least I think that is how the theory goes. I’m a novice at this so I might have misunderstood it, but anyway for the people out there who know what I’m talking about…how can we refute this and say we consciously control our own actions

The Catholic martyrs prove that when the bell rings the human doesn’t alway come.

 

[vz71]

How do we as Catholics and pro-free will people refute the argument that our “conscious” actions are only the result of a stimuli in the brain?

I doubt anyone really subscribes to that theory though.

No one could and reasonably pursue any type of legal recompense for anything.

Imagine, I couldn’t be held responsible for assault, I haven’t any free-will.

 

[tonyrey]

Even the devils advocate has free will ability to decide whether or not to join in the conversation.

'The devil’s advocate could say…’

The conditional tense can refer to an unfulfilled condition without necessarily invoking free will.