Impossibility of free will

[Bobber90]

Bobber:

I’m not absolutely sure that animals lack free will. Obviously they don’t have intellectual free will. But, don’t you think they have a rudimentary free will? For example, set two plates of food before them, both of which they like, and a dog will sniff each plate and make a decision to eat the food off of one before the other. And, this can be repeated. Watch a dog or a cat circle around the side of a lake, in order to get to the other side without getting wet even though they both are able swimmers.

See this article

God bless,
jd

Very interesting article, because I think it articulates the problems using animals (a less contentious subject) that equally apply to us.

These bits are highly relevant:

“Free will is not that lofty metaphysical thing that it was until the 1970s or so,” Dr Brembs said.

“More and more people are realising that it’s a biological property, a trait; the brain possesses the freedom to generate behaviours and options on its own.”

Dr Brembs and others have used mathematical models to simulate brain activity on a computer, finding that what worked best was a combination of deterministic behaviour and what is known as stochastic behaviour - which may look random but actually, in time, follows a defined set of probabilities.

Christof Koch, a biologist from the California Institute of Technology and frequent author on topics of free will and biology, said that the work hits at the heart of “one of the oldest problems in philosophy”.

Tethered fruit flies proved their choices to be neither deterministic nor random
In writing about Dr Brembs’ research, he suggested that “the strong, Cartesian version of free will—the belief that if you were placed in exactly the same circumstances again, you could have acted otherwise—is difficult to reconcile with natural laws”.

The fact that the brain randomly generates deterministic options does give us the ability to evaluate a range of choices, but it does not give us the ability to be responsible for our decisions (it’s not me, it’s my brain!). The options are nearly random but produced according to deterministic algorithms; the criteria for assessment of options are deterministic too; so the decision to eat the bowl of food on the right is given because it smells better. It always smells better, so it will always be picked. The animal is not responsible for being attracted to fresher protein, for having a random impulse to give the other a go, or for the overriding weight attached to the choice to go for quality. If the same circumstances were presented again, the animal would not be able to choose otherwise. Given that, it cannot be held responsible.

So yes both we and other animals can choose, but we are not responsible for our choices because they happen as a result of determinate processes which culminate in us and are not started by us.

 

[mymamamary]

Free will, is like Our Souls, Something physics and science isnt ever going to find, scientific evidence points and hints at it, but we will NEVER find it. Free will, isnt like making a desiscion to eat a burger at burger king or no. Free will is take this analogy

I have a gun, i have never heard of the 10 commandments, or any other religion, i live in a bush in a part of asia that civilaztion hasnt dicovered yet. though i know what a gun does.

I see a man, and i point the gun, and i decide to pull the trigger, killing him.

then, very soon after i feel very bad, and guilty, (Natural Moral law, inscirbed upon our Hearts by the LORD)

I had the willpower to choose a) pull the trigger and kill the man, and b) or put the gun down and not shoot him. Free will doesnt mean descion making, in something as trivial as, should i wear yellow socks ro blue socks today, but instead free will is my chance to either make a good or bad moral desicion, free will is my power, to choose either good or evil, life or death, Pain or healing, free will is all of these and more. It is an indescribable gift of the LORDS Love and Mercy. HE will never override it, or impede it. You still have the choice to choose either hell or Heaven.

 

[Bobber90]

Free will, is like Our Souls, Something physics and science isnt ever going to find, scientific evidence points and hints at it, but we will NEVER find it. Free will, isnt like making a desiscion to eat a burger at burger king or no. Free will is take this analogy

I have a gun, i have never heard of the 10 commandments, or any other religion, i live in a bush in a part of asia that civilaztion hasnt dicovered yet. though i know what a gun does.

I see a man, and i point the gun, and i decide to pull the trigger, killing him.

then, very soon after i feel very bad, and guilty, (Natural Moral law, inscirbed upon our Hearts by the LORD)

I had the willpower to choose a) pull the trigger and kill the man, and b) or put the gun down and not shoot him. Free will doesnt mean descion making, in something as trivial as, should i wear yellow socks ro blue socks today, but instead free will is my chance to either make a good or bad moral desicion, free will is my power, to choose either good or evil, life or death, Pain or healing, free will is all of these and more. It is an indescribable gift of the LORDS Love and Mercy. HE will never override it, or impede it. You still have the choice to choose either hell or Heaven.

If free will is more than simply a matter of faith, why do you suppose that science (ie careful observation) is not able to account for it?

I also don’t see the difference between responsibility for sock choice and responsibility for good/bad acts because both are out of the question if we take causation seriously.

I long to be able to believe free will makes perfect sense, but there are many problems, not just with how the self is immune to outside causes. For example, in free will, what is the relationship between the thoughts that are controlled, and the thoughts that control the other thoughts…?

 

[TEPO]

Sadly, that is the implication!

Say we live in a universe (materialistic or not) in which everything happens either as a result of a preceding cause, or as a result of indeterminate causes. That would include our thoughts and decisions, as well as our evolved physiology, and ultimately would mean that everything about us in the present was determined from the first moment of the universe - from the top of the string of cause and effect.

If that is so, the only way to have free will is surely to be able to create new causal chains of action which themselves are uncaused and not indeterminate…

Our souls are capable of free will. Whether or not the material universe Including our bodies allow us to use it to its fullness, we still believe that there will be a time when our free will will be boundless… We do actually believe we will become like mini gods when we enter into eternity with the Father.

To possess such wonder it makes sense to try it out first on a predetermined level for many reasons.

 

[TEPO]

If free will is more than simply a matter of faith, why do you suppose that science (ie careful observation) is not able to account for it?

I also don’t see the difference between responsibility for sock choice and responsibility for good/bad acts because both are out of the question if we take causation seriously.

I long to be able to believe free will makes perfect sense, but there are many problems, not just with how the self is immune to outside causes. For example, in free will, what is the relationship between the thoughts that are controlled, and the thoughts that control the other thought

why does it have to be only one or the other? Why can’t there be both physical causation, pertaining to our thoughts and understanding of what exists materially as well as free will which lies far behind mental causation. Free will being a spiritual realm in which we are capable of wishing selfless act of charity onto other free willed beings for completely selfless reasons. Why would one person die for another for example, which we believe to be the greatest act of free will.

Yes it’s true that we believe it took God himself to teach us selflessness through the act of love Jesus taught us, which does prove that we cannot really create our own will, but that’s just part of being in the flesh.

For now it’s just a kind of take-it or leave-it ability that we possess. Really Jesus could have chosen not to teach us anything.

…but it took the everlasting wisdom of the father to make it happen.

 

[S.J]

It seems that there is this propensity amongst skeptics to view the tension between free will and determinism as mutually exclusive. Either we have absolute free will, which in the view of the skeptic, negates the possibility of a loving, personal God (mainly utilizing the ‘why would a loving God allow suffering’ argument) or *everything *is predetermined, since the advent of history. It seems to me that the latter position requires as much ‘faith’ as the position taken by believers. In fact, consider the amount of faith it takes to believe that all thoughts, actions and outcomes are simply the effects of random atoms interacting in the past, creating our present and our future. Love? It simply is a byproduct of a predetermined chemical reaction. If determinism really is true, than we are no different than animals.

 

[1AugustSon7]

You realize, Bobber, that I (and everyone) can simply will not to believe you, or anything you say, and thus frustrate your progress in searching for truth? Now you would likely judge such a thing as being either right or wrong, good or evil; however, there is no right or wrong, nor good or evil, without free will, and therefore to make such a judgement is (if we haven’t a real free will) unnatural; however, it becomes obvious that what is really unnatural is denying right or wrong, good or evil and free will.

The importance of free will is not seen until it is denied. If we haven’t free will then we are necessarily irreponsible for our actions and it becomes evident to all in the anarchy and lawlessness that would follow that such a view is auto-destructive, because society and civilisation collapses. That is to say, that denial of free will results in activity manifestly contrary to our nature and welfare, which itself proves what is really true and natural; unfortunately, however, if you happen to be in such a society, there will be little if any benefit such a demonstration and knowledge would have for you: you’re likely going down with that ship.

Everytime you actively believe something it will influence your future choices and decisions; however, that you ultimately willed to either believe or disbelieve something is manifestly obvious. Intellect generally precedes and determines act. That you can will to believe anything or everything is also obvious, but the consequences will confess whether it was right or wrong, natural or unnatural, wise or unwise. Believe everything indiscriminately and you will end up believing in contradictions and effectively believe nothing. Will to believe nothing or no one as certain and you will likely go mad. Believe discriminately and logically and you will see that nature itself discriminates and loves to make distinctions, while also being patently logical and reasonable in all that it does. All of this, ultimately, rests entirely on your freely willing one way or the other.

Denial of free will is so serious that people rightly determine to avoid such a person who professes it as being, themselves, dangerous. The reason is obvious. To deny I have free will is to come dangerously close to denying that I even exist or that I am any different than the mere animals. Combine this with a strict materialistic view of the universe and you may believe that everything is reducible to atoms and electrons. Such a doctrine threatens all law and order and, as such, should be combatted if only because it is clear that a certain, undeniable good would be lost by accepting it (civilisation).

If you keep persuing philosophy, you will learn that the more contradictions you believe, the less you actually believe; and the more errors you hold on to, the more obscure your vision of reality becomes. This is part of the reason why the Church has never granted rights to errors: they cloud our ability to see the truth and finally to see God. If you look around and all you see is chemistry and physics, you will miss the substantial nature or essence of things. Everything becomes emptied of meaning and significance and not but misery can follow: and today we do see a lot of misery.

 

[mymamamary]

I agree with Augusts answer on this. this is why i hate science, at least “this” kind of science. It wants to say " Science is the religion, all there is," yet, get this SCIENCE CAN ONLY EXPLAIN 4% OF THE WORLD

In my opinion, it takes more faith to believe in 4% of something that aint gonna last (the material world" than my Faith, being a skeptic is good, but never to this extent. I cannot force feed you “free will”, like you said bobber, science CANT find free will, its not bioloigcal and certainly not physical. Science is very shaky ground, even scientific laws can change, if in light of certain discoveries, the evidence is shown. So how much more should i believe in a “theory”. I choose to be ignorant of science, as philosphy is a much higher art, and without philosphy, science wouldnt exist. and without the natural Moral Law, which made man ask “what is the purpose to my life?” philosphy would never exist. everything hinges on Our Dear LORD AND SAVIOR, so put your faith in HIM. YOU WILL NEVER REGRET IT. Quit overthinking the question, dont make it forumaltic, just accept it, have the Faith fo a Child and say yes!

 

[jochoa]

If determinism on a macro level is true, everything has been set since the big bang, there is only one future, and all our choices are fixed… ?

For free will, surely we would have to be mini gods - creating causes where there was no prior cause of our decisions, which is physically unusual to say the least… ?

Excellent questions, my friend! I look forward to discussion with you. Please consider the following concepts:

1. Consider God, the Father’s, Perspective: Imagine you are the only being to exist. There is nothing else. The only way for you to create something is to first think of the creation in complete detail. By the time you physically create the something, your thoughts are already far ahead of what will happen in the process of physical creation. And God, the Father, is capable of giving persons in His thoughts free-will. However, when we are physically created, He is already thinking of what is going to happen next in the distant future.
2. Consider the purpose of God, the Son: God wants to experience a limitless happiness. In order to make this happen, He cannot know everything because His creations must have genuine free-will from Him. Since He also must remain the all-knowing Judge which can offer Just rewards and punishments, He must think of a way to sacrifice all knowledge, while remaining the all-knowing Judge. Therefore, He begat a Son, which is one in exact body, but no longer has all-the knowledge of every persons’ thoughts. To imagine a science which could allow this: God, the Father exists as a single-celled being, which can think, feel, and will. He duplicates His Body at the proper time, which means the body retains all the knowledge up to that point, but does not know everything past that point. Therefore in the Kingdom of Heaven, God, the Son, is able to experience a limitless happiness with other free-willed beings which have freely chosen to live according the Greatest Commandments, as to maintain an unbreakable peace and limitless happiness, who have been judged by the all-knowing God, the Father.
3. Regarding mini-gods: Perhaps those who reach the fullness of Heaven, where the resurrected Body of Jesus Christ is, can be called gods, in which the free will concept you speak of exists.

Thoughts?

 

[TEPO]

Well, animals don’t have free will (?) but they do just fine, so it is not totally pointless to wonder if we are the same I think. If we are non-free, determined Borgs, then clearly we are still pretty clever and advanced - but all the while our choices are fixed! Our reflections, dreams, hopes, beliefs, choices and deepest emotions are given. I know it is a scary analysis, but interesting nonetheless.

I actually agree with this to some extent. These thoughts are all given and we do concentrate most thought according to our material environment just like animals.

But there is more… Animals don’t display the choice to self sacrifice for love. They were not given that choice.

We have both free will and instincts, where animals only have instincts. And it’s agreed that these are all fixed for us in this lifetime.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If we don’t have a free will then:

Why would Jesus prayed:

[bibledrb]Luke 7:42[/bibledrb]

Of course, our “free” will is conditional to moral agents we have experienced. But still…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If we don’t have a free will then:

Why would Jesus prayed:

[bibledrb]Luke 22:42[/bibledrb]

Of course, our “free” will is conditional to moral agents we have experienced. But still…

[bibledrb]Luke 22:42[/bibledrb]

My bad

 

[Bobber90]

Our souls are capable of free will. Whether or not the material universe Including our bodies allow us to use it to its fullness, we still believe that there will be a time when our free will will be boundless… We do actually believe we will become like mini gods when we enter into eternity with the Father.

To possess such wonder it makes sense to try it out first on a predetermined level for many reasons.

I agree a trial run of limited free will prior to boundless free will in heaven is a good idea. However, I don’t see how to believe we are capable of any sort at all.

On earth, do we create causes out of nothing? If not, how do we claim ownership of the causes which actuate our perceptions, thoughts, genes, etc etc… These causes began before we were born and are not within our control; but they are real. That leads me to problem one: being mini-gods.

Secondly, I don’t see how the unity of the self or soul works. My innermost self, if I have to identify it, simply is my thoughts and reflections. But if I say that, I have no answer to the question of how they can both compose and be composed by my self/soul. Because free will requires that I control my thoughts and reasoning, which is problem number two.

 

[Bobber90]

It seems that there is this propensity amongst skeptics to view the tension between free will and determinism as mutually exclusive. Either we have absolute free will, which in the view of the skeptic, negates the possibility of a loving, personal God (mainly utilizing the ‘why would a loving God allow suffering’ argument) or *everything *is predetermined, since the advent of history. It seems to me that the latter position requires as much ‘faith’ as the position taken by believers. In fact, consider the amount of faith it takes to believe that all thoughts, actions and outcomes are simply the effects of random atoms interacting in the past, creating our present and our future. Love? It simply is a byproduct of a predetermined chemical reaction. If determinism really is true, than we are no different than animals.

1. There is a tension between free will and determinism, in that both cannot exist together!
2. Whether giving us free will is cruel is outside the scope of my current curiosity, but interesting as a separate moral issue.

Yes, perhaps it does take faith to accept that we have no free will, but there is a simple argument to back it up: determinism does not allow for free will, nor does indeterminism. In determinism, things happen as a result of the preceding state of affairs - there is only one future. In indeterministic situations, things are not caused by the preceding state of affairs, meaning that any actions we believed we performed intentionally we could not have been the cause of, because they are uncaused.

If determinism is true, then we are not free, just like you think animals are unfree. But let’s think about that for a second. If the truth is true, then it is true. If we are unfree, we are unfree - it doesn’t make a difference not liking it. How then could we have made the mistake of believing we are free? If it is true that our non-conscious brain activity simply dictates choices to our consciousness, it would seem like free will if our consciousness then interprets the choices as having been resolved freely - if it just creates the feeling. There is a parallel between the non-conscious processing which gives us an apparently conscious full field of vision despite composing this only from two small focused bits of light. We see an illusion of completeness.

 

[Bobber90]

You realize, Bobber, that I (and everyone) can simply will not to believe you, or anything you say, and thus frustrate your progress in searching for truth?

You might make the choice not to accept these ideas, but these ideas state that you are not responsible for such a choice because determinism makes all choices inevitable.

Now you would likely judge such a thing as being either right or wrong, good or evil; however, there is no right or wrong, nor good or evil, without free will, and therefore to make such a judgement is (if we haven’t a real free will) unnatural; however, it becomes obvious that what is really unnatural is denying right or wrong, good or evil and free will.

I agree that morality is lost without free will (unlike Sam Harris’s views incidentally), because we deserve no praise or blame due to not being able to control our actions. But moral feeling is not lost. If we are cut we bleed and hurt; if we are offended we feel indignant and righteous: nothing changes but the meaning of these feelings. They are reactions that have evolved because they tend towards our survival. Let’s not forget that it was William James who said ‘instinct and utility between them can safely be trusted to carry on the social business of punishment and praise’ - this being evidence that morality might plausibly be another automatic part of our organism’s functioning.

The importance of free will is not seen until it is denied. If we haven’t free will then we are necessarily irreponsible for our actions and it becomes evident to all in the anarchy and lawlessness that would follow that such a view is auto-destructive, because society and civilisation collapses. That is to say, that denial of free will results in activity manifestly contrary to our nature and welfare, which itself proves what is really true and natural; unfortunately, however, if you happen to be in such a society, there will be little if any benefit such a demonstration and knowledge would have for you: you’re likely going down with that ship.

Don’t worry about the consequences, for two reasons. Firstly, they are inevitable, and secondly there will be people like you who passionately defend all that is good - this is just as inevitable. That is the full implication of unfree will!

Everytime you actively believe something it will influence your future choices and decisions; however, that you ultimately willed to either believe or disbelieve something is manifestly obvious.

Decisions, whether free or inevitable, are still highly relevant to the way things happen. Things tend to happen after decisions that they happen - choices are good markers and give insight into our nature.

Intellect generally precedes and determines act. That you can will to believe anything or everything is also obvious, but the consequences will confess whether it was right or wrong, natural or unnatural, wise or unwise. Believe everything indiscriminately and you will end up believing in contradictions and effectively believe nothing. Will to believe nothing or no one as certain and you will likely go mad. Believe discriminately and logically and you will see that nature itself discriminates and loves to make distinctions, while also being patently logical and reasonable in all that it does. All of this, ultimately, rests entirely on your freely willing one way or the other.

The efficacy of intellect and careful reasoning doesn’t rest on whether it is free. An animal that reasons well but makes only fixed choices will be highly successful. What does anyone gain by reasoning towards truth ‘freely’?

Denial of free will is so serious that people rightly determine to avoid such a person who professes it as being, themselves, dangerous. The reason is obvious. To deny I have free will is to come dangerously close to denying that I even exist or that I am any different than the mere animals. Combine this with a strict materialistic view of the universe and you may believe that everything is reducible to atoms and electrons. Such a doctrine threatens all law and order and, as such, should be combatted if only because it is clear that a certain, undeniable good would be lost by accepting it (civilisation).

I still prefer things that make me feel moral; that part of me is fixed and determined already, so there will be no anarchy.

If you keep persuing philosophy, you will learn that the more contradictions you believe, the less you actually believe; and the more errors you hold on to, the more obscure your vision of reality becomes. This is part of the reason why the Church has never granted rights to errors: they cloud our ability to see the truth and finally to see God. If you look around and all you see is chemistry and physics, you will miss the substantial nature or essence of things. Everything becomes emptied of meaning and significance and not but misery can follow: and today we do see a lot of misery.

Then we can conclude on this: the truth doesn’t matter.

 

[Giuseppe_Gavino]

If there is no free will then we do not have to take personal responcibility for our actions. If that is the case then you better let out all of those poor innocent criminals that are stuck in prison.

Police: Freeze! Put the stereo down!

Thief: I can’t do that officer.

Police: Put the stereo down sir!

Thief: I can’t officer! The big bang set into motion events that are beyond my control. It wasn’t really my choice to steal this stereo and it won’t really be my choice to not put it down.

Police: Well that is unfortunate, sir.

Thief: What is unfortunate?

Police: The fact that you’re about to be zapped by my taser even though it really wasn’t my choice to taser you but the big bangs.

 

[Bobber90]

Excellent questions, my friend! I look forward to discussion with you. Please consider the following concepts:

1. Consider God, the Father’s, Perspective: Imagine you are the only being to exist. There is nothing else. The only way for you to create something is to first think of the creation in complete detail. By the time you physically create the something, your thoughts are already far ahead of what will happen in the process of physical creation. And God, the Father, is capable of giving persons in His thoughts free-will. However, when we are physically created, He is already thinking of what is going to happen next in the distant future.
2. Consider the purpose of God, the Son: God wants to experience a limitless happiness. In order to make this happen, He cannot know everything because His creations must have genuine free-will from Him. Since He also must remain the all-knowing Judge which can offer Just rewards and punishments, He must think of a way to sacrifice all knowledge, while remaining the all-knowing Judge. Therefore, He begat a Son, which is one in exact body, but no longer has all-the knowledge of every persons’ thoughts. To imagine a science which could allow this: God, the Father exists as a single-celled being, which can think, feel, and will. He duplicates His Body at the proper time, which means the body retains all the knowledge up to that point, but does not know everything past that point. Therefore in the Kingdom of Heaven, God, the Son, is able to experience a limitless happiness with other free-willed beings which have freely chosen to live according the Greatest Commandments, as to maintain an unbreakable peace and limitless happiness, who have been judged by the all-knowing God, the Father.
3. Regarding mini-gods: Perhaps those who reach the fullness of Heaven, where the resurrected Body of Jesus Christ is, can be called gods, in which the free will concept you speak of exists.

Thoughts?

It is a good way to understand theology, I definitely appreciate that. The only trouble is that I cannot see how free will really happens in reality. When we consider that there are cases where people’s personality changes with physical changes to the brain (eg with strokes), and dramatic instances where apparent psychopathy results from the growth of a tumor, we cannot avoid the idea that every aspect of ourselves is given by our biological makeup. That makeup obviously obeys the laws of physics and is caused by whatever preceded it, which conflicts really strongly with the idea of souls and free will. How would you defend the notion that we have a real self that is independent of these physical changes?

 

[Bobber90]

If there is no free will then we do not have to take personal responcibility for our actions. If that is the case then you better let out all of those poor innocent criminals that are stuck in prison.

Police: Freeze! Put the stereo down!

Thief: I can’t do that officer.

Police: Put the stereo down sir!

Thief: I can’t officer! The big bang set into motion events that are beyond my control. It wasn’t really my choice to steal this stereo and it won’t really be my choice to not put it down.

Police: Well that is unfortunate, sir.

Thief: What is unfortunate?

Police: The fact that you’re about to be zapped by my taser even though it really wasn’t my choice to taser you but the big bangs.

Indeed. But why would we release people from prison, when it feels so much better to keep them in? Maybe we will consider rehabilitation?

 

[Giuseppe_Gavino]

Indeed. But why would we release people from prison, when it feels so much better to keep them in? Maybe we will consider rehabilitation.

How would it feel better to keep innocent people in prison? And why rehabilitate a person who cannot be held personally responsible for their actions? Rehabilitation could only be a logical option if the people had the ability to freely choose to be rehabilitated.

 

[Bobber90]

I actually agree with this to some extent. These thoughts are all given and we do concentrate most thought according to our material environment just like animals.

But there is more… Animals don’t display the choice to self sacrifice for love. They were not given that choice.

We have both free will and instincts, where animals only have instincts. And it’s agreed that these are all fixed for us in this lifetime.

If animals only have instincts, it is amazing how many humanlike things these instincts cause them to do. I would say that we are not unique in self-sacrifice for others. Taking this from David Brook’s The Social Animal:

‘In one study in the 1950s, rats were trained to press a lever for food. Then the experimenter adjusted the machine so that the lever sometimes provided food but sometimes delivered an electric shock to another rat in the next chamber. When the eating rats noticed the pain they were causing their neighbours, they adjusted their eating habits. They would not starve themselves. But they chose to eat less, to avoid causing undue pain to the other rats.’

I consider eating less to be self-sacrifice, considering that it would cause weight loss which would be a survival no-no. Obviously that’s not as good as dying for another rat, but I think they do that sort of thing in the insect world.

If animals turned out to do pretty much everything that we do, only with less complexity, would you consider that QED on the no free will argument?