Impossibility of free will

[Bobber90]

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 chose to be rehabilitated.

There is no such thing as ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty’, it is about treating people in such a way that gains majority assent and is useful. Given this new revised idea of free will, I am suggesting that rehab will gain majority assent and be the most useful option!

Just because morality is meaningless as conceived now, doesn’t mean that moral feelings cease to exist. What will happen perhaps is a renegotiation of our understanding of them, with attendant consequences…

 

[Giuseppe_Gavino]

There is no such thing as ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty’, it is about treating people in such a way that gains majority assent and is useful. Given this new revised idea of free will, I am suggesting that rehab will gain majority assent and be the most useful option!

But you’re rehabilitating someone that doesn’t need to be rehabilitated. Better yet you are proposing the rehabilitate someone that can’t be rehabilitated since they do not have any control over their choices. There is nothing to rehabilitate, Bobber.

 

[Bobber90]

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

I’m not saying science should be a religion (I am an agnostic), I am saying that science is a way of understanding the world by careful observation, yet it does not seem to be able to illuminate free will. When careful observation produces evidence that something does not exist, normally we consider that the something may be absent! Science could have proved the resurrection, if it had been around at the time. It could have confirmed miracles and confirmed Jesus’ divinity. I suspect you turn away from science purely because of the bad timing of its appearance on the world scene! Actually, in defence of science, I could mention that the Catholic Church has advanced its knowledge of the nature of the creation through the advance of science. E.G, we know not to take a literal interpretation of Genesis.

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!

You have a higher regard for philosophy than science, but philosophy doesn’t give us a free ticket to free will because the philosophy of causation may prove rather inhospitable. Neither determinism nor indeterminism give us free will, but what other conceptions of causation are there? I don’t know, but I bet they’re difficult to comprehend!

Perhaps it is inevitable that we ask “What is the purpose of my life?” and inevitable that one day we will speak the truth when we say “Our lives are determined in every aspect.”

 

[ASimon]

But you’re rehabilitating someone that doesn’t need to be rehabilitated. Better yet you are proposing the rehabilitate someone that can’t be rehabilitated since they do not have any control over their choices. There is nothing to rehabilitate, Bobber.

No, his point (as I understand it), is that our choices are the outcome of events that we had no hand in choosing. If you’re a nice person, it’s likely because you were exposed to that nice environment as a child, and have no brain problems that might lead you to psychopathy.

The point of rehabilitation is to create an environment to limit future bad behavior, in the same way that a positive childhood environment might have led someone to not behave badly in the first place.

 

[Bobber90]

But you’re rehabilitating someone that doesn’t need to be rehabilitated. Better yet you are proposing the rehabilitate someone that can’t be rehabilitated since they do not have any control over their choices. There is nothing to rehabilitate, Bobber.

That doesn’t matter because we are irrational folk who are content with feeling moral. If we feel moral by doing rehab for prisoners, then that is what we’ll do. This doesn’t invalidate unfree will!

 

[Bobber90]

No, his point (as I understand it), is that our choices are the outcome of events that we had no hand in choosing. If you’re a nice person, it’s likely because you were exposed to that nice environment as a child, and have no brain problems that might lead you to psychopathy.

The point of rehabilitation is to create an environment to limit future bad behavior, in the same way that a positive childhood environment might have led someone to not behave badly in the first place.

Yes, pretty much. It is adaptive to create circumstances which prolong the species (tautologically speaking). So one thing would be nice childhood environments, and another would be rehab for prisoners. Of course, the moral impulses that direct our behaviour themselves are selected. It is possible that while they have served us up to now, they are not going to last unchanged. They may need to change else we’ll become extinct like the majority of other life.

 

[Kithrus]

Yes, pretty much. It is adaptive to create circumstances which prolong the species (tautologically speaking). So one thing would be nice childhood environments, and another would be rehab for prisoners. Of course, the moral impulses that direct our behaviour themselves are selected. It is possible that while they have served us up to now, they are not going to last unchanged. They may need to change else we’ll become extinct like the majority of other life.

Okay your not going to like this but here goes.

When you present an argument of any type the idea is to present it, provide backing evidence or alest a strong theory then close with the result.

Why are you insisting that there is no free will on a catholic forum.

what is your end game?

I ask this because without one your argument falls apart in the world of design. if it doesn’t have and function and end it can’t exist.

 

[Bobber90]

Okay your not going to like this but here goes.

When you present an argument of any type the idea is to present it, provide backing evidence or alest a strong theory then close with the result.

Why are you insisting that there is no free will on a catholic forum.

what is your end game?

I ask this because without one your argument falls apart in the world of design. if it doesn’t have and function and end it can’t exist.

I don’t understand…

On one level I am presenting ideas that interest me because I think the discussion will also be fascinating. On another level I am pursuing activities consonant with the influences of my genes, which tend towards group survival! On what sort of level did you want me to explain myself?

*and when people comment on my comments, I reply.

 

[ASimon]

I don’t understand…

On one level I am presenting ideas that interest me because I think the discussion will also be fascinating. On another level I am pursuing activities consonant with the influences of my genes, which tend towards group survival! On what sort of level did you want me to explain myself?

*and when people comment on my comments, I reply.

I think you’re just being asked why you’re bothering to present your argument, given the particularities of the CAF audience. It seems like you’ve answered it to me.

 

[TEPO]

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.

Right, I get you’re point; if our personalities are a compilation of influences by others and the environment, then what evidence do I have that I will ever be or ever have ever been able to claim the ability to make decisions based on anything that has basically not been programmed into my self from the outside… And I might also add that humanity is known for its compellingness to influence… That’s what we’re all trying to do here now -influence each other, which seems very constant.

My reply is that it matters not that our personalities are a compilation of heavy influence because we choose which influences to take on and which ones to reject… This is what free will is - our ability to ‘pick- and-choose’, where animals must accept every single influence burdened upon them that is, unless it conflicts with their natural instincts.

 

[TEPO]

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?

The rats were just scared of the sound it made. Fear is a natural instinct which Surpasses their desire to eat as much. The rats were merely balancing their senses…

They never actually made a conscious decision at all.

 

[TEPO]

If free will boils down to the ability to pick and choose our influences, then where does ‘influence’ come from?

Religion would claim that God is the primary influencer. Where does science say ‘influence’ comes from? Please answer.

 

[jochoa]

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?

Thank you tremendously for the discussion! I am enjoying learning from your perspective and look forward to more discussion. It will be difficult to see how free will really happens in reality, given you do not recognize that God is real, which prevents His thoughts from being reality. However, to gain an understanding of the real self that is independent of these physical changes, consider the following concepts:
A spirit is image, knowledge and past-actions. Some examples: As you look at a photograph of a person, your mind is thinking about the exact image of the person in a certain time in the past. As you read this post, you are thinking about the exact knowledge of my mind in a certain time in the past.
Since a spirit exists by a person thinking of an individual, consider the following to develop an understanding of the soul: When any human thinks of another person, it is impossible to give the person free-will. However, when God, the Father, thinks of another person, He is able to give the person free-will. Therefore, the person, in the thoughts of the Father, exists as a free-willed soul.
So initially God thoughtfully created, then God physically created, where the physical creation occurs exactly the same as the thoughtful creation did, all while He continues to thoughtfully consider all that will happen physically in the distant future to come.
Now consider perspective:
From physical human perspective: We do not know exactly what will happen every instance of the day, and we have the ability to change our minds, as well as our bodies, thereby changing our will: Therefore, we have free-will.
From thoughtful God, the Father, perspective: He is allowing us to freely choose whatever we please, and will judge us accordingly at the end of our time.
From physical God, the Father, perspective: Since what is physically happening for humans is the same as what is physically happening from God, the Father’s, perspective, we are predetermined.
Therefore, the soul is the real self that is independent of these physical changes.
To recognize why the soul is independent of the physical changes consider the following:
The purpose of the soul is not to be concerned with the laws of physics. The purpose of the soul is to be concerned with understanding the laws of God’s Love and becoming perfect at Loving like God. To understand God’s Love, consider the Greatest Commandments: Since God is commanding us to perfect living according to the Greatest Commandments, He must be perfect at it. Therefore, consider the following developed definition of the Greatest Commandments: Always be and spread the means to freely be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self for the unbreakable peace and limitless happiness of all your relationships and self.
Now recognize, you have the ability to change what level of peace and happiness you desire for all. You have the ability to change your source of motivation and quality of patience and kindness towards all. Regarding the tumor case, is it possible to prove that tumor was not caused by any levels of distress or lack of health from/in the body, thoughts, will, or interaction with others, who were inflicting pain? In other words, perhaps tumors are an indication of the growth of distress/disturbance in society, which if not treated with proper patience and kindness, will grow into psychopathy, therefore, we should not avoid the idea that every aspect of ourselves is given by our emotional, thoughtful, willful, spiritual, and biological makeup.

My friend, I have thoroughly enjoyed pondering your ideas, and I like your open attitude in discussion. I look forward to more!

Thoughts?

 

[Bobber90]

Right, I get you’re point; if our personalities are a compilation of influences by others and the environment, then what evidence do I have that I will ever be or ever have ever been able to claim the ability to make decisions based on anything that has basically not been programmed into my self from the outside… And I might also add that humanity is known for its compellingness to influence… That’s what we’re all trying to do here now -influence each other, which seems very constant.

My reply is that it matters not that our personalities are a compilation of heavy influence because we choose which influences to take on and which ones to reject… This is what free will is - our ability to ‘pick- and-choose’, where animals must accept every single influence burdened upon them that is, unless it conflicts with their natural instincts.

Do we really choose what influences to take on and what to reject? There are two plausible responses here it seems: either we do not choose but falsely believe we choose, or the choice about which influence to favour is itself an influence over us that we don’t control.

Daniel Dennett has a compatibilist position which says that we are natural born (evolved) avoiders. We have developed strategies to avoid bad things or threats. However, by this token, it is inevitable that we will try to avoid things - our avoidance is just as determined as everything else. Given the exact state of my sight and reflexes, if I see a brick flying towards my head, I will duck. If I were to rewind a thousand times to that very instant, I would never do otherwise. I think the idea that we can choose our influences is subject to the same qualification.

 

[Bobber90]

The rats were just scared of the sound it made. Fear is a natural instinct which Surpasses their desire to eat as much. The rats were merely balancing their senses…

They never actually made a conscious decision at all.

Are you sure the rats were just scared? I don’t know any more about the experiment than what I quoted. I’m sure there is room for doubt over the study, so if we wanted to demonstrate that animals self-sacrifice, we would have to look at other examples too, eg at moments where parents protect their offspring.

Who knows about the level of consciousness a rat has either! I wouldn’t bank on much.

If free will boils down to the ability to pick and choose our influences, then where does ‘influence’ come from?

Religion would claim that God is the primary influencer. Where does science say ‘influence’ comes from? Please answer.

By influence, I understand causation. “Where does causation come from?” Is not a question I have thought about before. You’d have to ask a physicist! My personal belief is not that causation requires a divine explanation, though this seems to be leading into Kalam territory.

 

[Giuseppe_Gavino]

No, his point (as I understand it), is that our choices are the outcome of events that we had no hand in choosing. If you’re a nice person, it’s likely because you were exposed to that nice environment as a child, and have no brain problems that might lead you to psychopathy.

The point of rehabilitation is to create an environment to limit future bad behavior, in the same way that a positive childhood environment might have led someone to not behave badly in the first place.

It seems like a huge step to say the things that might influence our decisions, are what control our ability to choose.

 

[ASimon]

It seems like a huge step to say the things that might influence our decisions, are what control our ability to choose.

The problem is, there isn’t any room for free will. Everything we are (and have ever been) is the result of our genetics (which we don’t choose), our upbringing (which we don’t choose), and all our other experiences (which we don’t choose). Given this, where are you getting your free will from?

Even if you posit a God-head that “gives you free will,” you’re not out from under this problem. Either a psychopath has the “soul” of a psychopath (which was given to him by God, and therefore not chosen), or every soul God hands out is a moral blank slate. But if that’s the case, the soul become functionless on the question of free will - you’re back to your genetics, upbringing, and experiences that author your intentions.

 

[jochoa]

The problem is, there isn’t any room for free will. Everything we are (and have ever been) is the result of our genetics (which we don’t choose), our upbringing (which we don’t choose), and all our other experiences (which we don’t choose). Given this, where are you getting your free will from?

Even if you posit a God-head that “gives you free will,” you’re not out from under this problem. Either a psychopath has the “soul” of a psychopath (which was given to him by God, and therefore not chosen), or every soul God hands out is a moral blank slate. But if that’s the case, the soul become functionless on the question of free will - you’re back to your genetics, upbringing, and experiences that author your intentions.

You have some excellent points my friend. Please consider some extensions to your understandings:
I definitely agree that there are genetics, upbringing, and other experiences, which we do not choose.
I also agree that our genetics, upbringing, and experiences author our intentions.
However, please consider the following: Are there any experiences that we do choose?
Then, if in our lifetime, there is at least one experience that we freely choose, would this qualify the will as being free?

 

[ASimon]

You have some excellent points my friend. Please consider some extensions to your understandings:
I definitely agree that there are genetics, upbringing, and other experiences, which we do not choose.
I also agree that our genetics, upbringing, and experiences author our intentions.
However, please consider the following: Are there any experiences that we do choose?
Then, if in our lifetime, there is at least one experience that we freely choose, would this qualify the will as being free?

I think it simply refers back to the central question - if all that you are is the result of genetics, upbringing, and experiences, and you choose none of those in the first place, where is your free will coming from? What is the extra factor that grants you the capacity to author any of your intentions, and where does this come from?

So no, given what we know, I don’t think there are any experiences that we choose (in the sense that we author the intention to choose). If we could find one experience that we did choose, I would call that an instance of free will, I suppose. Maybe I would say we have “selective free will,” or something like that.

 

[empther]

The A-team never gives up. It’s nonsense, nonsense, and more nonsense.

if all that you are is the result of genetics, upbringing, and experiences, and you choose none of those in the first place, where is your free will coming from?

I dated an identical twin ( girl ) in high school. While they were similar in many ways, they also had significant differences in their personalities even at age 17. One was more talkative, the other more quiet. One was the prima donna, dominating situations. They other basically went along. They weren’t just the result of genetics, upbringing, and experiences. They chose different paths. Where did that come from?

Eventually they both married. News flash: they didn’t marry the same guy. One married a white guy, the other married a Chinese guy. Obviously their experiences were different from then on, but they were different because they chose different experiences. They didn’t both want to marry the same guy, and they didn’t.

It is impossible to rubber-stamp human beings.
Any ten year old knows he has free will.