Impossibility of free will

[ASimon]

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?

Hate to break it to you, but not even identical twins have totally identical DNA. When a fertilized egg splits, the two resulting embryos will share identical nuclear DNA from both parents, but not necessarily identical mitochondrial DNA (from just the mother).

Beyond that, two siblings living in the same house do not share identical upbringings. Not even in utero, where even the amount of room one fetus has can affect its development differently than its sibling. All the same factors apply - genetics, upbringing, and experience outside of upbringing. None of these things are, or even can be, truly identical.

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.

Not sure about Maine, but everywhere else in America, it’s illegal for two women to marry the same man. Unless I’m wrong, this likely accounts for this apparent instance of free will.

 

[jochoa]

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.

Thank you very much for sharing your perspective, please consider a few concepts:

How to Become an Author of Your Intentions:
Given countless factors, which are out of your control, can author your intentions, what extra factor grants us the ability to author any of our intentions, and where does this come from? The Law of Love and it comes from God. Here it is in a brief and short form:
Love IS patient and kind. Patience and kindness GETS peace and happiness, given mistakes of impatience and meanness from others which cause disturbance. Willing patience and kindness requires motivation. The Greatest Motivation is Jesus Christ and His Kingdom. Being patient and kind, in the face of impatience and meanness, requires free will for it goes against our natural selfish instinct. Being motivated to will for Jesus Christ and His Kingdom requires free will because the only way to know Him is to first have faith in Him and His Kingdom. Therefore, by the Law of Love from God, He gave us free-will by setting us free from having to know Him or believe in Him.

Here is another:
Do you feel forced to respond to me?
If you do not feel forced, then you are free to choose whether or not you will respond… and your choice will directly affect your will? Therefore, your will is free to change.

Here is one other:
A thought is a will of the mind. We have the ability to change our thoughts from one instance to another without any interference of an experience of which we did not choose. Therefore, we have free will.

Thank you very much for the food for thought. You have helped me develop greater perspective.

Thoughts?

 

[Giuseppe_Gavino]

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?

I’m getting it from the fact that I can choose whether or not to allow these things to have an effect on my outlook and my decisions. Free will is about our ability to accept or reject; free will is not about us being able to control or do everything we want.

 

[ASimon]

Thank you very much for sharing your perspective, please consider a few concepts:

How to Become an Author of Your Intentions:
Given countless factors, which are out of your control, can author your intentions, what extra factor grants us the ability to author any of our intentions, and where does this come from? The Law of Love and it comes from God. Here it is in a brief and short form:
Love IS patient and kind. Patience and kindness GETS peace and happiness, given mistakes of impatience and meanness from others which cause disturbance. Willing patience and kindness requires motivation. The Greatest Motivation is Jesus Christ and His Kingdom. Being patient and kind, in the face of impatience and meanness, requires free will for it goes against our natural selfish instinct. Being motivated to will for Jesus Christ and His Kingdom requires free will because the only way to know Him is to first have faith in Him and His Kingdom. Therefore, by the Law of Love from God, He gave us free-will by setting us free from having to know Him or believe in Him.

Sorry, I just don’t see how this proposition escapes my earlier rebuttal on God-given free will. This sort of free will you’re proposing is given to us by our Creator is a very impressively wrapped empty box. We’re to do with it what we will. Fine. So what decides what we will do? I can only refer back to my original point - genetics, upbringing, and experience. God gave us free will, so we have the choice whether to know him or not know him. So what dictates whether we end up knowing him or not? Nothing that we can choose for ourselves, it appears.

Here is another:
Do you feel forced to respond to me?
If you do not feel forced, then you are free to choose whether or not you will respond… and your choice will directly affect your will? Therefore, your will is free to change.

Obviously, the illusion that we have free will is a very compelling one. Basically, everyone of us operates at every moment of our lives, under the assumption that we have it. I don’t deny this. Do I feel forced to respond to you? Nope. But why am I responding? Well, because I want to. Why do I want to? Well, I think it has something to do with my interest level in this discussion, and the general tone of your earlier replies. Okay, well why are those two factors important to me?..

As you can see, we are rapidly descending into a murky abyss of my own internal causality. Even at that early stage, I can’t entirely account for why I want to respond here - I can only speculate on some possible reasons. And note, the general pleasant tone that may have helped compel me to reply to you isn’t something I chose - you chose it. In any event, to try and cull the depths my own motivation would seem to be a fool’s errand - I can’t honestly account for why I do most of anything, beyond a couple degrees of separation. But we can’t simply deny that there is a there there. I’m replying to you for a reason. But ultimately, I am in no position to account for it.

Here is one other:
A thought is a will of the mind. We have the ability to change our thoughts from one instance to another without any interference of an experience of which we did not choose. Therefore, we have free will.

Lots of things to offer here. For one thing, you should note that, if this were true, it would all but eliminate the idea of psychological disorders. Depression would cease to exist. In fact, sadness itself would disappear. Who would be sad for more than a second (much less let this emotion cripple their life) if not being sad was simply a matter of willing the emotion away?

The reality is, we walk around everyday in a haze of (name removed by moderator)ut, springing into consciousness, seemingly unbidden. Lucky for us, we seem to have evolved a capacity to sort through the trivia that’s forever coming at us, and focus on what’s more crucial. So much so that we hardly notice the trivia is ever even there.

Have you ever tried to remember a well-liked song, with a familiar lyric and melody, but for whatever reason, you couldn’t place it? You’ve heard it a thousand times, but you’re searching your memory, and it’s just not coming to you. So you forget about it, and move on to other things. And then, 6-1/2 hours later, the news anchor on your TV starts talking about Minnesota, you open a kitchen drawer to pull out a whisk, and suddenly, bang! It’s there. The song, the beat, the lyrics, everything! How could you possibly forget it? Who knows? But more importantly, why did it come to you just then? My guess is, you had no idea. And you can’t honestly say you chose to think it. If you could choose to think it, at the very least, you would’ve thought of it 6-1/2 hours earlier.

 

[ASimon]

I’m getting it from the fact that I can choose whether or not to allow these things to have an effect on my outlook and my decisions. Free will is about our ability to accept or reject; free will is not about us being able to control or do everything we want.

At best, you’re describing an example of the free will that you claim to have. I was asking where you get it from. Even if you had free will, you wouldn’t be getting it from the fact that you have it.

 

[Giuseppe_Gavino]

I was asking where you get it from.

The soul, but I know this is an answer you do not accept so

 

[ASimon]

The soul, but I know this is an answer you do not accept so

True, but I don’t accept it, not just because I don’t believe in anything you would term a “soul,” but because it’s a philosophical non-starter, even given the existence of the soul. The fact that I don’t believe in the soul needn’t be an obstacle for you. If there was an argument for the soul as free-will grantor or enabler that actually hung together, given your contingent beliefs, then you could put it on the table. And yes, in fairness, I would fall back on the fact that I don’t believe in the soul, and there’s no particularly good reason to believe that we have one. I am allowed that move, in that it’s a fair and honest representation of what I believe. But I’m taking my claim a step further to show people who are inclined to view the soul in this way that free will cannot come of it, not in a philosophical sense.

 

[Giuseppe_Gavino]

True, but I don’t accept it, not just because I don’t believe in anything you would term a “soul,” but because it’s a philosophical non-starter, even given the existence of the soul. The fact that I don’t believe in the soul needn’t be an obstacle for you. If there was an argument for the soul as free-will grantor or enabler that actually hung together, given your contingent beliefs, then you could put it on the table. And yes, in fairness, I would fall back on the fact that I don’t believe in the soul, and there’s no particularly good reason to believe that we have one. I am allowed that move, in that it’s a fair and honest representation of what I believe. But I’m taking my claim a step further to show people who are inclined to view the soul in this way that free will cannot come of it, not in a philosophical sense.

As much as I would love to be able to give a huge in-depth philosophical explanation of the soul and how it’s the source of free will; the upsetting thing is I cannot. My position has been taken on faith and my own inner conviction that I’m both a natural and spiritual being. I view the soul as the source of free will; in the same way I view the passion of an artist to be the source of the value of a painting. For some just knowing the chemical compound and the material used in a painting is enough to assign value; yet for me it’s everything that matters. The things I can see and the things I cannot see or measure.

 

[Qoeleth]

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… ?

Here’s my answer- we all experience something that seems like ‘free will’. Now ‘freedom’ of itself is nothing except for a feeling or experience- it is not an objective condition. If we feel free, we are free.

Since we feel like we have free will, we have free will.

It matter not on iota whether we are objectively determined. Being determined is a condition, being free is a feeling. The two a thus perfectly compatible.

 

[empther]

Interesting how the A-team responds to intelligent points with ridiculous arguments:

ASimon wrote:

Hate to break it to you, but not even identical twins have totally identical DNA. When a fertilized egg splits, the two resulting embryos will share identical nuclear DNA from both parents, but not necessarily identical mitochondrial DNA (from just the mother).

:extrahappy: :whacky:

You can’t sell that to me. I have three college degrees in the sciences including lots of biology.

Mitochondria contains DNA, possibly, scientists suspect, because they are degenerate forms of invasive microbes early in the history of evolution.

Mitochondria are organelles, small organized cellular components floating around the cytoplasm. Mitochondria are called the “energy cells” of the cell because their purpose is to provide energy. No need to get into that.
But mitochondrial DNA has no other contribution to what the whole body will be. Mitochondria can be manufactured as needed, and have to be as the body grows. There can be a varying number of mitochondria in cells depending on the person’s needs. A marathon runner will need more than a couch potato.
But there is always the same amount of heriditary DNA, chromsomes and their genes in each cell. The heriditary DNA is identical in identical twins which result from division of the fertilized egg.

The A-team will come up with every kind of ridiculous argument to try to cast doubt on anything a believer says.

 

[ASimon]

Interesting how the A-team responds to intelligent points with ridiculous arguments:

ASimon wrote:

:extrahappy: :whacky:

You can’t sell that to me. I have three college degrees in the sciences including lots of biology.

Mitochondria contains DNA, possibly, scientists suspect, because they are degenerate forms of invasive microbes early in the history of evolution.

Mitochondria are organelles, small organized cellular components floating around the cytoplasm. Mitochondria are called the “energy cells” of the cell because their purpose is to provide energy. No need to get into that.
But mitochondrial DNA has no other contribution to what the whole body will be. Mitochondria can be manufactured as needed, and have to be as the body grows. There can be a varying number of mitochondria in cells depending on the person’s needs. A marathon runner will need more than a couch potato.
But there is always the same amount of heriditary DNA, chromsomes and their genes in each cell. The heriditary DNA is identical in identical twins which result from division of the fertilized egg.

The A-team will come up with every kind of ridiculous argument to try to cast doubt on anything a believer says.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong on this point. Identical twins have very similar DNA, but it’s not identical. Obviously, the two embryos have the same amount of chromosomes and the like - that’s nothing like saying they are identical.

But incidentally, even if they did share identical DNA, it would still not be an argument for free will. You would still have two people sharing identical DNA (which they didn’t choose), but experience different upbringings and other life experiences (which they didn’t choose), which ultimately would account for why they have different personalities and make different choices, but would still not leave you room to claim they were the authors of their personalities and choices.

 

[empther]

The A-team just won’t admit it when they’ve been shown to be dead wrong.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong on this point. Identical twins have very similar DNA, but it’s not identical. Obviously, the two embryos have the same amount of chromosomes and the like - that’s nothing like saying they are identical.

I explained very clearly why identical twins have the same DNA. ASimon gratuitously and without support says they have different DNA, but can’t explain why because it’s impossible. I suspect everybody on this thread understands why. It’s high school sophomore biology.

But incidentally, even if they did share identical DNA, it would still not be an argument for free will. You would still have two people sharing identical DNA (which they didn’t choose), but experience different upbringings and other life experiences (which they didn’t choose), which ultimately would account for why they have different personalities and make different choices, but would still not leave you room to claim they were the authors of their personalities and choices.

More empty hot air.
It was you who said genetics determines personality. I said the twins were different despite having the same genes.
As for different upbringing and life experiences, where did you get that?
These twins were raised by very conservative Catholic parents. The father was a doctor. They went to a private boarding school for their high school. They shared the same bedroom there. Me and my classmate were the first guys these girls ever dated.
It would be hard to find identical twins with more identical unbringings and experiences. Yet they were already different by 17.
They had free will.

 

[TEPO]

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.

But causation has little to do with free will at all. In fact, according to religion, mere thoughts alone can be either sinful or not such as lust or wishing death upon another. So free will is not necessarily about the results from causation - its more about thought control, and all worldly thought comes from the world… This is why choosing our influences is so important

 

[TEPO]

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.

What if one honestly believes in God? Is that not an act of free will?

I mean -I don’t think anyone here is claiming that they can know or think of anything outside of what the world has to offer them… So…?

I think that your “selective free will” is what the church recognizes as free will in it’s entirety… No more, no less.

I think when the apostles went out influencing the nations with Christianity, they offered the people a choice… This choice excluded all experiences, genetics and upbringings. They just either accepted or rejected the gospels based on their own free will alone… Right or wrong?

 

[ASimon]

The A-team just won’t admit it when they’ve been shown to be dead wrong.

I explained very clearly why identical twins have the same DNA. ASimon gratuitously and without support says they have different DNA, but can’t explain why because it’s impossible. I suspect everybody on this thread understands why. It’s high school sophomore biology.

I’d be happy to cite you multiple reports and studies proving my point, if I felt it were necessary to support my larger point. It’s not, so I’ll leave it to you to Google.

More empty hot air.
It was you who said genetics determines personality. I said the twins were different despite having the same genes.
As for different upbringing and life experiences, where did you get that?
These twins were raised by very conservative Catholic parents. The father was a doctor. They went to a private boarding school for their high school. They shared the same bedroom there. Me and my classmate were the first guys these girls ever dated.
It would be hard to find identical twins with more identical unbringings and experiences. Yet they were already different by 17.
They had free will.

You have an absurdly narrow view of what represents the totality of one’s upbringing and experience. The fact remains, whether genes are identical or not, these girls did not choose them. Nor did they choose their upbringing and other experiences. And by simple virtue of the fact that these two girls had two different conscious minds, their upbringings and experiences (as they experienced them) were different. It doesn’t matter if they had the same father, whether he was a Catholic or a Buddhist, a doctor or a janitor. Two conscious minds are going to experience life differently.

 

[ASimon]

What if one honestly believes in God? Is that not an act of free will?

I mean -I don’t think anyone here is claiming that they can know or think of anything outside of what the world has to offer them… So…?

I think that your “selective free will” is what the church recognizes as free will in it’s entirety… No more, no less.

I think when the apostles went out influencing the nations with Christianity, they offered the people a choice… This choice excluded all experiences, genetics and upbringings. They just either accepted or rejected the gospels based on their own free will alone… Right or wrong?

Wrong. The choice they were offered did not exclude all experiences, genetics, and upbringing. By definition, it could not have done this. How would this be teased out of the equation? The apostles approach a citizen with the Good News, and suddenly, everything that person knew or had learned through their life, as filtered their particular brain chemistry, determined in part by their genome - suddenly none of this factored into the citizen’s decision to accept or reject the Gospels? They were just using their free will for that one?

 

[empther]

ASimon,

No intelligent person on this board or anywhere else believes he has no free will.

Anybody who has lived a while knows he does.

All your convoluted A-team quibbling cannot change reality. We’re free!

 

[Gorgias]

I’d be happy to cite you multiple reports and studies proving my point, if I felt it were necessary to support my larger point. It’s not, so I’ll leave it to you to Google.

Yes, it’s true that it’s recently been detected that identical twins may develop defects by which their DNA becomes not identical and that these defects seem to go down to the mitochondrial DNA level. However, it is not known at what point in time their DNA “diverges”. Your point, however, suggests that the entirety of a human life (genetics, environment, experiences) creates a situation in which it cannot be asserted that two people are exactly identical. This seems reasonable.

However, you seem to want to use this premise to assert that any difference in behavior, regardless how great, can be explained by any difference in genetics, environment and experiences, regardless how small. Is this correct?

On one hand, the DNA argument doesn’t address the notion of moral behavior. (Are you perhaps simply suggesting that one’s reaction to a particular physical situation in his life is the deterministic cause of one’s subsequent moral behavior?)

In any case, if this is your assertion, then it would seem to follow that one should be able to classify certain deterministic causes as ‘dominant’ and others ‘submissive’, such that the presence of the ‘dominant’ causes should generally indicate that a deterministically-caused behavior is predictable. Is this the claim that you’re making? Otherwise, it seems that you’re pointing to effects which vary wildly, and merely positing a determinism which is by virtue of assertion, not proof. Is that not a reasonable conclusion?

The fact remains, whether genes are identical or not, these girls did not choose them. Nor did they choose their upbringing and other experiences.

Unless you can prove determinism, the sitz im leben argument is immaterial here. On its own, it does nothing to add to your case. If determinism exists, then life situations are part of the deterministic equation; if free will exists, then life situations influence choice, but do not fully determine it. (Unless, of course, your whole argument boils down to “free will is partially constrained by a number of factors”, but even that argument fails…)

 

[Blacksword]

At first I was willing (no pun!) to accept this but then I thought that if the future can be known, then it is fixed. If knowing means holding a true belief with awareness of its truth, then we can only know the future if the future is immutable. If a certain event definitely happens in the future, then all the ‘choices’ which led up to it are also fixed, because if the people involved could choose otherwise, then the future could be different. But we just said that the future was known, so it cannot be otherwise.

I’m coming to the party late here, but when people say God knows the future, this is sloppy language, which contributes to the problem. God does NOT “know” the “future” because, to God, there is no past, present, and future, there is only the eternal “now” of being in everyplace and every time at once. This problem of free will or determinism from a theological perspective disappears when this important point is understood: God doesn’t “know what we will do”, rather, every moment of our lives are “present” to Him at the same point.

 

[empther]

Yes

, it’s true that it’s recently been detected that identical twins may develop defects by which their DNA becomes not identical and that these defects seem to go down to the mitochondrial DNA level. However, it is not known at what point in time their DNA “diverges”.
*
I read the articles.

DNA doesn’t act alone. There is a vast complex of protein molecules and other things floating around chromosomes. Some “unzip” the DNA helix at specific genes to make possible the translation of the gene’s code into proteins. Ribosomes move along the gene while other things things read the code and put the appropriate amino acid in place for the ribosomes to attach to the protein molecule being built. After all that’s done another proteing “rezips” that section of DNA helix.

All these things floating around DNA may vary slightly from one identical twin to another,
but the genes themselves are identical.

---

Somebody might say, “What a waste of time!”

You’re absolutely right.

Anybody with six working brain cells knows we have free will. It’s reality proves itself all the time. Why such a long thread?
Because the A-team’s best weapon is to bring up all kinds of irrelevant nonsense like genetics to disprove a simple concept understood by all. They can keep this up forever, drifting from one irrelevancy to another, laughing themselves silly watching believers responding to endless quibbling.
We all fall for this nonsense. Even me.