Impossibility of free will

[JDaniel]

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

Bobber:

Wow! That’s an interesting view.

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

Yeah. I’m so happy that science has fully explained it.

“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.”

A hand waving argument.

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.

Who says it doesn’t? Animals, far less than humans, know only what they’ve learned, for the most part. Obviously choices are not going to be absolutely unfettered creations. Anyone who understands “free will” in that manner has a poor grasp of the subject. No aspersion intended.

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”.

Yet, both animals and especially humans violate natural laws every day. Free will? Hmmm?

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!).

That’s more than a bit self-serving. In fact, it is a sentence that makes very little sense.

The options are nearly random but produced according to deterministic algorithms; the criteria for assessment of options are deterministic too;

Possible. But, free will does not mean helter-skelter, random, un-thought out, un-evaluated choices from a range of everything out there. Even that would then be considered tethered. “Free will” is when a creature can and usually does choose between at least two options. Humans can consider a much larger range of choices either immediately presented to us, or presented to us through a learning process. But, that is irrelevant. Animals choose and we choose.

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.

Then why, after many days of eating from the bowl of food on the right, will a dog, or cat, suddenly alter its behavior? Have you ever had a dog or a cat? They often do things that make us scratch our heads.

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.

I’m glad that the scientists were so ignorant as to present the ‘pc’ side of it. What they did not notice was that only the choir would be convinced that free will does not really exist where no more than a limited menu of choices is present. The ‘range’, or ‘menu’, is irrelevant. Can you grasp that?

God bless,
jd

 

[jochoa]

To my great friend, ASimon,
I have been in deep thought regarding our discussion. So first, thank you for the enjoyable conversation and helping me gain greater perspective. You have a great analysis of the will! Factors which are well-aligned with the idea that creation is not yet fully complete, however that is a discussion for another day.

So what decides what we will do?

Though you are definitely correct in that our intentions decide what we will do, I encourage you to broadening your understanding of being. Please consider the following concepts:
We have…

• a body that wills feelings
• a mind that wills thoughts
• a spirit that wills thoughts of image, knowledge, and past-actions in others
• a will that wills actions which proceed from the mind, body, and spirit
• and all of these will in unison with with a nature/purpose/intention/desire (why and how we feel, think, remember, and will).
  Humans have been given the ability to freely change a multitude of factors within each one of those components, including the nature, by embracing the cross of willing patience and kindness, in the face of impatience and meanness, for the sake of peace and happiness for all, as Jesus Christ did.

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?

To know God, one must do a few things:

1. Want everyone to be able to experience happiness (contentment to intense joy) without ever losing any peace (freedom from disturbance).
2. Set out to master being unconditionally patient and kind so that your relationships and self may experience happiness without losing any peace. I recommend the first 10 days of the Love Dare to begin your journey to mastery.
3. Find the solution to the following problem:
   Given ALL the following:
   -You, as a thinking, feeling, acting, living being exist in solitude (Hint: Think of yourself existing as a single-celled being, similar to how you first came to be).
   -There is nothing else in existence.
   -The only method to create something, living or non-living, is to first think of it in full detail.
   -You want to experience limitless happiness without ever losing peace.
   How do you make that happen? I recommend first thinking about what are the requirements, then try to figure out how to make those happen individually.
   Therefore, our free choice to desire and resolve to find the solution will dictate whether or not we end up knowing Him or not.

Obviously, the illusion that we have free will is a very compelling one…

I find your analysis to be extremely applicable to life at a certain age, both as an individual and society, however, humans have been given the ability to grow to greater heights.
Given the following:
-We all desire some level of peace and happiness for others and the self
-We all use patience and kindness to generate peace and happiness, given mistakes of impatience and meanness.
You have the free will to determine what level of desire of the quality of peace and happiness for every relationship and self you will strive to attain.
You have the free will to determine what quality of patience and kindness you will strive to master, in order to attain your desired level of peace and happiness.
Therefore, we have the free will to set our desires/intentions, as well as the free will to set our actions, meaning we have complete free will.

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?

Please consider two concepts:

1. You are definitely correct in that it is not simple, it takes learning, practice, adjusting…work.
2. It is a matter of willing the emotion away because an emotion is a combination of willed feelings and thoughts, and we can change what we will by changing aspects of being.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I look forward to further discussion.

Thoughts?

 

[belorg]

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.

How can, for God, present, past and future coincide in an eternal now if it is not true that they actually coincide? IOW the fact that God ‘sees’ past, present and future’ in an eternal ‘now’ can only mean two things: either everything really does happen in an eternal now and past and future are merely illusions. Which would mean that the B-theory of time is correct and there are no true chouices between two ‘future’ events.
Or, it can mean that the future has been determined for eternity, which, again does not leave any room for real free will decisions.

 

[JDaniel]

1. There is a tension between free will and determinism, in that both cannot exist together!

Bobber:

Sure they can. The human being is composed of both the autonomic nervous system, also called the involuntary nervous system, and by implication its contrary, a voluntary nervous system. Some systems are a combination of both, such as the lungs for breathing - but not the heart. There is really not very much tension between the various systems. We can stop breathing, at least for a while, e.g., when swimming under water; but, we must not be able to stop our hearts. We can choose to eat or we can choose to go on a hunger strike.

The entire universe consists of contraries. Without their orderly behavior, it would not be here. Entropy is the increase in disorderly behavior. It spells its doom. The one-time theist who looses his faith, becomes an atheist - the antithesis of Theist. Theist’s contrary. There are a myriad of reasons to rationalize atheism. Of course, there’s not an infinite variety of reasons, but quite a wide range of them. And we choose our own poison.

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.

There is a slight - well, maybe not so slight - problem with this: then “sin” would also be deterministic, therefore, it would be God who makes us sin. I choose to not believe that.

God bless,
jd

 

[Blacksword]

How can, for God, present, past and future coincide in an eternal now if it is not true that they actually coincide? IOW the fact that God ‘sees’ past, present and future’ in an eternal ‘now’ can only mean two things: either everything really does happen in an eternal now and past and future are merely illusions. Which
would mean that the B-theory of time is correct and there are no true chouices between two ‘future’ events.
Or, it can mean that the future has been determined for eternity, which, again does not leave any room for real free will decisions.

Or it can mean simply that being outside and over the stream of time of this universe puts God in a fundamentally different perspective than is our own with regards to time “passing”. Your construction again impermissibly anthropormorphizes God. God can be, and indeed must becessarily be, in order to be God, in every “when” as well as being in every “where”. It’s part of the true meaning of omnipresence.

 

[JDaniel]

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

Uh-oh! A choice?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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!

Bobber:

Hmmm, let’s see. We’ll decide to do that due precisely to “feeling” moral? When did moral become something somatic?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

How can, for God, present, past and future coincide in an eternal now if it is not true that they actually coincide?

Belorg:

How can it be otherwise for an Infinite Being? That’s the real question!

IOW the fact that God ‘sees’ past, present and future’ in an eternal ‘now’ can only mean two things: either everything really does happen in an eternal now and past and future are merely illusions.

Could be.

Which would mean that the B-theory of time is correct and there are no true choices between two ‘future’ events.

Almost. But,

Or, it can mean that the future has been determined for eternity, which, again does not leave any room for real free will decisions.

There is really, really, really only one fully free choice capability. And, that is the free ability to sin. All else is caused - including this response.

By the way, I must compliment you: you caught this!

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Or it can mean simply that being outside and over the stream of time of this universe puts God in a fundamentally different perspective than is our own with regards to time “passing”.

Which is exactly what I am saying. Time is either passing or not. To be in ‘a perspective in which time does not pass’ means that there is only one reality which consists of an unchanging past, present and future.

Your construction again impermissibly anthropormorphizes God. God can be, and indeed must becessarily be, in order to be God, in every “when” as well as being in every “where”. It’s part of the true meaning of omnipresence.

Which, again means there is such a thing as an omnipresent future, which means there is only one future, which means no libertarian free will.

 

[Blacksword]

Which is exactly what I am saying. Time is either passing or not. To be in ‘a perspective in which time does not pass’ means that there is only one reality which consists of an unchanging past, present and future.

Which, again means there is such a thing as an omnipresent future, which means there is only one future, which means no libertarian free will.

No, God exists in all possible worlds all at once, no omnipresent future, but a multitude of possible actions on our part, the full breadth of which God is always present in. And time can pass for one but not another, it depends on your perspective. We can see this in physics: for a person moving at near light speed, time would not “pass” for them as it does for others. Being in the stream is a very different perspective from being outside it and seeing it from above, as it were, and yet it is the same stream, and with two fundamentally accurate ways of perceiving it that are nevertheless different perceptions.

 

[Gorgias]

Which is exactly what I am saying. Time is either passing or not. To be in ‘a perspective in which time does not pass’ means that there is only one reality which consists of an unchanging past, present and future.

Nope. You’re not taking into consideration frames of reference.

For example, if you and I are sitting at a table in an otherwise empty room, just staring at one another, but doing nothing else, are we moving? We’re either moving or not, right? There’s no such thing as something more than our “one reality”, right?

Take a step back, now. To someone outside that frame of reference, they can see that the “room” is really a spaceship, moving with constant velocity in a straight line. Are we moving, or not? The answer, based on different frames of reference, is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’.

Now, within the frame of reference that is our physical universe, time is passing. No arguments there. However, the argument being made here is that God is outside of this frame of reference. For God, then, ‘time’ – which is a feature of our frame of reference – is not ‘moving’. God sees it all, in a different perspective than we can manage (by virtue of our location within our frame of reference).

 

[TEPO]

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?

No, they agreed to change their thought patterns when they accepted Christianity. From then on they adopted new traits such as blocking out lustful thought, hatred, pride, etc. they would not necessarily have done this on their own, but rather they chose to allow an outside influence to regulate their thoughts… This is the boldest example of free will but is by no means the only example.

I believe that free will opportunities are increasing in our modern world, and I’m not sure if it is an evolved trait or why it is happening… You see humanity has always been engulfed with influential traits ;this has been scientifically proven. But we’re facing increased methods or avenues to influence more and more through tv to Internet to cell phones, etc… Its so constant that we hardly blink an eye to it as if it’s become everything we live for. In fact there is hardly anything humans do anymore aside from influencing other humans. I don’t know why this is. Its almost like humans have some type of control gene which coincides with another gene that forces us to allow ourselves to be controlled… All through influence.

But the point is that -all these influences force us to make choices, and whatever the reasoning is for making decisions on these choices is -they are real choices. We cannot say that because there are so many that they do not really exist or that they do not belong to us. We cannot say that because genes or experiences or upbringing play a part in our decision making, that there are no choices outside of this… If that were true then why does humanity try so hard to influence -since according to your theory it would have no result…?

The fact is that humanity is rooted in influence because people are capable of making Free Will choices. One could not survive without the other.

 

[TEPO]

Honestly, why else would humanity be so obsessed with influence?

 

[ASimon]

But the point is that -all these influences force us to make choices, and whatever the reasoning is for making decisions on these choices is -they are real choices. We cannot say that because there are so many that they do not really exist or that they do not belong to us. We cannot say that because genes or experiences or upbringing play a part in our decision making, that there are no choices outside of this… If that were true then why does humanity try so hard to influence -since according to your theory it would have no result…?

No, according to my theory, an attempt to influence somebody towards a specific opinion is, by definition, another experience (from the other person’s perspective). You try to convince me of the value of Christianity. I listen to you make your case. That is an experience I’m having. That experience, combined with every other one I’ve had, plus preexisting genetic variables, will determine whether I accept your claims or not.

It’s the same issue with punishing criminals. If somebody kills somebody else, why would we lock this person up in prison, if he lacks free will and could not have authored an intention other than to kill somebody? Well, aside from the desire to keep society safe from dangerous humans, to punish someone with imprisonment is to force a specific experience on them. And ideally, should they ever be released, this experience will serve to help prevent them from repeating the sorts of crimes that got them locked up in the first place.

I don’t mean to say that all our choices in life are predetermined, and that nothing we experience can change them. I’m saying we’re living a 24 hour per day assault of experience on our brain structure and chemistry, and this combined with our genetic predispositions, ultimately author our actions. If you made a case for Christianity convincing enough, I would change my mind and agree with it. Which is to say, your argument would change my mind for me.

 

[ASimon]

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?

Yes. Though, I would emphasize that ultimately, the differences in environment and experiences are not small. From the moment two identical twins are born, the differences begin to pile up. If you see the forest, it all looks the same. When you start counting trees, you can see differences in every moment of every day.

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?)

I think the saying goes that the genetics loads the gun, while environment pulls the trigger. Or doesn’t.

My argument was that we have genetics, upbringing, and experiences. And really, upbringing is a part of “experiences,” though perhaps a sub-group that deserves to weighted a bit more - I don’t mean to necessarily draw a hard distinction there. But I’m asserting that there’s nothing else to factor in - and no room for free will.

This does not mean I can provide a full, itemized accounting of how much of each factor causes what outcome. That wasn’t my point, and I don’t think it’s necessary to support the claim I’m making.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes. Though, I would emphasize that ultimately, the differences in environment and experiences are not small. From the moment two identical twins are born, the differences begin to pile up. If you see the forest, it all looks the same. When you start counting trees, you can see differences in every moment of every day.

So… the huge number of differences accounts for any difference. Why, then, are there so many similarities? If we’re forests of unique trees, why do ‘identical’ twins appear ‘identical’? Why do people show commonalities at all? If it works in one direction, it has to fail in the other, doesn’t it? And clearly, there are correspondences in so-called ‘deterministic’ behavior that defy this vast sea of differences…!

My argument was that we have genetics, upbringing, and experiences. And really, upbringing is a part of “experiences,” though perhaps a sub-group that deserves to weighted a bit more - I don’t mean to necessarily draw a hard distinction there. But I’m asserting that there’s nothing else to factor in - and no room for free will.

Clearly, each person is an individual, bringing a full plate of influences. How do we, then, logically demonstrate that these differences are determinative? You admit that a “full, itemized accounting” linking factors to effects is not possible. If that’s the case, then it’s equally plausible that there is some factor that transcends these influences! Moreover, since your argument hinges on a ‘common sense’ understanding – since it cannot demonstrate that determinism exists – it must admit that it is simply a description of observed events: that is, it can only say “it seems like this to me right now, based on what I’ve observed”. That sort of logic cannot make any claims about future events, though, just more-or-less reasonable predictions. In other words, you can’t claim determinism, but only suggest that it makes sense to you now.

You see where I’m going, don’t you? If all you can do is say that you believe in determinism now, you can’t even say that you’ll always believe in determinism – in other words, you can’t deterministically assert for determinism!

 

[ASimon]

So… the huge number of differences accounts for any difference. Why, then, are there so many similarities? If we’re forests of unique trees, why do ‘identical’ twins appear ‘identical’? Why do people show commonalities at all? If it works in one direction, it has to fail in the other, doesn’t it? And clearly, there are correspondences in so-called ‘deterministic’ behavior that defy this vast sea of differences…!

Well, as far as identical twins go, they may not have identical DNA, but they do have a vast amount of genetic similarities. That’s why they appear identical.

As far as commonalities between people in general, I think you need to refine this point for me to address it. I have an idea of what you’re talking about, but some examples that I might be able to take up would make it easier to answer.

Clearly, each person is an individual, bringing a full plate of influences. How do we, then, logically demonstrate that these differences are determinative? You admit that a “full, itemized accounting” linking factors to effects is not possible. If that’s the case, then it’s equally plausible that there is some factor that transcends these influences!

Not really. Honestly, this is the God question all over again. Since we must concede that we don’t really have a full understanding (or much of a partial one) on how the Universe began, it’s “equally plausible” that a God-head exists as a Prime Mover who started it all. I’m sorry, but no - an unfalsifiable proposition (like “a factor that transcends these influences”) to fill in a gap in our understanding is not “equally plausible.”

And even if it were, this isn’t even a like scenario, since there is no corresponding gap in our fundamental understanding with the free will question. We know what we have - genetics, upbringing, and experience. To add another factor is not just to presuppose it’s existence, it’s to presuppose that we need it in the first place. At least in cosmology, we do have something fundamental gap that needs to be explained. In free will, you’re basically inventing a gap that wasn’t even there.

Moreover, since your argument hinges on a ‘common sense’ understanding – since it cannot demonstrate that determinism exists – it must admit that it is simply a description of observed events: that is, it can only say “it seems like this to me right now, based on what I’ve observed”. That sort of logic cannot make any claims about future events, though, just more-or-less reasonable predictions. In other words, you can’t claim determinism, but only suggest that it makes sense to you now.

You see where I’m going, don’t you? If all you can do is say that you believe in determinism now, you can’t even say that you’ll always believe in determinism – in other words, you can’t deterministically assert for determinism!

If you can submit an argument (whether philosophically or evidence-based) that can convince me that I’m failing to account for something in the free will question, then I will change my mind - which, again, is to say, that my mind will change me. But until then, what you’re putting forward here is a modified faith argument. To believe in free will, despite having no compelling argument that it exists, on the assumption that we will one day find a compelling argument for it. I don’t do that for God, so I don’t know why I’d bother doing it for this.

 

[Bobber90]

Any ten year old knows he has free will.

Don’t rely upon 10 year olds for philosophy!

1 Corinthians 13:11

 

[Bobber90]

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.

I can agree wholeheartedly with you, but your position also rules out morality because merely feeling free does not confer actual responsibility for our actions. Being determined means we could never have chosen otherwise than we did on every occasion… It means there is only one future, and that we literally have a destiny!

 

[Bobber90]

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.

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.

I assume this has been addressed since, but I’ll add my thoughts.

Genes are affected by environment - epigenetics is the study of this - meaning that both twins’ genes will change over their life anyway.

They definitely have different life experiences and therefore also a different environment. Take it from the womb onwards - twins are often born weighing differently due to different access to the placenta. They get non-identical treatment by people including their own parents because it is impossible to behave exactly the same twice. There are also serial effects - if one person is dealt with first or does something first, the second person is treated differently and becomes something else relative to the other. By having different names and by people looking for differences, differences are encouraged and internalised. You demonstrated it by claiming that one of the people you knew was a lot more talkative than the other. That is a comparison less often made of other siblings whose differences are more visible and less interesting. Twins have different friends, different activities, different lives, so it really is remarkably shallow to expect them to represent the ideal thought experiment for free will.

So clearly twins have both different genes, physiologies and environments, so you would not expect them to behave exactly the same in every way.