Impossibility of free will

[acatnamedorangy]

I love philosophy! These are my ideas and not necessarily the teachings of the church, simply what I have observed. I work with marketing so free will is the name of the game. God knows us better than we know ourselves and because of this he can cater events to get specific results. This is what I do in marketing, only by groups. I have a target audience. I know how that target audience thinks. I know what that target audience does and so I know what works to get the response I am looking for. I’m not removing people’s free will, after all it is rarely more than 70% affective, but I am determining an end goal. So free will makes absolute sense to me.

Understanding that God knew us while still in our mother’s womb is key to understanding how we accomplish our destiny. EVERYTHING HAPPENS FOR A REASON!! You would be surprised the things we control in people’s lives just for marketing. God’s powers would make it effortless to get desired end results. I also believe people can opt out of free will, that’s a whole different topic, but that does give God and/or the devil even more instruments to work with on earth. So the relationship I compare it to for understanding is; God is to individual destiny, as marketing is to consumption. In marketing we don’t make the decision for you, we just try to find a way to teach you that this is the right decision to make.

Example: We know when you are on a bus that when the bus turns sharply any standing person is going to grab a pole or handle strap. So what I can do is buy all new handles for a city that are made of thin but extremely durable khaki and on it is stamped (in red or white) “You think this is strong you should try wearing it, NAME HERE”. Now you smile and will be telling people about the silly strap you grabbed on the bus(because people who ride buses are more likely to have casual conversations about advertisements). More importantly when you tell them, you are remembering the name of the brand and solidifying that name in your memory. You may even sit and think back “That was actually really soft material.” Now next time you go shopping you may see that brand and you may or may not remember why you recognize that name but you do. So you pick up a pair of khaki’s “just to see”. Then you see the big red (red because it perfectly contrasts khaki) sticker explaining the lifetime guarantee or whatever, and you think “Wow this will cut down how often I have to buy new pants, saving me money!” and all the marketing has worked! We know people who ride buses like to save money and that they are more likely to wear khakis on a regular basis (working blue collar/lower income jobs).

Another personal example: You want someone in a crowded room to walk over and talk to you. You look at them and when they catch your eyes you pause for a millisecond, half smile and turn back to something else. If they don’t immediately respond you keep periodically making eye contact again and again. Eventually they feel like they have to satisfy their curiosity and walk over to talk to you but they have the free will not to.

Just like now I know that you will think about this post one day while you are on a bus and looking at advertisements or when you see a red tag on khaki clothes or the next time someone makes eye contact in a crowd. lol I’m not a psychic or manipulating you. It is simply recognizing patterns and letting you run the course. God can put little hurdles, messages or just events in our lives that he knows we will eventually understand and respond to. Free will never being interrupted but your destiny still being completed, at your own pace.

 

[glowingembers]

It is not A STATE OF MIND or AN IDEA that determines an intentional action but a person. We are not always controlled by our states of mind: we are often responsible for them.

This must be clarified before we can move on. Ok, a person determines an intentional action but why would the person do it? Obviously, in order for an action to be intentional, the person must have an intention to do the action and determine the action in agreement with that intention. So once the person has an intention to do an action, then he must do this action in order for this action to be intentional. He may also do an action that is not in agreement with his intention but such an action would not be intentional. This means that an intentional action necessarily follows from the intention to do it, and thus is ultimately determined by the intention. The person is just a causal link between the intention and the intentional action and this causal link cannot prevent the intention from resulting in the action without preventing the action from being intentional.

 

[jpelham]

Samuel Johnson summarized and settled the dilemma:
“All theory is against the freedom of the will; all experience is for it.”
And concluded,
“Sir, we know our will is free, and there’s an end on’t.”

This is William James, who tidily oversimplifies the alternatives. If we identify the individual soul with the source of the “sheer novelty” in a free choice, then the second view is not so preposterous for creatures made in the image of God:

"So both free-will and determinism have been inveighed against and called absurd, because each, in the eyes of its enemies, has seemed to prevent the “imputability” of good or bad deeds to their authors. Queer antinomy this! Free-will means novelty, the grafting onto the past of something not involved therein. If our acts were predetermined, if we merely transmitted the push of the whole past, the free-willists say, how could we be praised or blamed for anything? We should be “agents” only, not “principals,” and where then would be our precious imputability and responsibility?
“But where would it be if we had free-will? Rejoin the determinists. If a “free” act be a sheer novelty, that comes not from me, the previous me, but ex nihilo, and simply tacks itself onto me, how can I, the previous I, be responsible? How can I have any permanent character that will stand still long enough for praise or blame to be awarded? The chaplet of my days tumbles into a cast of disconnected beads as soon as the thread of inner necessity is drawn out by the preposterous indeterminist doctrine.”

 

[Bobber90]

Samuel Johnson summarized and settled the dilemma:
“All theory is against the freedom of the will; all experience is for it.”
And concluded,
“Sir, we know our will is free, and there’s an end on’t.”

Samuel Johnson did not settle the dilemma any more than Hitchens did when he responded to the question of free will with “I have no choice but to believe in it.”

Normal experience doesn’t confirm free will, just as normal experience doesn’t reveal the visual blind spot caused by our retinas. In both cases, as Sam Harris has written, we see an illusion either of completeness of vision or of being consciously responsible for our decisions. However, our supposed conscious decisions are detectable in non-conscious mental activity before they become conscious. On the experimental evidence alone, where is free will, if it is non-conscious activity which produces our decisions?

This is William James, who tidily oversimplifies the alternatives. If we identify the individual soul with the source of the “sheer novelty” in a free choice, then the second view is not so preposterous for creatures made in the image of God:

"So both free-will and determinism have been inveighed against and called absurd, because each, in the eyes of its enemies, has seemed to prevent the “imputability” of good or bad deeds to their authors. Queer antinomy this! Free-will means novelty, the grafting onto the past of something not involved therein. If our acts were predetermined, if we merely transmitted the push of the whole past, the free-willists say, how could we be praised or blamed for anything? We should be “agents” only, not “principals,” and where then would be our precious imputability and responsibility?
“But where would it be if we had free-will? Rejoin the determinists. If a “free” act be a sheer novelty, that comes not from me, the previous me, but ex nihilo, and simply tacks itself onto me, how can I, the previous I, be responsible? How can I have any permanent character that will stand still long enough for praise or blame to be awarded? The chaplet of my days tumbles into a cast of disconnected beads as soon as the thread of inner necessity is drawn out by the preposterous indeterminist doctrine.”

Aside from the experimental evidence, there are indeed philosophical problems with free will. And does it matter at all to the truth of the proposition that free will is impossible that a) the position is unpopular; b) the philosophers are obsessive and impassioned, or even c) that all sides have previously misrepresented each other?

 

[Bobber90]

It is unnecessary to form an intention to form an intention. One intention at a time is enough! You might as well say we have to think to think or to choose to choose…

Intentionality is necessary for free will but it doesn’t exclude free will because the source of the intention is a rational, independent mind - not a brain.

Actually, at the source of the intention (which need be nothing but a feeling) is quite easily the unconscious mind, which itself does not have free will, but passes consciousness its decisions. That stops the infinite regress, fits the experimental evidence and accounts for experience, all in line with determinism.

Free will, conversely, is not demonstrated by experience, requires a logically impossible self, and is incompatible with all that we know about causation regarding either determinate or indeterminate scenarios.

Which do you think is more rational?

 

[tonyrey]

It is not A STATE OF MIND or AN IDEA that determines an intentional action but a person. We are not always controlled by our states of mind: we are often responsible for them.
This must be clarified before we can move on. Ok, a person determines an intentional action but why would the person do it? Obviously, in order for an action to be intentional, the person must have an intention to do the action and determine the action in agreement with that intention. So once the person has an intention to do an action, then he must do this action in order for this action to be intentional.

Not necessarily. The road to hell is paved with good intentions (which don’t lead to action).

He may also do an action that is not in agreement with his intention but such an action would not be intentional. This means that an intentional action necessarily follows from the intention to do it, and thus is ultimately determined by the intention. The person is just a causal link between the intention and the intentional action and this causal link cannot prevent the intention from resulting in the action without preventing the action from being intentional

.

You are separating the** intention** from the person as if they are different entities! The person is not “a causal link” but the cause of the action. Without a person an intention cannot exist but a person can sometimes exist without an intention!

 

[tonyrey]

It is unnecessary to form an intention to form an intention. One intention at a time is enough! You might as well say we have to think to think or to choose to choose…
Intentionality is necessary for free will but it doesn’t exclude free will because the source of the intention is a rational, independent mind - not a brain…

That is an unsupported assumption.

That stops the infinite regress, fits the experimental evidence and accounts for experience, all in line with determinism.

There is no infinite regress if a person is regarded as the cause of his or her actions - which is the most economical, adequate and intelligible explanation.

Free will, conversely, is not demonstrated by experience, requires a logically impossible self, and is incompatible with all that we know about causation regarding either determinate or indeterminate scenarios.

It is demonstrated by personal experience because we can choose to act reasonably or unreasonably! Your ideas of causation are derived from material objects not rational beings.

Which do you think is more rational?

I know that being rational presupposes the ability to choose the best explanation rather than be compelled to choose as a result of forces beyond my control. If my conclusions are not mine they are caused by irrational processes and far more likely to be false than true because I have some insight into reality whereas they have no insight whatsoever!

There is no evidence that **all **mental activity is caused by non-conscious processes.
If you believe it is you are a fatalist who should make no effort to do or change anything - or to reach the correct conclusions about free will or anything else!

 

[JDaniel]

I think that far too many (including Catholics) think the word “free,” in free will, means, “unrestricted” as in infinitely unrestricted. That is not what it means. Please, everyone, examine what you think it means to have “free” will. It means nothing more nor less than the ability to choose between at least two exigencies. And, it doesn’t matter where you were raised. They may be nothing more than the pro, or the con, the affirmation, or the negation.

But, in my opinion, free will extends only to moral choosings. All else is but us on an extremely dynamic appearing chess board.

God bless,
jd

 

[glowingembers]

Not necessarily. The road to hell is paved with good intentions (which don’t lead to action).

If an intention does not lead to action then you have no intentional action and thus no free will.

You are separating the** intention** from the person as if they are different entities! The person is not “a causal link” but the cause of the action. Without a person an intention cannot exist but a person can sometimes exist without an intention!

It doesn’t matter whether intention and person are different entities or the same entity or whether intention is part of person. In all cases, an intentional action must be determined by an intention to do it (otherwise the action would not be intentional).

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

If an intention does not lead to action then you have no intentional action and thus no free will.

The intention not to act is still and act, and is a choice of a free will and the person behind it. Not all acts require the movement of body parts.

 

[Bobber90]

There is no evidence that **all **mental activity is caused by non-conscious processes.
If you believe it is you are a fatalist who should make no effort to do or change anything - or to reach the correct conclusions about free will or anything else!

The rest I suppose we can disagree on. But this!.. This is too much. If there is a way to reconcile free will with determinism, then I would accept that the burden shifts such that one has to use the experimental evidence to claim that all mental activity is caused by the unconscious workings of the mind. Obviously, one cannot claim that based on one experiment - the evidence doesn’t stretch that far. However, as there is no conceivable way to reconcile free will and determinism, I do not have that burden. Given that the evidence merely has to demonstrate an alternative mode of decision making than free will, it is satisfactory for this argument by suggesting that the unconscious mind feeds the conscious mind decisions, which the conscious mind then thinks it controls.

As to fatalism, it is as much a decision to do nothing for the rest of one’s life as it is to carry on in the flow of things. I am pretty sure I know which my unconscious mind would have me do…

 

[tonyrey]

The intention not to act is still and act, and is a choice of a free will and the person behind it. Not all acts require the movement of body parts.

To think otherwise is absurd! It implies that our intentions are illusions unless they produce visible results. According to that argument all our thoughts and emotions are non-existent unless their effects are observable.

 

[tonyrey]

]If an intention does not lead to action then you have no intentional action and thus no free will.

That is a dogmatic assumption which requires substantiation.

It doesn’t matter whether intention and person are different entities or the same entity or whether intention is part of person. In all cases, an intentional action must be determined by an intention to do it (otherwise the action would not be intentional).

An intentional action is always determined by **a person. Intentions don’t exist in a vacuum.

**The basic realities are not persons, intentions and things but persons and things. We don’t ask people

“Have you found out what your intentions are?” Or

“Where do your intentions come from?”

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, at the source of the intention (which need be nothing but a feeling) is quite easily the unconscious mind, which itself does not have free will, but passes consciousness its decisions. That stops the infinite regress, fits the experimental evidence and accounts for experience, all in line with determinism.

There is no evidence that determinism is true.

It is unnecessary to form an intention to form an intention. One intention at a time is enough! You might as well say we have to think to think or to choose to choose. Intentionality is necessary for free will but it doesn’t exclude free will because the source of the intention is a rational, independent** mind **- not a brain…

There is no infinite regress if a person is regarded as the cause of his or her actions - which is the most economical, adequate and intelligible explanation.

It is demonstrated by personal experience because we can choose to act reasonably or unreasonably! Your ideas of causation are derived from material objects not rational beings.

I know that being rational presupposes the ability to choose the best explanation rather than be compelled to choose as a result of forces beyond my control. If my conclusions are not mine they are caused by irrational processes and far more likely to be false than true because I have some insight into reality whereas they have no insight whatsoever!

There is no evidence that **all **

mental activity is caused by non-conscious processes.
If you believe it is you are a fatalist who should make no effort to do or change anything - or to reach the correct conclusions about free will or anything else!
The rest I suppose we can disagree on. But this!.. This is too much. If there is a way to reconcile free will with determinism, then I would accept that the burden shifts such that one has to use the experimental evidence to claim that all mental activity is caused by the unconscious workings of the mind. Obviously, one cannot claim that based on one experiment - the evidence doesn’t stretch that far. However, as there is no conceivable way to reconcile free will and determinism, I do not have that burden. Given that the evidence merely has to demonstrate an alternative mode of decision making than free will, it is satisfactory for this argument by suggesting that the unconscious mind feeds the conscious mind decisions, which the conscious mind then thinks it controls.

As to fatalism, it is as much a decision to do nothing for the rest of one’s life as it is to carry on in the flow of things. I am pretty sure I know which my unconscious mind would have me do…

1. There is** no** evidence whatsoever that all our decisions are caused by our unconscious mind.
2. If all our decisions are caused by our unconscious mind we are not responsible for our decisions.
3. If we are not responsible for our decisions we cannot be** rational **beings.
4. If we are not rational beings there is no reason to believe any of our conclusions.
5. The success of science is overwhelming evidence that we do have reasons to believe many of our conclusions.
6. Therefore we are rational beings who are responsible for decisions which are not caused by our unconscious mind.

 

[Sair]

I think that far too many (including Catholics) think the word “free,” in free will, means, “unrestricted” as in infinitely unrestricted. That is not what it means. Please, everyone, examine what you think it means to have “free” will. It means nothing more nor less than the ability to choose between at least two exigencies. And, it doesn’t matter where you were raised. They may be nothing more than the pro, or the con, the affirmation, or the negation.

But, in my opinion, free will extends only to moral choosings. All else is but us on an extremely dynamic appearing chess board.

God bless,
jd

Free will in that sense is fully compatible with determinism - we may be choice machines, indeed, and still fulfil the relevant criterion of having the ability to choose between two or more alternatives. The difficulty many seem to have is in supposing that if there are unconscious mechanisms influencing or indeed determining the choices we make, then somehow the person is not involved in making the decision, but is merely carried along as a floating patina of consciousness on the murky waters of unconscious processes, with no ability to influence those processes whatsoever. If one is prepared to insist that the person must be somehow separate from the physical, then one must conclude that free will - in the sense of our being fully conscious originators of our actions - is just not feasible.

And I would be interested to know where, exactly, one might draw the line between moral decisions and merely everyday actions. Any decision can be construed as having a moral element, even down to the clothes we wear and the food we eat. If decision-making in general is something of which we, as a species, are capable, there seems little sense in supposing that free will, if we have it, kicks into gear only for decisions classified as moral decisions.

 

[twinz2z]

Given that the evidence merely has to demonstrate an alternative mode of decision making than free will, it is satisfactory for this argument by suggesting that the unconscious mind feeds the conscious mind decisions, which the conscious mind then thinks it controls.

I am pretty sure I know which my unconscious mind would have me do…

But just how sure are you?
There lies your free will.

 

[twinz2z]

.
It is unnecessary to form an intention to form an intention. One intention at a time is enough! You might as well say we have to think to think or to choose to choose…

Just a small point, but sometimes I think it is necessary to think to think, (reflection?) and also sometimes we have to remember we have to choose to choose.
Determining the difference between a mortal and venal sin, is a little like this in it’s structuring of thought.

 

[antunesaa]

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… ?

I think you gave the right answer, at least for Christians: we are indeed “mini-gods”! I prefer the term “sons of God” but mini-Gods is nice too! Free will is a fundamentally supernatural thing.

 

[antunesaa]

I put the word in to indicate that I am versed in the basics of the free will question, not to prevent discussion.

a) Indeterminacy, or randomness, would make our free will decisions like the results of a shaken magic-8 ball. How would we be able to claim authorship of our actions if they are the result of random processes?

I think your position is apparently rational but that’s just because I do not believe in your system and adhere to the existence of free will, which is essentially a supernatural object. And the reason why I don’t believe in your system is the following.

If I didn’t believe in supernatural objects, and therefore in free will, I would be a nihilist; I would distrust the mere possibility of rational thinking. How can I assume that a magical law entitles me with reason, when reason itself is a blind result of purposeless processes? In my view, that would call immediately for a “fixer” of laws entitling me with reason (a law presumably ensuring that reason would emerge from chaos) and that would be inconsistent with my initial position of not believing in supernatural objects. This is why I think your position, while seemingly rational, is actually inconsistent. In sum, without supernatural objects, there is no free will - and no reason either. This could be true, but doesn’t seem to be true.

 

[antunesaa]

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”.[/INDENT]

Free will is not only difficult to reconcile with natural laws but also, in my opinion, impossible to reconcile with them because free will is a fundamentally supernatural object. No matter what correlations people find between the acts of flies and their respective payoffs, the point remains that you cannot extend conclusions from aggregate behavior to the individual level. If 87% of people like chocolate and you ask 1 million people whether they like chocolate, it is very likely that you get an answer between 86.9% and 87.1% (actually the likelihood is about 99.7%). But when presented with 1 person, what can you tell about her attitude towards chocolate? Only generalities about the population behavior; nothing about the person you have in front of you. This is the problem I see with all those researchers coming up with correlations and trying to attack free will with them. As someone said (and I have quoted him before here),

"A magician pulls rabbits out of hats; a behavioral experimentalist pulls habits out of rats."

Or flies.