Is the question of "free will" a philosophical or scientific issue?

[Peter_Plato]

What can I say, he’s a thinker . He loves having these kinds of discussions and I kinda enjoy them too.

Both you and he may be interested in this talk by Peter Kreeft who uses the Lord of the Rings story to develop some clarity around the idea of what free will could possibly be.

peterkreeft.com/audio/29_lotr_fated-free/peter-kreeft_fated-free_.mp3

Augustine develops a very insightful view that human free will is possible because of the empowerment of the grace of God which provides the means by which to act “beyond” one’s own means, in his treatise called “On Grace and Free Will.” It is available here: newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm

However, it is somewhat of a challenging read and even more difficult to extract his key points.

 

[Peter_Plato]

For my own part, I suspect that consciousness is a strong indicator of free will.

If human agency were simply an integral part of a causal order, consciousness would not make sense and consciousness would, speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, be completely redundant. Why would nature evolve consciousness of the causal order, an order which inevitably determines every choice and act humans make, when being aware of the causal chain makes absolutely no difference to the outcome? It would be a complete waste of biological resources.

In sports, pinnacle athletes try to reduce conscious decision making to a minimum precisely because automatic responses built into the neurophysiology of the athlete are much more efficient in the demands of most sports. Reducing conscious decision making is the goal of most training regimes. So why would nature develop such a clumsy capacity when autonomic responses would be much more effective in the game of survival?

The answer, I suspect, is because consciousness is not a biophysical product at all, but an indicator of quite a different nature - personhood or personal identity that is only possible when an agent is “apart” from all else, including the causal order. You can’t have a subjective identity as a “person” without the capacity to originate thoughts, decisions and actions as novel to oneself and distinct from the external world.

Free will, I suspect is a necessary condition for consciousness and personal subjective identity. Without free will we would not have self identity precisely because there would be nothing, in terms of awareness, that would make personal identity a distinctly apprehended entity; nothing that would set subjective awareness apart from the causal order. We would have no sense of self awareness without free will.

I understand this is not an argument, but I don’t think it would be too difficult to develop a strong formal proof.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Seagal:

Since I feel (and hope I am) safe in presuming that your son is not a practicing Catholic, I think he might be more open to criticisms of his own argument from someone on his side of the ideological field (I am assuming he’s an atheist?) And so, given that consideration, I offer you:

Will This Post Make Sam Harris Change His Mind About Free Will?

John Horgan, the author, is what I would describe as an agnostic with a healthy curiosity.

 

[zro_x]

Interestingly, the concept of free will is one of the few religious proclamations that are ultimately physically testable. So to answer you question, Free will is a scientific–though also theological-- issue. Eventually, science may get to the point where it can prove that all thoughts, decisions, and actions are part of some causal chain. Or, it may discover that there is some sort of disconnect in the causal chain and phyiscal laws of the brain, which would prove the existence of free will. we just don’t know which it is yet, at least not from a scientific perspective.

 

[seagal]

For my own part, I suspect that consciousness is a strong indicator of free will.

If human agency were simply an integral part of a causal order, consciousness would not make sense and consciousness would, speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, be completely redundant. Why would nature evolve consciousness of the causal order, an order which inevitably determines every choice and act humans make, when being aware of the causal chain makes absolutely no difference to the outcome? It would be a complete waste of biological resources.

In sports, pinnacle athletes try to reduce conscious decision making to a minimum precisely because automatic responses built into the neurophysiology of the athlete are much more efficient in the demands of most sports. Reducing conscious decision making is the goal of most training regimes. So why would nature develop such a clumsy capacity when autonomic responses would be much more effective in the game of survival?

The answer, I suspect, is because consciousness is not a biophysical product at all, but an indicator of quite a different nature - personhood or personal identity that is only possible when an agent is “apart” from all else, including the causal order. You can’t have a subjective identity as a “person” without the capacity to originate thoughts, decisions and actions as novel to oneself and distinct from the external world.

Free will, I suspect is a necessary condition for consciousness and personal subjective identity. Without free will we would not have self identity precisely because there would be nothing, in terms of awareness, that would make personal identity a distinctly apprehended entity; nothing that would set subjective awareness apart from the causal order. We would have no sense of self awareness without free will.

I understand this is not an argument, but I don’t think it would be too difficult to develop a strong formal proof.

I hadn’t thought about how free will ties into our natures as human and self identity. Thanks.

 

[seagal]

Seagal:

Since I feel (and hope I am) safe in presuming that your son is not a practicing Catholic, I think he might be more open to criticisms of his own argument from someone on his side of the ideological field (I am assuming he’s an atheist?) And so, given that consideration, I offer you:

Will This Post Make Sam Harris Change His Mind About Free Will?

John Horgan, the author, is what I would describe as an agnostic with a healthy curiosity.

Yes he’s an atheist, and he might be willing to consider Horgan’s opinions but I think he’s more likely to side with Sam Harris, who BTW I find to be not very sharp. I saw a debate between him and W.L. Craig in which Craig (speaking on objective morality) said that the man who says there is nothing wrong with torturing little children is like the man who says 2+2=5. When Harris had his rebuttal he proudly unbuttoned his shirt to reveal a t-shirt with the slogan “2+2=5 for very large quantities of 2”. The inference went right over his head.

 

[seagal]

Both you and he may be interested in this talk by Peter Kreeft who uses the Lord of the Rings story to develop some clarity around the idea of what free will could possibly be.

peterkreeft.com/audio/29_lotr_fated-free/peter-kreeft_fated-free_.mp3

Augustine develops a very insightful view that human free will is possible because of the empowerment of the grace of God which provides the means by which to act “beyond” one’s own means, in his treatise called “On Grace and Free Will.” It is available here: newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm

However, it is somewhat of a challenging read and even more difficult to extract his key points.

Thanks, I love Peter Kreeft and I love listening to him speak. He seems so mystical and down to earth at the same time, I’m sure he’s living on a different plane of consciousness than the rest of us .

Augustine I do find very challenging. Thanks for the links.

 

[Haerticle]

My son and I were having a discussion about free will today. He asserts that there is no such thing as free will, in fact it’s an impossibility. His position (as nearly as I can relate it) is:

1. Everything we experience creates a reaction in our subconscious that we’re not even aware of.
2. These reactions are determined by our previous experiences, upbringing, genes, etc.
3. Therefore we have no choice but to respond to or act on situations the way we do. We think we’re making a choice but in fact the choice has been determined subconsciously by previous experiences.

I have to admit this made a kind of sense but it doesn’t feel right. But I can’t refute it. Can anyone help?

This coincides with much of what I think. I don’t see the issue of free will either as scientific or philosophical. Instead I see it as wholly practical. It is a practical certainty that no free will exists upon cursory reflection.

 

[AyJaySimon]

Yes he’s an atheist, and he might be willing to consider Horgan’s opinions but I think he’s more likely to side with Sam Harris, who BTW I find to be not very sharp. I saw a debate between him and W.L. Craig in which Craig (speaking on objective morality) said that the man who says there is nothing wrong with torturing little children is like the man who says 2+2=5. When Harris had his rebuttal he proudly unbuttoned his shirt to reveal a t-shirt with the slogan “2+2=5 for very large quantities of 2”. The inference went right over his head.

You’re not thinking of Sam Harris. You’re probably thinking of Lawrence Krauss. At least in terms of the T-shirt.

 

[wbradl]

It wld seem to me this is a philosophical question,and we shld not get too deeply into it,or the comments become boring.Acquinas and Aristotle said every agent acts for a good! It is the good that moves the will.The free will ,will move toward the greatest good,now that may be the apparent good,or the real good or a false good,but once the greater good is precieved [by the intellect], then the will acts to obtain it.e.g.,a man holds up a store,it is the idea of gaining money that motivates him a good,unfortunately the action is the problem,he is taking that which does not his to take,[stealing].Gaining money is the good,the action is the problem.It might be said the will is a captive of good,so is it truely free???w bradl

 

[wbradl]

reply to myelin:…I don’t see how the soul and the unconscious can work with the conscious,it’s called the unconscious for a reason,its not recognized! it works on the lower levels of thought.The other problem I have is the familar statement that we are made in the image of God. There is no comparison twixt the finite [man] and the infinite God} except they both exist,what else do we share with the Almighty?. lastly, how specifically does the unconscious and conscious help with grace? Grace is defined as an unearned,free gift from God,we really have no control over it. Mabe I’m being too pickey here 'but those are my initial thoughts,I may b wrong,and frequently so…wbradl

 

[cornbread_r2]

This article seems relevant to the discussion.

Grandma’s Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes

 

[Peter_Plato]

…it’s called the unconscious for a reason,its not recognized!

If it is not “recognized” (meaning, I take it, that we cannot be aware of it), then how can we draw any conclusions about it and how it affects conscious thought or behaviour? We couldn’t unless we have some means by which to tap into it. Otherwise, any speculation about the “unconscious” is purely taking shots in the dark and we couldn’t know with any sense of certainty that we are under the compulsive influence of this imagined monster in the closet called the “subconscious.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

This article seems relevant to the discussion.

Grandma’s Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes

Sure, but the question might be asked whether your own determined will to think a certain way or to act a certain way based upon an internal commitment to that course could, likewise, leave epigenetic marks on your own brain the way grandma’s external influences did? In other words, can thought act on neurophysiology the way past experiences do? Can thought processes be detached in some way from brain physiology so that the influence can be bilateral (to and from both mind and body) rather than unilateral (body to mind?)

 

[prodigalson2011]

Sure, but the question might be asked whether your own determined will to think a certain way or to act a certain way based upon an internal commitment to that course could, likewise, leave epigenetic marks on your own brain the way grandma’s external influences did? In other words, can thought act on neurophysiology the way past experiences do? Can thought processes be detached in some way from brain physiology so that the influence can be bilateral (to and from both mind and body) rather than unilateral (body to mind?)

I would say what you have described here is pretty much identical to what is known as cognitive behavioral therapy, a practice which has had remarkable success.

The denial of free will seems to me the materialist’s variation on “the devil made me do it.” Very well said!

 

[Deryk]

There is no doubt in my mind that how one reacts to situations can be influenced by reactions to past experiences. However by “free will” I understand that despite all that has happened we are capable of changing our lives to some other direction even if it could lead to future consequences not to our liking. It is depressing to think of a situation in life which leads no where and over which we would have no control. Even animals are capable of changing to increase their chance of saving thir lives.Finally as creatures created in God’s image we have job to do to make the world we live in a better place. Not profound but hopefully helpful
Deryk