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

[seagal]

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?

 

[myelin]

Opinion…

The unconscious mind can only work with and alongside the state of the soul, and the conscious mind, there are three…they all bridge

a)the soul
b)the unconscious mind
c)and the conscious mind

this is likened in form, to being or our becoming process, to being made in the image of God and the Trinity.

a) God
b) The Holy Spirit
c) Jesus

An individual cannot grow and further the openness to grace without a measure to grow from…iow generally there needs to be a workable stepping stone idea towards maturity , moderation and all that.

When we make a choice there is in fact deliberation going on in a reducing method toward the final resting decision.

An idea for example to go rob the bank cannot just happen, there needs to be some history which will allow the feasibility to 1 consider and 2 put into full motion. ( or in a boat and notice someone who is a problem stealing off you and no one is around and he is drowning…conscience will not let that happen, its a free choice outside of anything material)

the deliberation is a combination of many things involving 1 and 2 above.

first entertaining the idea…deliberation is going on…planning, deliberation allowing and being easy with the active idea is going on.

if there is no call from the state of the soul to the unconscious mind raising discomfort known as conscience bothering, the deliberation and choice continues…in that space…conscience and no conscience governed by the state of the soul…deliberation cannot but…be real and an active player, choice.

so the three…a b and c in the human experience are bridged together all contributing to the becoming process called life.

the unconscious mind can and does make a decision, an easy example while sleeping the unconscious mind can make a decision in sleep.

we know then that the only way the unconscious can be compelled to decision…is if it is subject to something, and that something is the potential stability and ongoing very quiet objectives in the soul…even if it is survival orientated to a point, which would allow the soul more time for its objectives in the immaterial values and priorities…giving way to real character and solid ego…

 

[prodigalson2011]

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.

This is true.

1. These reactions are determined by our previous experiences, upbringing, genes, etc.

This is also true.

1. 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.

This is a non sequitur (a conclusion which does not follow from the premises) and obviously not true. For example, consider someone who has a phobia. The fear produced by the object of the person’s phobia is a subconscious automatic reaction based on a deeply ingrained psychological imprint.

Nevertheless, the person has an intellect which can recognize this fear as irrational and can actively work to overcome these lower drives. Similarly, in any situation, a person can employ reason to work against other subconscious impulses and learn new ones. And in fact, the only studies (that I’m aware of) which have been conducted to support your son’s position involved subjects performing menial, neutral tasks which presented no practical or moral dilemma to themselves, and even then, the results were far from conclusive. For instance, I think one consisted of monitoring the participants’ brain activity as they were asked to press one of several buttons. The study showed that a significant, but hardly decisive, number of subjects (around 60%) typically chose the button that was indicated by their brain scans before being aware of having made that decision.

However, one should not expect the subject to employ any amount of consideration in such an arbitrary and meaningless action. Therefore, it’s to be expected that the subconscious impulse should be followed. However, in the case of more pressing and consequential matters, the decision to act arises in the conscious mind (intellect) before the act is actually carried out. This is where reason has the chance to intervene, e.g. by considering potential legal or spiritual consequences of a given action. Of course, one’s concern with such consequences is also tied up in the tangled web of the conscious and the subconscious, but the fact remains that a process of reason can discern truths, be they spiritual or material, and allow the individual to act accordingly… or not.

Granted, this faculty can be impaired by addiction, mental illness and various other factors (childhood trauma, etc.), just as the faculty of sight can be impaired by damage to the eye, brain, etc. But to say that the powerful nature of our subconscious drives refutes free will does a great disservice to the very logical faculty your son used to formulate his argument.

This dichotomy between subconscious and intellect is very similar to, and in fact deeply connected to, that described in Scripture as the flesh against the spirit, i.e. our neural programming (flesh) and our intellect (spirit) battle for control of our bodies. In the Catholic understanding, the dominion of the irrational, subconscious drives (flesh) over the intellect (spirit) is a result of the Fall. Prior to that, our free will was perfect in that our enlightened intellects had total dominion over the lower passions. As a result of sin which, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught, “inflames the passions and darkens the intellect,” our free will is significantly weakened, but not completely eradicated.

 

[Karen107]

It sounds like those senarios lack anything about divine intervention so neither philisophical or scientific explanations answer the question about Free will. Free will is the ability to make choices. Those who are led by the spirit will do things because God had a hand in it and not everything is attributed to our experiences.

God gave us free will, but God is also all knowing, so God knows what decision we will make before we make it… And so it is in Gods plan that good will happen for those who love him and are led by him… Those who do wrong, or oppose God, God interacts with them by not interacting with them. So God interacts with all either way, by divine intervention or no divine intervention. And move all in the direction of his plan to reconcile the world to Himself. If a child is not given to God through his baptism, (experiences), at some point the child will question for themselves about faith because the spirit is part of our core being. We are souls in a human body. Either a person becomes a believer or not, we can’t really judge whether God will grant them the grace they need because of something the child can’t control, but willful attitudes against faith never helps a person, so it’s our duty to invite all into the faith and church, including our children, and pray for them so that no one is left behind. We all have the free will ability to do right or wrong. If a person chooses to do wrong, they need to seek forgiveness by God and grace helps them get there.

We all have a choice to be with God or not, but God wants all to be reconciled to Him and so our fate is our doing, not Gods. We can get on the train or not but either way God will know what we will do because God is all knowing. That’s quite different than God making decisions for us.

I’m not claiming to know all on this, but that is how I’ve come to understand it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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 argument is based upon a logical fallacy called retrospective determinism. In short, the fallacy involves a false conclusion that merely because some event or action did occur it must necessarily have resulted. The problem with your son’s argument is that it is logically impossible to conclude after the fact whether any particular act of will was not a freely determined one. A freely willed act could only have been a logical possibility before the fact since it involves entertaining choices between alternatives before acting that are not compelled by anything external to the agent or will carrying out the act. We cannot logically conclude that just because a choice was made that it had to have been the only possible live choice.

The most that the argument from subconscious influences does show is that some humans are not fully aware of all the influences that are in play when they, as human agents make a choice. Since your son admits that he is not fully conscious of the influences on his decisions, neither does he know that these influences compel him in any deterministic way.

Any human agent may “consider” but not be compelled by all kinds of internal and external factors but still act in a way that is not determined by any or all of them. Since your son admits that some or all of these are “subconscious” and not completely known, neither can he conclude, based upon admitted ignorance, that these influences are so compelling as to overwhelm free volition. He has not provided warrant to make that call and the logical fallacy of retrospective determinism entails that simply because one result came about we cannot know after the fact that that particular result HAD to be.

The other problem with your son’s argument is that he cannot know that all human agents are as ignorant of their subconscious lives as he claims. Perhaps some humans are fully aware of and fully in control of their entire subconscious existence and make decisions with crystal clarity. It might be that those who lack insight into what motivates them are, indeed, lacking in free will, but there may be other human beings who have full awareness and exercise a completely unencumbered free will. He cannot generalize from his own internal self awareness to what is true about every human agent.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi, interesting proposition. While I would agree to a degree with 1:

1. Everything we experience creates a reaction in our subconscious that we’re not even aware of.

There are a couple of points I think need clarification:
(i) Not everything we experience, such as dreams, has an affect on our subconscious.
(ii) I’m not sure what is meant by “reaction” here. Does your son mean that everything we experience affects our subconscious? If so, sure. Or does he mean that everything we experience causes our subconscious to react, in which case, since it is our subconscious, how can we possibly know this?

Going to the second point:

1. These reactions are determined by our previous experiences, upbringing, genes, etc.

Which reactions? Again, if the argument is that our subconscious reacts to experience, and is determined by previous experience, genetics, etc. I don’t see how anyone could possibly know such a thing. Subconscious, by its very nature, is not conscious behaviour. Consequently, any argument here is mostly speculation.

Furthermore, why conclude that - even if this were true - our subconscious reactions are determined? The only reason to do this would be because you are approach the issue with a preconceived philosophical determinism, or else strict deterministic materialism, in which case it seems like begging the question to me.

Lastly:

1. 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.

This certainly doesn’t follow from premises 1 and 2. If we have subconscious reactions that are determined, that is one thing, but why assume our conscious reactions are determined in the same way? Likewise, you might argue that our instinctual reactions are determined, but it doesn’t follow that moral reactions are determined.

Moreover, why would be believe we have choice if we evidently do not? I mean, if we are so wrong about such a basic property of human nature, who knows what else we might be wrong about? Why couldn’t we then be wrong about the whole nature of the subconscious, which seems more remote to ourselves than our free will?

Finally, if what your son suggests is true, why are we even bother to argue and convince anyone of anything, since it is all predetermined anyway?

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Having studied neuro and bio psychology, ‘foundations of behaviour’, ‘damaged minds’ etc., it is my opinion that the ‘brain/mind’ interface is a two-way process and that each has it’s effect on the other, ‘rather like in a debate’. The therefore feel that the issue of ‘free will’ is BOTH scientific AND philosophical in nature.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

Sounds like your son is regurgitating something he has picked up at school. Obviously no faithful Catholic can agree to what he is saying. Catholics are always obliged to give the obedienc of faith to the teachings of the Church. So where every Catholic should begin is the Catechism of the Church.

Here is what the Church says briefly:

Article 3

MAN’S FREEDOM

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

But one should read all of paras 1730-1751

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5M.HTM

Once that is done, one can consider what can be learned from Philosophy. Here one should consider the teaching of Thomas Aquinas S.T. Part1, Ques. 18-48

newadvent.org/summa/2.htm

Finally, one can consider what science has to say. But in science, as in Philosophy, one always makes one’s judgements based on the solid teachings of the Church.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

It is both a philosophical and scientific issue, in my opinion.

Regarding your son’s comments, I think this is an extreme position that some arrive at in light of modern psychology and neuroscience, but it is a very unwarranted extrapolation. Our minds do work subconsciously in many way. Studies have found that people are less generous after having washed their hands (in the study, people who washed their hands were less likely to help someone pick up a pile of papers that they dropped). It is supposed that when we wash our hands, we subconsciously feel as though we have done something sufficiently good, and then are less likely to do other good things.

So one could say that we are not completely free, but that is rather obvious. We live in a physical world and have limitations. Our brains are also largely beholden to what’s going on physically within and around our bodies.

But the claim that we have no free will is, I think, absurd. I can snap my fingers right now, and it is completely voluntary, so I must therefore have some free will. One could say that snapping my fingers was just a product of chemical reactions in my head, which were caused by other chemical reactions that were caused by my reading this thread, etc. etc., but that is simply begging the question. Such a conception of the mind has never been established and is currently a subject of much disagreement.

 

[seagal]

Thanks to everyone who responded. I didn’t abandon this thread but I wanted to take time to consider your answers the way I think my son would.

This is a non sequitur (a conclusion which does not follow from the premises) and obviously not true. For example, consider someone who has a phobia. The fear produced by the object of the person’s phobia is a subconscious automatic reaction based on a deeply ingrained psychological imprint.

Nevertheless, the person has an intellect which can recognize this fear as irrational and can actively work to overcome these lower drives.

My son would respond that whether or not a person recognizes this fear as irrational, and then whether or not to try to overcome it, and then whether or not they would be successful, depends on everything that has happened in their life up to that point

For instance, I think one consisted of monitoring the participants’ brain activity as they were asked to press one of several buttons. The study showed that a significant, but hardly decisive, number of subjects (around 60%) typically chose the button that was indicated by their brain scans before being aware of having made that decision.

Yes, I think that’s the sort of thing he’s talking about. The decision is made without you being aware of it.

However, one should not expect the subject to employ any amount of consideration in such an arbitrary and meaningless action. Therefore, it’s to be expected that the subconscious impulse should be followed. However, in the case of more pressing and consequential matters, the decision to act arises in the conscious mind (intellect) before the act is actually carried out.

Are there studies that show that?

This is where reason has the chance to intervene, e.g. by considering potential legal or spiritual consequences of a given action. Of course, one’s concern with such consequences is also tied up in the tangled web of the conscious and the subconscious, but the fact remains that a process of reason can discern truths, be they spiritual or material, and allow the individual to act accordingly… or not.

Granted, this faculty can be impaired by addiction, mental illness and various other factors (childhood trauma, etc.), just as the faculty of sight can be impaired by damage to the eye, brain, etc. But to say that the powerful nature of our subconscious drives refutes free will does a great disservice to the very logical faculty your son used to formulate his argument.

Good point

 

[seagal]

This argument is based upon a logical fallacy called retrospective determinism. In short, the fallacy involves a false conclusion that merely because some event or action did occur it must necessarily have resulted. The problem with your son’s argument is that it is logically impossible to conclude after the fact whether any particular act of will was not a freely determined one. A freely willed act could only have been a logical possibility before the fact since it involves entertaining choices between alternatives before acting that are not compelled by anything external to the agent or will carrying out the act. We cannot logically conclude that just because a choice was made that it had to have been the only possible live choice.

I’m not sure if retrospective determinism accurately describes my son’s theory. (I’m trying to get inside his head.) I’ll try to give an example to my understanding. Suppose you get into a car accident. You might say it was because you were drinking and you were bound to (which I understand is retrospective determinism). Or you might say it was because you choose to go down that particular street (even though you don’t normally take that route) because of some subconscious prodding; and you wound up on that street at that particular time because of some other subconscious prodding that impelled you to leave the bar at that particular time. And a million other proddings could have decided your actions at every step of the way. And all these choices were made without your conscious knowledge.

The most that the argument from subconscious influences does show is that some humans are not fully aware of all the influences that are in play when they, as human agents make a choice.

Exactly.

Since your son admits that he is not fully conscious of the influences on his decisions, neither does he know that these influences compel him in any deterministic way.

And he would say he doesn’t know that they don’t.

Any human agent may “consider” but not be compelled by all kinds of internal and external factors but still act in a way that is not determined by any or all of them. Since your son admits that some or all of these are “subconscious” and not completely known, neither can he conclude, based upon admitted ignorance, that these influences are so compelling as to overwhelm free volition. He has not provided warrant to make that call and the logical fallacy of retrospective determinism entails that simply because one result came about we cannot know after the fact that that particular result HAD to be.

He would say neither can we conclude that these influences are not the cause of all our actions. But I can see what you’re saying, that without any evidence at all we can’t make conclusions one way or the other.

The other problem with your son’s argument is that he cannot know that all human agents are as ignorant of their subconscious lives as he claims. Perhaps some humans are fully aware of and fully in control of their entire subconscious existence and make decisions with crystal clarity. It might be that those who lack insight into what motivates them are, indeed, lacking in free will, but there may be other human beings who have full awareness and exercise a completely unencumbered free will. He cannot generalize from his own internal self awareness to what is true about every human agent.

Maybe some humans are fully aware but I’d go out on a limb and say that would be a very small percentage of the population.

BTW, with a name like Plato I’m sure my son would enjoy chatting with you.

 

[seagal]

(ii) I’m not sure what is meant by “reaction” here. Does your son mean that everything we experience affects our subconscious? If so, sure.

Yes

Or does he mean that everything we experience causes our subconscious to react, in which case, since it is our subconscious, how can we possibly know this?

That’s part of his point. If we don’t know how our subconscious reacts that how can we freely act?

Which reactions? Again, if the argument is that our subconscious reacts to experience, and is determined by previous experience, genetics, etc. I don’t see how anyone could possibly know such a thing. Subconscious, by its very nature, is not conscious behaviour. Consequently, any argument here is mostly speculation.

Again, that’s his point. It’s not a matter of how we’re affected, we are affected in some way even if we’re unaware of it and that determines our choices. These are not only the big or even medium-sized decisions we make, but the small inconsequential ones like when to go to bed or (the example he used) whether or not to go home because his wife had called looking for him or stay another few minutes to continue the conversation.

Furthermore, why conclude that - even if this were true - our subconscious reactions are determined? The only reason to do this would be because you are approach the issue with a preconceived philosophical determinism, or else strict deterministic materialism, in which case it seems like begging the question to me.

I’ll go along with that, and it’s very hard to argue with preconceived notions.

This certainly doesn’t follow from premises 1 and 2. If we have subconscious reactions that are determined, that is one thing, but why assume our conscious reactions are determined in the same way? Likewise, you might argue that our instinctual reactions are determined, but it doesn’t follow that moral reactions are determined.

This isn’t necessarily about moral reactions.

Moreover, why would be believe we have choice if we evidently do not? I mean, if we are so wrong about such a basic property of human nature, who knows what else we might be wrong about? Why couldn’t we then be wrong about the whole nature of the subconscious, which seems more remote to ourselves than our free will?

Finally, if what your son suggests is true, why are we even bother to argue and convince anyone of anything, since it is all predetermined anyway?

I like that answer, I’ll try it on him

 

[seagal]

Having studied neuro and bio psychology, ‘foundations of behaviour’, ‘damaged minds’ etc., it is my opinion that the ‘brain/mind’ interface is a two-way process and that each has it’s effect on the other, ‘rather like in a debate’. The therefore feel that the issue of ‘free will’ is BOTH scientific AND philosophical in nature.

Interesting. Is that a contradiction in your opinion?

 

[seagal]

Sounds like your son is regurgitating something he has picked up at school.

Not in school, he’s been out for 15 years, but I’m sure he picked it up somewhere.

Obviously no faithful Catholic can agree to what he is saying. Catholics are always obliged to give the obedience of faith to the teachings of the Church. So where every Catholic should begin is the Catechism of the Church.

He was brought up Catholic but is now atheist, much to my grief. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t be persuaded by what the Church says, but I’ll read through the articles you suggested, thanks.

 

[Simpleton]

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?

Your son chose this belief; therefore, premise 3 has been refuted.

 

[WmJackP]

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.

I think your son is attempting to explain physiologically the process by which we make choices. Perhaps, he has a point.

While we can certainly do whatever we intend; nonetheless, do we really have any control over what we intend? For example, I could “choose” to jump off a cliff; but, I have no control over the fact that I would never form the intention to do so. Thus, I will never “choose” to jump off a cliff. Make sense?

 

[seagal]

I think your son is attempting to explain physiologically the process by which we make choices. Perhaps, he has a point.

While we can certainly do whatever we intend; nonetheless, do we really have any control over what we intend? For example, I could “choose” to jump off a cliff; but, I have no control over the fact that I would never form the intention to do so. Thus, I will never “choose” to jump off a cliff. Make sense?

Yep, that’s pretty much what he thinks. But I don’t believe it so I want to refute his argument.

 

[AyJaySimon]

Yep, that’s pretty much what he thinks. But I don’t believe it so I want to refute his argument.

Quite honestly, I’m not sure you can. Your son’s argument is quite sound. Of course, you’re free to assert the unfalsifiable - like the existence of a “soul” that somehow provides or carries free will.

If you’re trying to make the argument on your son’s terms, though, I don’t think his argument can be refuted.

 

[Aloysium]

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?

:twocents:

I understand that this is a philosophy forum, but what interests me is why he says it.
A young man should be out there conquering and leaving his stamp on the world.
Pope John Paul ll, Steve Jobs, the Dalai Lama didn’t sit around entertaining such thoughts - ok, well maybe the Dalai Lama.
Being a main feature in my kids’ “previous experiences” and having considerable impact on what was “determined subconsciously”, I acknowledged my inadequacies when they questioned my parental skills, but I’m sure you didn’t do so bad either.
Regardless of how we explain it to ourselves, it is our life to make it what it will become. Who will be our master; whose will do we obey? I would choose God.

 

[seagal]

:twocents:

I understand that this is a philosophy forum, but what interests me is why he says it.
A young man should be out there conquering and leaving his stamp on the world.
Pope John Paul ll, Steve Jobs, the Dalai Lama didn’t sit around entertaining such thoughts - ok, well maybe the Dalai Lama.
Being a main feature in my kids’ “previous experiences” and having considerable impact on what was “determined subconsciously”, I acknowledged my inadequacies when they questioned my parental skills, but I’m sure you didn’t do so bad either.
Regardless of how we explain it to ourselves, it is our life to make it what it will become. Who will be our master; whose will do we obey? I would choose God.

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