Objections to the Reality of Free Will

[JimG]

A related question might be: are all the posts on this thread pre-programmed by inexorable physical forces or did individuals use their intellect and will to formulate and post them? If not, then the whole thread can be viewed as purely deterministic.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

As if my subconscious made all the calls? I’m not sure if anything would change. It would feel like I had free will and had exercised it. But just because it feels like I’m making the call doesn’t mean it is.

Then do I take it that you don’t think the question is an important or interesting one?

It’s one of tbe most interesting and important questions one could ask.

 

[Wozza]

We most of the time have a reason for our decision. We however can choose something without any reason. The first decision is not free since it is based on a reason and the second decision is.

If there is no reason then the decision is arbitrary. That is, no choice has been made. Tossing a coin and selecting vanilla over chocolate cannot in any way be described as a free will choice. Someone else can just as well toss the coin for you.

Was the storekeeper in No Country For Old Men making a free will decision to get shot or not when Chigurh tossed the coin?

 

[LateCatholic]

Lust is an issue for me. As soon as I see an attractive woman I’m already objectifying her & seeing her as an object to please my passions. It seems involuntary. It happens before I have a chance to think.

But the truth is those thoughts come from a lifetime of decisions I made… I defined woman a long time ago & supported that definition over the years by giving into those thoughts. I’ve given myself over as a slave to my passions a long time ago.

That’s not true at all. The argument is that the thoughts are involuntary, which they are. It’s biological. What follows may depend upon what you did in the past. But those initial thoughts arise without intent. And yes, your past experiences can affect them. But they are involuntary.

Regardless, I agree with your conclusion more or less. Whether we have free will or not is immaterial. The fact is, it appears that we have free will. Whether we do or not is not going to change how we act.

 

[LateCatholic]

Free Will is a tough one. There are problems no matter which way you go, especially theological ones. Here’s an interesting one, for example. If you subscribe to any Cosmological argument to justify God’s existence, you are implicitly acknowledging that we do NOT have free will. Cosmological arguments are ONLY valid in worlds where free will does not exist.

That aside, to me, whether free will exists or not is irrelevant. The illusion of free will, if it is an illusion, is perfect. It ‘appears’ we have free will, so we should live our lives as if we do.

It’s like the weather. The weather may not be random. If I had enough initial data and good enough rules, I guess I could predict the weather 1000 years from now. But it certainly APPEARS that the weather is random. Therefore, I’ll check the forecast today.

 

[TK421]

Free Will is an article of faith, along with belief in God, belief in life after death, belief in the angels, belief in the mystical power of prayer, etc. Free Will is supernatural and it pertains to the human soul, not to the human body or to nature.

There is no scientific basis for free will because everything that you can observe or analyze is always going to be a chain of causes and effects. You can’t make a scientific basis for it anymore than you can make a scientific basis for the Eucharist. The Eucharist will always be bread and wine according to any instrument or test. The endeavor of proving the Eucharist scientifically would be silly and it is the same with the soul or with Free Will.

 

[STT]

If there is no reason then the decision is arbitrary. That is, no choice has been made. Tossing a coin and selecting vanilla over chocolate cannot in any way be described as a free will choice. Someone else can just as well toss the coin for you.

Was the storekeeper in No Country For Old Men making a free will decision to get shot or not when Chigurh tossed the coin?

There are just two scenarios: Either our decision is based on a reason or it is not. The outcome in the second case is not different than tossing a coin but we have the ability to choose without tossing a coin.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

If there is no reason then the decision is arbitrary. That is, no choice has been made. Tossing a coin and selecting vanilla over chocolate cannot in any way be described as a free will choice. Someone else can just as well toss the coin for you.

Was the storekeeper in No Country For Old Men making a free will decision to get shot or not when Chigurh tossed the coin?

There are just two scenarios: Either our decision is based on a reason or it is not. The outcome in the second case is not different than tossing a coin but we have the ability to choose without tossing a coin.

As you said, if there is a reason then there is no free will (although that needs to be expanded somewhat). If there is no reason then, as I said, it is completely arbitrary. Entirely random. Just as a coin toss.

Free will is actually shorthand for ‘free will decisions’. That’s what we’re actually talking about. Whether we have the ability to make decisions, whoever you class as ‘we’ - the conscious or unconscious aspects of ourselves.

If what has been decided is arbitrary, then ‘you’ haven’t really been involved at all. You cannot reasonably say ‘I decided to have vanilla’ if the choice was made at random. As in a coin toss.

There is no free will associated with random events.

 

[STT]

As you said, if there is a reason then there is no free will (although that needs to be expanded somewhat). If there is no reason then, as I said, it is completely arbitrary. Entirely random. Just as a coin toss.

Free will is actually shorthand for ‘free will decisions’. That’s what we’re actually talking about. Whether we have the ability to make decisions, whoever you class as ‘we’ - the conscious or unconscious aspects of ourselves.

If what has been decided is arbitrary, then ‘you’ haven’t really been involved at all. You cannot reasonably say ‘I decided to have vanilla’ if the choice was made at random. As in a coin toss.

There is no free will associated with random events.

The free decision is different from random since there is a element of want in it. You cannot, however, distinguish it from a random choice given only the outcome.

 

[LateCatholic]

The endeavor of proving the Eucharist scientifically would be silly and it is the same with the soul or with Free Will.

True for the most part, but the question is whether “free will” falls into the category you describe or is something different. For example, no one will ever prove the Eucharist is actually really flesh and blood. But free will is based off something DOES exist - decisions made by conscious beings. Assuming we are conscious, and assuming we make decisions, it is possible that our decisions are based on a set of probabilities, and which one of those probabilities is executed becomes ‘free will’.
But in a sense, even that is kicking the can down the road, because then are not the execution of a given probability random?
Free will is a tough one.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

As you said, if there is a reason then there is no free will (although that needs to be expanded somewhat). If there is no reason then, as I said, it is completely arbitrary. Entirely random. Just as a coin toss.

Free will is actually shorthand for ‘free will decisions’. That’s what we’re actually talking about. Whether we have the ability to make decisions, whoever you class as ‘we’ - the conscious or unconscious aspects of ourselves.

If what has been decided is arbitrary, then ‘you’ haven’t really been involved at all. You cannot reasonably say ‘I decided to have vanilla’ if the choice was made at random. As in a coin toss.

There is no free will associated with random events.

The free decision is different from random since there is a element of want in it. You cannot, however, distinguish it from a random choice given only the outcome.

We’re not considering only the outcome. We’re considering the means by which the outcome came about. The ‘free’ decision versus the coin toss. There is no free will associated with a coin toss. The decision is made for you.

I would have thought that was obvious.

 

[STT]

We’re not considering only the outcome. We’re considering the means by which the outcome came about. The ‘free’ decision versus the coin toss. There is no free will associated with a coin toss. The decision is made for you.

I would have thought that was obvious.

True. As I said there is an element want in free decision.

 

[JimG]

Even if a person makes decisions on the basis of the result of a coin toss, it is still the person’s free will decision to abide by the results of the coin toss. It is the method of selection that he freely decided on.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Isn’t it possible to go against your inclinations?

 

[Wozza]

Even if a person makes decisions on the basis of the result of a coin toss, it is still the person’s free will decision to abide by the results of the coin toss. It is the method of selection that he freely decided on.

Dave says he will have vanilla or chocolate depending on the coin toss. There is a reason for him doing that (whatever that is likely to be). According to STT, that means there is no free will in deciding to have the coin toss. You can discuss the veracity of that claim with him. I’m just following on from that.

Pete spins the coin and it comes up heads. Dave gets vanilla. He did not choose to have vanilla. It was chosen for him by an arbitrary spin of the dime. If you don’t make a decision (and Dave didn’t - he was effectively told ‘you’re having the vanilla’) then there cannot, obviously, be a free will decision if no decision was actually made.

 

[Wozza]

Isn’t it possible to go against your inclinations?

Whatever you choose is what you want to do.

Your inclination is to have another beer. If you have one, it’s because you wanted one. If you don’t, it’s because there’s a reason which you have decided is more important. You want to drive home more than you want another beer. Or you want to get home in time for dinner in preference to having another beer.

And my suggestion is that these final decisions are filtered up into your consciousness from the subconscious in a way that makes you believe you have made the call yourself. It’s like Obi Wan Kenobi saying ‘these aren’t the droids you’re looking for’ to the troopers. Except it’s your subconscious saying ‘you should skip another beer because you have to drive’. And ‘you’ say ‘You know what? I think I’ll skip another beer because I have to drive’.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Everything’s nebulous so it’s hard to tell in this particular subject, oh well.

 

[Wozza]

And another thing. That Star Wars analogy wasn’t the result of me sitting here scratching my head thinking of a way to describe how the sub consciousness might work. I didn’t run through a number of possibilities and pick the most applicable. There was no conscious thought involved. It just appeared from somewhere. Unbidden.

‘Hey’, I thought. ‘I’ve just had a great idea’. But it was my subconscious self who dug around in the memory bank, did all the work, picked up something that might have been useful and brought it to my conscious self’s attention.

 

[TK421]

I disagree.

Scientifically, everything is composed of causes and effects. A person chooses vanilla or chocolate based on their environment and physiology. Most people like both chocolate and vanilla a lot so the decision in that particular moment will also be impacted by mood, or if they already chose chocolate several times in the past it could make them crave more for vanilla. But there is no validity in anything that you can observe with any test or instrument that a person has a “free will”.

Free Will is supernatural, not natural. Ditto with the soul, or angels, or the Eucharist, etc. Jesus’ physical heart might be revealed in the Eucharist miraculously at certain times but never in any way that a person can detect through their own initiative.

 

[LateCatholic]

Free Will is supernatural, not natural. Ditto with the soul, or angels, or the Eucharist, etc. Jesus’ physical heart might be revealed in the Eucharist miraculously at certain times but never in any way that a person can detect through their own initiative.

But randomness does occur. Radioactive decay, for one. It is possible that free will can exist through some mechanism we do not fully understand yet.
On the other hand, saying free will is supernatural is a cop-out. In fact, saying ANYTHING is supernatural is basically saying you give up.
For example, you say angels cannot be detected - that belief in them is a matter of faith. That’s a cop-out. Then your faith in angels in no different than a child’s faith in an imaginary friend. Christianity maintains God not only exists but ALSO interacts with the world. He may be supernatural but his actions are not.