D
davidv
Guest
How does one measure the size of free will in order to judge it smallness or largeness?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I think we need to use our observation, especially research. When emotionally deprived and unstructured children turn to sexual promiscuity and use of drugs much more often than normals, I think we need to consider that something more than free will is involved in the decision process. Of course, we should not usually use correlation to suggest causality, it’s the best we can do here.How does one measure the size of free will in order to judge it smallness or largeness?
S
STT
Guest
We can change, rewire our subconsciousness, using subconsciousness. We then feel less stressed because of trauma.I think we need to use our observation, especially research. When emotionally deprived and unstructured children turn to sexual promiscuity and use of drugs much more often than normals, I think we need to consider that something more than free will is involved in the decision process. Of course, we should not usually use correlation to suggest causality, it’s the best we can do here.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
How many abused children can do this in adulthood?We can change, rewire our subconsciousness, using subconsciousness. We then feel less stressed because of trauma.
D
davidv
Guest
How is observation a valid measurement in this? What does the will look like? What are the standards against which these observations are judged? How can it be known that these observations are those of the will?I think we need to use our observation, especially research. When emotionally deprived and unstructured children turn to sexual promiscuity and use of drugs much more often than normals, I think we need to consider that something more than free will is involved in the decision process. Of course, we should not usually use correlation to suggest causality, it’s the best we can do here.
S
STT
Guest
I don’t have any statistic since I am not an expert but I know that I can control feeling and emotions by rationalizing the situation.How many abused children can do this in adulthood?
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
So, then can you explain why emotionally deprived and unstructured children have a much higher likelihood of sexual promiscuity and drug use? If they truly had free will, why such a difference in comparison to normals? Be honest, what is causing this disparity? Not that these ill-raised children have no free will whatsoever, but far less than we would expect.I don’t have any statistic since I am not an expert but I know that I can control feeling and emotions by rationalizing the situation.
S
STT
Guest
Is education an important factor?So, then can you explain why emotionally deprived and unstructured children have a much higher likelihood of sexual promiscuity and drug use? If they truly had free will, why such a difference in comparison to normals? Be honest, what is causing this disparity? Not that these ill-raised children have no free will whatsoever, but far less than we would expect.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
It would certainly be a variable that researchers would want to control for, and this can easily be done using correlational data, but still, even if it was education, it would discount the theory of free will, I would think.Is education an important factor?
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
I don’t have a settled view on free-will because I’ve yet to come across a good definition. If free-will is a matter of degree as you explained, then I don’t see why it has to remain at a fixed level instead of increasing or decreasing depending on our actions. For instance, if free-will is about controlling who we are and what we do then I believe we can increase that ability by taking more control over our biology and environment. I believe we have this ability by simply being able to know or be aware of what controls us - what’s influencing our decision, etc. And if we are able to know all of those factors that influence us then I fail to see why we wouldn’t be able to develop ways (via technology, therapy, etc.) for controlling those factors.It’s not that we either have a complete free will or no free will! All I’m trying to suggest in this thread is that our free will is much smaller than most philosophers are too proud to admit!
In the example you gave in post #1, assuming that your observations are correct, I think it’s just a matter of not knowing all of the factors - or at least the important ones, that lead to the sexual behavior. And if we don’t know those factors, then we don’t know what to fix - and I’m just speaking therapy-wise.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I agree we are products of our environment, genetic and spiritual makeup. It is for this reason our will is not free.When we see a child in our society being emotionally neglected, many of us feel deeply about that child, and we act with great empathy. But when that child grows older and becomes sexually promiscuous due to his or her emotional deprivation, we value the notion of free will so greatly and act as though the now grown person is fully responsible, and simply chose to become promiscuous.
As a psychologist who studied child development and child abuse for several years, I no longer can be a believer in free will in a stricter sense. Yes, there may be situations where are truly free to choose, by in large, we are products of our environment and genetic and spiritual makeup. The above is just one example.
There are several schools of thought on human will that I know of. One is our will is not free unless we are in control of our will - self governing, autonomous, and a will that governed by passions is not free. The will of the alcoholic and the drug addict are governed not by free will but by addiction. This to me is the child you speak of.
The will of the child you speak of is governed in accordance with environmental conditioning - though genetic factors may also be engaged. In their formative years they have been conditioned in terms of promiscuity and risk taking among other things. Thus, their will is not free. It cannot be said they bear no responsibility for any of their actions, but what can be said is in their formative years they have been conditioned to make bad choices as an adult and subsequently will do so. This is addressed through re-conditioning - for example cognitive behavioural therapy. As a psychologist you will know much more about this than I.
In terms of our genetic make up we know there is an intrinsic link between upbringing and how the ‘warrior gene’ exhibits it’s effects. Those who are carry the warrior gene that are raised in a stable family go on to be heroes. Those raised in a dysfunctional family and significantly have a bad relationship with their father go on to be psychopaths. It cannot be said the psychopath is not responsible, that we should make excuses for them and consider them victims of their genetic make up and environment in which they were raised. It is not that they have no control at all, but their will cannot be said to be entirely free.
The distinction between the abused child and the psychopath is in adulthood the abused child hurts themselves. The psychopath hurts others. Society requires protection from the psychopath. The abused child in adulthood needs protection from themselves. Cognitive behavioural facilitates acquisition of an autonomous free will.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I honestly do not have too many good things to say about the field of psychology–it seems seriously flawed in a number of ways. But from a religious perspective on free will, I believe God provides us all with certain critical moments or situations where free will truly exist.I agree we are products of our environment, genetic and spiritual makeup. It is for this reason our will is not free.
There are several schools of thought on human will that I know of. One is our will is not free unless we are in control of our will - self governing, autonomous, and a will that governed by passions is not free. The will of the alcoholic and the drug addict are governed not by free will but by addiction. This to me is the child you speak of.
The will of the child you speak of is governed in accordance with environmental conditioning - though genetic factors may also be engaged. In their formative years they have been conditioned in terms of promiscuity and risk taking among other things. Thus, their will is not free. It cannot be said they bear no responsibility for any of their actions, but what can be said is in their formative years they have been conditioned to make bad choices as an adult and subsequently will do so. This is addressed through re-conditioning - for example cognitive behavioural therapy. As a psychologist you will know much more about this than I.
In terms of our genetic make up we know there is an intrinsic link between upbringing and how the ‘warrior gene’ exhibits it’s effects. Those who are carry the warrior gene that are raised in a stable family go on to be heroes. Those raised in a dysfunctional family and significantly have a bad relationship with their father go on to be psychopaths. It cannot be said the psychopath is not responsible, that we should make excuses for them and consider them victims of their genetic make up and environment in which they were raised. It is not that they have no control at all, but their will cannot be said to be entirely free.
The distinction between the abused child and the psychopath is in adulthood the abused child hurts themselves. The psychopath hurts others. Society requires protection from the psychopath. The abused child in adulthood needs protection from themselves. Cognitive behavioural facilitates acquisition of an autonomous free will.
E
EnosJadon
Guest
The question of free will is indeed an intriguing one. From one perspective, and from our own personal experience it would appear as though we have free will, but from a more objective perspective it certainly appears from our collective actions as if we don’t have free will.
I would liken it to shining a flashlight on a wall. We know from experience that the light will form a specific pattern on the wall, with more light falling toward the center of the beam and less light the further that one gets from the center. Science would refer to this as probabilistic behavior, there’s a higher probability that the individual photons will arrive at the center of the beam than there is that they’ll arrive at the periphery. And while it’s impossible to predict where each individual photon will end up, it’s highly predictable as to where the photons will collectively end up. Behavior which is completely unpredictable on an individual basis becomes highly predictable on a collective basis.
Now the thing is that our human behavior follows this exact same pattern, with behavior seemingly unpredictable on an individual basis, but far more predictable on a collective basis. Take for example the emotionally neglected child to which the OP referred, we may not be able to predict which of the children will grow up to be sexually promiscuous, but we know that a greater number of them will. Collectively, their behavior is simply probabilistic. And the more that we know about the initial conditions, the more accurate those predictions will be. One might argue that each individual freely chooses which path to take, but we can predict at the outset the number of them that will choose each path. The free will of the individual will inevitably lose out to the probabilistics of the collective. Like the photons from our flashlight, we don’t know which individual will end up where, but we know how many will end up at each point, and free will doesn’t seem to be able to change that.
So if we look collectively at the behavior of human beings, it looks probabilistic. Some of them will be more like sinners, and some of them will be more like saints. Some of them will believe in this, and some of them will believe in that. Some of them will be passive, and some of them will be aggressive. The initial conditions determine the ultimate outcome. It’s simply probabilistics. Probability, not free will determines how many will end up in heaven, and how many will end up in hell.
To prove that free will actually exists one must get the collective to do something which the initial conditions predict that they shouldn’t do. It’s not our individual choices that prove or disprove free will, but rather our collective choices. When the photons can act in a manner that defies probability, then we’ll know that they have free will, and the same is true for us. When people collectively do what probability predicts that they shouldn’t do, then we’ll know that they have free will.
I would liken it to shining a flashlight on a wall. We know from experience that the light will form a specific pattern on the wall, with more light falling toward the center of the beam and less light the further that one gets from the center. Science would refer to this as probabilistic behavior, there’s a higher probability that the individual photons will arrive at the center of the beam than there is that they’ll arrive at the periphery. And while it’s impossible to predict where each individual photon will end up, it’s highly predictable as to where the photons will collectively end up. Behavior which is completely unpredictable on an individual basis becomes highly predictable on a collective basis.
Now the thing is that our human behavior follows this exact same pattern, with behavior seemingly unpredictable on an individual basis, but far more predictable on a collective basis. Take for example the emotionally neglected child to which the OP referred, we may not be able to predict which of the children will grow up to be sexually promiscuous, but we know that a greater number of them will. Collectively, their behavior is simply probabilistic. And the more that we know about the initial conditions, the more accurate those predictions will be. One might argue that each individual freely chooses which path to take, but we can predict at the outset the number of them that will choose each path. The free will of the individual will inevitably lose out to the probabilistics of the collective. Like the photons from our flashlight, we don’t know which individual will end up where, but we know how many will end up at each point, and free will doesn’t seem to be able to change that.
So if we look collectively at the behavior of human beings, it looks probabilistic. Some of them will be more like sinners, and some of them will be more like saints. Some of them will believe in this, and some of them will believe in that. Some of them will be passive, and some of them will be aggressive. The initial conditions determine the ultimate outcome. It’s simply probabilistics. Probability, not free will determines how many will end up in heaven, and how many will end up in hell.
To prove that free will actually exists one must get the collective to do something which the initial conditions predict that they shouldn’t do. It’s not our individual choices that prove or disprove free will, but rather our collective choices. When the photons can act in a manner that defies probability, then we’ll know that they have free will, and the same is true for us. When people collectively do what probability predicts that they shouldn’t do, then we’ll know that they have free will.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Every profession is seriously flawed in a number of ways. It is not unique to the field of psychology.I honestly do not have too many good things to say about the field of psychology–it seems seriously flawed in a number of ways. But from a religious perspective on free will, I believe God provides us all with certain critical moments or situations where free will truly exist.
God does provide us all with certain critical moments or situations where free will truly exists - but only God can be certain as to which these critical moments are situations are.
Free will is complicated. Those who are abused as children do not simply choose to be promiscuous. That is not to say they never on any occasion choose to be of their own free will and never at any time have any control over the matter at all - but it is not for us to make that determination as only God can know. Our role is to provide them with the guidance and support they need.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Nicely said! Thanks for sharing!The question of free will is indeed an intriguing one. From one perspective, and from our own personal experience it would appear as though we have free will, but from a more objective perspective it certainly appears from our collective actions as if we don’t have free will.
I would liken it to shining a flashlight on a wall. We know from experience that the light will form a specific pattern on the wall, with more light falling toward the center of the beam and less light the further that one gets from the center. Science would refer to this as probabilistic behavior, there’s a higher probability that the individual photons will arrive at the center of the beam than there is that they’ll arrive at the periphery. And while it’s impossible to predict where each individual photon will end up, it’s highly predictable as to where the photons will collectively end up. Behavior which is completely unpredictable on an individual basis becomes highly predictable on a collective basis.
Now the thing is that our human behavior follows this exact same pattern, with behavior seemingly unpredictable on an individual basis, but far more predictable on a collective basis. Take for example the emotionally neglected child to which the OP referred, we may not be able to predict which of the children will grow up to be sexually promiscuous, but we know that a greater number of them will. Collectively, their behavior is simply probabilistic. And the more that we know about the initial conditions, the more accurate those predictions will be. One might argue that each individual freely chooses which path to take, but we can predict at the outset the number of them that will choose each path. The free will of the individual will inevitably lose out to the probabilistics of the collective. Like the photons from our flashlight, we don’t know which individual will end up where, but we know how many will end up at each point, and free will doesn’t seem to be able to change that.
So if we look collectively at the behavior of human beings, it looks probabilistic. Some of them will be more like sinners, and some of them will be more like saints. Some of them will believe in this, and some of them will believe in that. Some of them will be passive, and some of them will be aggressive. The initial conditions determine the ultimate outcome. It’s simply probabilistics. Probability, not free will determines how many will end up in heaven, and how many will end up in hell.
To prove that free will actually exists one must get the collective to do something which the initial conditions predict that they shouldn’t do. It’s not our individual choices that prove or disprove free will, but rather our collective choices. When the photons can act in a manner that defies probability, then we’ll know that they have free will, and the same is true for us. When people collectively do what probability predicts that they shouldn’t do, then we’ll know that they have free will.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
But will psychologists ever decide to keep statistics on how many are actually helped using psychotherapy? I have a Christian psychotherapist who I see and she’s sincere and will talk about anything on my mind, no matter how personal, but when it comes for me to get the solution to my problems, I always turn to God using Centering Prayer! I sincerely doubt that if psychotherapist kept statistics, very few will be shown to have actually been helped.Every profession is seriously flawed in a number of ways. It is not unique to the field of psychology.
God does provide us all with certain critical moments or situations where free will truly exists - but only God can be certain as to which these critical moments are situations are.
Free will is complicated. Those who are abused as children do not simply choose to be promiscuous. That is not to say they never on any occasion choose to be of their own free will and never at any time have any control over the matter at all - but it is not for us to make that determination as only God can know. Our role is to provide them with the guidance and support they need.
Actually, there was a study done some time ago where a researcher actually took the time and effort to see which psychological treatments would produce the best results. In conclusion, it was shown that it was the control group that received no treatment that had the best chance of success!
My therapist has been useful to me only to the degree that she asks questions that help me to remember things from my past, but again, I turn to God for the solutions to my problems.
S
STT
Guest
Free will is real. We experience it. There is no reason for evolution to create a faked experience. We are able to rewire the brain too. It is matter of practice.It would certainly be a variable that researchers would want to control for, and this can easily be done using correlational data, but still, even if it was education, it would discount the theory of free will, I would think.
V
Vico
Guest
Keep in mind that free will is not destroyed by the Fall, is a dogma of faith. The Church defined against Martin Luther.When we see a child in our society being emotionally neglected, many of us feel deeply about that child, and we act with great empathy. But when that child grows older and becomes sexually promiscuous due to his or her emotional deprivation, we value the notion of free will so greatly and act as though the now grown person is fully responsible, and simply chose to become promiscuous.
As a psychologist who studied child development and child abuse for several years, I no longer can be a believer in free will in a stricter sense. Yes, there may be situations where are truly free to choose, by in large, we are products of our environment and genetic and spiritual makeup. The above is just one example.
Weakened and diminished by Adam’s fall, free will is yet not destroyed in the race (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. i and v).
Can. I. If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema.
Can. 5. If anyone shall say that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing in name only, indeed a title without a reality, a fiction, moreover, brought into the Church by Satan: let him be anathema.
Council of Carthage against Pelagius:
Can. 5. It has likewise been decided that whoever says that the grace of justification is given to us for this reason: that what we are ordered to do through free will, we may be able to accomplish more easily through grace, just as if, even if grace were not given, we could nevertheless fulfill the divine commands without it, though not indeed easily, let him he anathema. For concerning the fruits of His commands the Lord spoke not when He said: “Without me you can accomplish with greater difficulty,” but when He said: “Without me you can do nothing” [John 15:5].
meltzerboy
New member
FWIW, when I was in graduate school (a long time ago), one of the clinical psychology professors said in class that one-third of people are helped, one-third stay the same, and one-third get worse in psychotherapy. Draw your own conclusions.But will psychologists ever decide to keep statistics on how many are actually helped using psychotherapy? I have a Christian psychotherapist who I see and she’s sincere and will talk about anything on my mind, no matter how personal, but when it comes for me to get the solution to my problems, I always turn to God using Centering Prayer! I sincerely doubt that if psychotherapist kept statistics, very few will be shown to have actually been helped.
Actually, there was a study done some time ago where a researcher actually took the time and effort to see which psychological treatments would produce the best results. In conclusion, it was shown that it was the control group that received no treatment that had the best chance of success!
My therapist has been useful to me only to the degree that she asks questions that help me to remember things from my past, but again, I turn to God for the solutions to my problems.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I can’t comment on what forms of therapy help and what forms do not. Nor could I say every individual will find a solution to their problems through prayer.But will psychologists ever decide to keep statistics on how many are actually helped using psychotherapy? I have a Christian psychotherapist who I see and she’s sincere and will talk about anything on my mind, no matter how personal, but when it comes for me to get the solution to my problems, I always turn to God using Centering Prayer! I sincerely doubt that if psychotherapist kept statistics, very few will be shown to have actually been helped.
Actually, there was a study done some time ago where a researcher actually took the time and effort to see which psychological treatments would produce the best results. In conclusion, it was shown that it was the control group that received no treatment that had the best chance of success!
My therapist has been useful to me only to the degree that she asks questions that help me to remember things from my past, but again, I turn to God for the solutions to my problems.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.