Demonstration of free will.

[Jeremiah]

You keep saying that as if it's obviously and necessarily true. I could as easily reply that we were presented with a choice, but forces beyond our control forced us to post.

In other words, you seem unable to contemplate the opposite of your belief.

"I could as easily reply that we were presented with a choice, but forces beyond our control forced us to post."

And you did. But as I've already pointed out you haven't said anything at all. You made some ambiguous statement and expect it to be some type of explanation. But what exactly is "forces beyond our control"? What do you mean, what are you saying? That could mean just about anything. I don't think asking people to be a bit more clear is too much to ask.

I am not interested in hearing some vague ill-defined pseudo-philosophies. I've heard them all, I want to hear something clearly defined something well thought out. Not something that you just happen to pull off the top of your head to reply to my post because you disagree with me.

 

[logician]

I would say we have bounded free will, i.e. the choices we make are bounded social rules, and mores, family tradition, man-made laws etc. In other words it is constrained free will.

 

[Jeremiah]

One can't test the phenomenon of free will, Jeremiah. Can you propose such a test?

So far, you assert that anyone who posts to the thread is proving that he acts by his own free will. Surely you acknowledge that that isn't a test of free will?

Can you propose how we might test free will? I guess you should start with a close definition of the term.



Hard determinism? I'll tell you what I think. I think that wise people realize that the question of free will is beyond our ability to determine.



Maybe that's because free will is impossible to prove or disprove.

Here's a tidbit for you, though. I have a psychologist friend who reports on some human brain studies. It seems that the decision-making part of our brains fires off before the subject reports that he's made his decision. By a millisecond or so, our brains know our choice before 'we' do.

I can ask him for references if you're especially interested.

Clearly, humans believe and act as if we have free will. But it could be a profound deception, yes?

"One can't test the phenomenon of free will, Jeremiah. Can you propose such a test?"

One can't test the decision-making process of humans? Then how did your psychologist friend get his information?

I don't think you are really putting a whole lot of though in this. Which is kind of discouraging, I'm not really interested somebody who's just posting because they want to disagree with me. That is the reason that I don't post on these forms much anymore, because it seems that too many people are just out to disagree with you instead of have a discussion with you.

"Maybe that's because free will is impossible to prove or disprove."

The decision-making process of the human beings can be directly tested and we know that the brain functions in the same manner that computers function but much more sophisticated. It won't be long before we understand how the human brain is programmed and when we understand the programming we will have our answer of whether or not humans truly possess free will.

That is my whole point, that hard determinism is unfalsifiable, but the process which human beings used to make decisions is testable.

"Hard determinism? I'll tell you what I think. I think that wise people realize that the question of free will is beyond our ability to determine."

I am more interested in thinking for myself than being "wise".

"Here's a tidbit for you, though. I have a psychologist friend who reports on some human brain studies. It seems that the decision-making part of our brains fires off before the subject reports that he's made his decision. By a millisecond or so, our brains know our choice before 'we' do."

How does that relate to decisions that we make that take us weeks, months or sometimes even years to come to?

To be honest I am not really interested in your secondhand information, but if you want to provide quotation from a definitive reference source then that would be something I would be interested in.

 

[Skwim]

Jeremiah,
Last June I posted an OP on free will V. determinism in which I set out my argument for determinism. If you never read it I invite you to take a look at it here. The comments that followed (about 500 of them)---see LINK below--- are very interesting.



"In the last month or so there's been an increased interest in free will.

"Defining Free Will" by Penumbra

"God and his free will" by Skwim

"Do Atheists believe in free-will?" by SPLogan

"Freewill or Fate" by The Sum of Awe

"Free Will? Where?" by ejay286
​

This interest has usually centered around the affirmation of free will and/or a denunciation of it. Some very interesting thoughts on both sides have come out of these discussions, many well thought out and others not so much. Whatever the case, there's been a frequent problem with some of the terms involved, most often those concerning "free will" and "will." People have either failed to let others know what they had in mind when they use them, or have provided definitions that got mired in misunderstandings and confusion. Even when directly asked to define these terms people have skirted the request, and have proceeded to side topics, leaving the issue of free will no more resolved than before. So what's going on here?

As I see it, free will is important to many because without it would mean each of is nothing more than Robbie the Robot, which is anathema to the notion personal freedom. If I have no freedom of choice how can I be blamed for what I do? For Christians this has the added consequence of robbing the concept of sin/salvation of any meaning. So most people are loath to even entertain the idea of no free will. Free will is almost always regarded as a given.

Any exception to free will is seen as temporary constraint. "I am free to to do this or that unless someone/thing comes and prevents it. Of course this isn't at all what the issue of free will is about. Free will is about the idea that, aside from any external constraints, "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." So I think a decent working definition of "free will" is just that: the ability to do differently if one wished.

Those who most disagree with this are the hard determinists, people claiming that everything we do has a cause. And because everything we do is caused then we could not have done differently, therefore it's absurd to place blame or praise. A pretty drastic notion, and one rejected by almost everyone. So whatever else is said about the issue of free will ultimately it must come down to this very basic level: Are we free to do other than what we chose or not? I say, No you are not. Free will is an illusion. But before going into why, we first need to get rid of the term "choice" because it assumes to be true the condition under consideration, freedom to do what we want. So no use of "choice," "choosing,"chosen," or any other form of the word.

Here's how I see it.
There are only two ways actions take place; completely randomly, or caused. By "completely randomly" I mean absolutely random, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused. This is the most common notion of "random" events: those we are unable to predict and appear to come about by pure chance. The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, appears to occur is at the subatomic level, which has no effect on superatomic events, those at which we operate. And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate, completely randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So that leaves non-randomness as the operative agent of our actions. We do this or that because. . . . And the "cause" in "because" is telling. It signals a deterministic operation at work. What we do is determined by something. Were it not, what we do would be absolutely random in nature: for absolutely no reason at all. But as all of us claim from time to time, we do have reasons for what we do. And these reasons are the causes that negate any randomness.

So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless the causes had been different. If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home. The previous chain of cause/effects inexorably determined where I ended up. So to is it with our decisions. We do what we do because all the relevant preceding cause/effect events inexorably led up to that very act and no other. We HAD to do what we did. There was no freedom to do any differently.

What does this all mean then? It means that we cannot do any any differently than what we do. Our actions are caused (determined) by previous events and nothing else. Even our wishing to think we could have done otherwise is a mental event that was determined by all the cause/effect events that led to it. We think as we do because. . . . And that "because" can never be any different than what it was. We have no will to do anything other than what we're caused to do. In effect then, the will does not exist, nor does choice, etc..

Of course this means that blame and praise come out as pretty hollow concepts. If you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them? To do so is like blaming or praising a rock for where it lies. It had no "choice" in the matter. Of course we can still claim to have free will if we define the term as being free of external constraints, but that's not really addressing free will, and why free will exists as an issue. The free will issue exists because people claim "I could have done differently if I had wished." Problem is, of course, they didn't wish differently because . . . .


This, then, is my argument---a bit shortened to keep it brief---against free will as it stands in opposition to determinism.

Comments?"

LINK

 

[bobhikes]

Free will meaning the will is free to make decisions. What is the will. Most people refer to it as you, your mind or your soul. Can you do anything with out the interference of others. Deterministic people will tell you no you can't. Everything you do happens because of your experiences. I say this is not true you are free to think and propose solutions to your problems completely in the realm of the mind. You sort through your experiences and make a decision. Hopefully it is not random but based on some logic but maybe it was. Whether or not it was logic or random it was free of any influence in the outside world.

Ask you self this if we have to respond always specifically, why do we think about our actions, why do we predict the future, why do we review the past. These are all pretty useless unless I need to make decisions.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And you did. But as I've already pointed out you haven't said anything at all. You made some ambiguous statement and expect it to be some type of explanation.

Sure. Since you didn't say anything except to make your assertion about free will, I simply counterasserted you. If you had some actual arguments for the existence of free will, though, I would be happy to address those.

But what exactly is "forces beyond our control"? What do you mean, what are you saying? That could mean just about anything.

That question makes so little sense to me that I can only think you must be defining 'free will' in a very unusual way. Could you go ahead and define the term, as I requested?

But to answer your question, yes. "Forces beyond our control" can and does mean everything except our own free will. Your first-grade teacher slapping your hand. The tilt of your chair as you write. Literally anything and everything which is beyond your control.

Does that answer what you were asking?

I am not interested in hearing some vague ill-defined pseudo-philosophies. I've heard them all, I want to hear something clearly defined something well thought out. Not something that you just happen to pull off the top of your head to reply to my post because you disagree with me.

I'm not a preacher. If you want me to respond to arguments, you'll have to make them first. What is your evidence or argument for the existence of free will?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

One can't test the decision-making process of humans? Then how did your psychologist friend get his information?

You see, that's what I'm taking about. I didn't claim that we're unable to test the 'decision-making process'. I claimed that we can't test 'free will.' But you seem to equate the two. You seem unable to see our decision-making process as an 'apparent' act of free will. Rather, you see it as free will itself.

Anyway, that's how it looks to me.

I don't think you are really putting a whole lot of though in this. Which is kind of discouraging, I'm not really interested somebody who's just posting because they want to disagree with me. That is the reason that I don't post on these forms much anymore, because it seems that too many people are just out to disagree with you instead of have a discussion with you.

If you make arguments or offer evidence for free will, I will certainly address them.

The decision-making process of the human beings can be directly tested....

Well, OK. But what does that have to do with proving/disproving free will?

....and we know that the brain functions in the same manner that computers function but much more sophisticated. It won't be long before we understand how the human brain is programmed and when we understand the programming we will have our answer of whether or not humans truly possess free will.

Really, I'm not at all sure that you can define free will. Will you please try for me?

You haven't even mentioned the homunculous yet. I can't see how you can dig into the phenomenon of free will without at least addressing that.

That is my whole point, that hard determinism is unfalsifiable, but the process which human beings used to make decisions is testable.

I don't know what you mean by 'hard determinism.' You'll have to define it for me.

I am more interested in thinking for myself than being "wise".

Yikes. So you think that 'wise' people are people who don't think for themselves?

Our wordworlds may be too far apart for us to communicate. For me, that is the very definition of wisdom -- the passion for independent investigation of truth.

How does that relate to decisions that we make that take us weeks, months or sometimes even years to come to?

That's the very question I asked him when he told me of the experiment. Alas, he had no answer. I don't see how such tests could be done myself.

 

[Azekual]

Whether you were brought into this thread by a chain of events outside your control, by your own will or maybe you just randomly fell in. It does not matter because now you are here and now the choice is yours to make. You can either reply to this thread or not reply to the thread. You are free to choose either, the choice is yours and yours alone. Whatever may compel you it does not force you. So exercise that freedom of choice you have.

So basically what you're saying is that you cannot truly "force" a person to do anything, everything they do is they're own choice?

 

[connermt]

Whether you were brought into this thread by a chain of events outside your control, by your own will or maybe you just randomly fell in. It does not matter because now you are here and now the choice is yours to make. You can either reply to this thread or not reply to the thread. You are free to choose either, the choice is yours and yours alone. Whatever may compel you it does not force you. So exercise that freedom of choice you have.

Does god influence free will by putting choices in your path? He must, if the bible's to be believed. Therefore, there is no true free will when the christian god is involved.
This is particularly true with the christian concept of "eternal hell". God gives you two choices: heaven or hell. So your free will is limited to two options. That's not true free will. It would be closer to true free will if god said "Accept my son and go to heaven or not and not go to heaven - no need for eternal contempt from me to allow you to go to hell for eternity."
But that won't put butts in the pews and money in the church's pocket so that wasn't a point of interest with christianity was starting up

 

[Me Myself]

"An Internet Bot can respond to this thread."

That is not a realistic comparison for a human being.

You kind of disagree

The decision-making process of the human beings can be directly tested and we know that the brain functions in the same manne that computers functionr but much more sophisticated. It won't be long before we understand how the human brain is programmed and when we understand the programming we will have our answer of whether or not humans truly possess free will.

"Hard determinism? I'll tell you what I think. I think that wise people realize that the question of free will is beyond our ability to determine."

I am more interested in thinking for myself than being "wise".

This is interesting. Well, on the matter of free will, there is something that must be determined. "WHO" has free will?

Free will means YOU make your own choices. Okay, then the question of free will comes directly tied to how do you define who "you" are.

A clock points time in its own accord. You could say that the time of the clock is not of his choosing but of the choosing of the clockcrafter. You may say that everything that the "clock" is is what sets the time, independiently if the clockcrafter set the clock or not.

In reality, the clock crafter made the clock in a specific manner to make the specific "choices" it will make.

 

[Tiberius]

Do you think it is impossible that and your entrance in this thread was outside your control, but yet your posting was of your free will? It does not have to the one or the other, there could be a combination.

I suppose so, but there isn't really any way to tell the difference between the two, is there?

Of course all this is just talk, you still were presented with the choice and you freely chose to post in this thread. Unless of course you can present me with a verifiable force which compelled you beyond your control to post in this thread. And I do not mean influenced, I mean forced.

I doubt there was any force, as I do not go for the whole "predestination" idea.

 

[Friend of Bill W]

Science has shown through experiments using brain scanning techniques that we can make decisions upto six seconds prior to consciously thinking we made that decision.

Free will eh?

 

[Nakosis]

You don't know if you believe in free will or not but being the person you are you had no choice but to respond to this thread? Almost sounds like a contradiction.

"Every experience I have had, everything in have heard or read along with the genetics I was born with has gone into developing the character of the person I am. And being the person that I am I must point out that this is not a demonstration of free will. "

Of these experiences and what you've read, heard, your genetics, what was it that specifically forced you to reply to this thread? Mind you there is a difference between influenced and forced.

Your using the wrong term, "forced". Forced is when someone causes you to at against your will. This is comprehensive under the theory of compatibilism. The OP was asking about libertarian free will. Whether man can initiate action free from causation.

Likely his desire to express his understanding caused him to post. The question is could they have done anything other then posted a response? Their desires compelled (forced if you wish) them to post.

Compatibilist freewill is defined as doing what you want to do. Still means an individual has no choice except to act according to their desires. IOW they could not have done other then posted.

Compatibilism says you have free will but can't choose between alternate futures. People act according to their desires and they have no control over those desires.

However there is an apparent LFW(libertarian free will) in that we can imagine having acting different then we did and how changing our actions could have caused a different future. However there's no reason to think we could have acting any different then we did at the time of action.

So you can imagine someone not posting and so think there was a choice involved. However there is no reason to think they could have done any different then they did.

 

[Nakosis]

Science has shown through experiments using brain scanning techniques that we can make decisions upto six seconds prior to consciously thinking we made that decision.

Free will eh?

That's not very persuasive. In some cases our actions are done without thinking. Like playing a guitar. Your hands learn the proper position without consciously thinking. Obviously one can act/react before conscious thought. However there is no reason to think this occurs before every decision made. We obviously make conscious decision. We do, on occasion think before acting. Doesn't mean we could have made a different decision then we did. Only that conscious thought occurred prior to the action.

 

[Me Myself]

Simply responding to this thread, though, cannot demonstrate free will. An Internet Bot can respond to this thread.

This.

 

[Nakosis]

I suppose so, but there isn't really any way to tell the difference between the two, is there?



I doubt there was any force, as I do not go for the whole "predestination" idea.

Predestination is usually a religious concept. I think philosophy/science prefers determinism.

Determinism says that everything that happen to you prior to posting caused you to post. While you went through the process (mentally) of making a decision whether to post and what to post. Your desires caused you to post and you are reacting to what was posted prior.

However you did what you did, wrote what you wrote. Could you have done anything other then what you did? That's libertarian free will. Could you have actually chosen a different future then the one that actually occurred?

Without LFW, determinism says no.

 

[More In Common]

I think most of the confusion is semantic and there's actually more in common between both sides of the arguement..


I don't believe free will and fate are mutually exclusive but rather two sides of the same coin.

It's all about perspective.

From our individual human perspective we have free will and it's very much real, from an omniscient perspective everything is (and always has been) known.

 

[Skwim]

I think most of the confusion is semantic and there's actually more in common between both sides of the arguement..

What semantic confusion? And, if you look at the argument as one between free will and fate (predestination/determinism) there is absolutely no agreement.

I don't believe free will and fate are mutually exclusive but rather two sides of the same coin.

A strange belief to say the least.

It's all about perspective.

So how does perspective resolve the argument?

From our individual human perspective we have free will and it's very much real, from an omniscient perspective everything is (and always has been) known.

If that's your answer, it doesn't work. God's foreknowledge doesn't even have to enter into the equation for there to be a problem. The fact is, free will---not even sure how you define it--does not stand up to the logic and evidence of fate/predestination/determinism.

 

[Willamena]

Could you have done anything other then what you did? That's libertarian free will. Could you have actually chosen a different future then the one that actually occurred?

Without LFW, determinism says no.

Not disagreeing, but I think that casting LFW into the context and grammar of past tense does it an injustice (if you know what I mean). LFW occurs here, now, to an active agent in the present. The ability to choose between options that a person faces is options that are staring them in the face, not having been resolved yesterday.

 

[Nakosis]

Not disagreeing, but I think that casting LFW into the context and grammar of past tense does it an injustice (if you know what I mean). LFW occurs here, now, to an active agent in the present. The ability to choose between options that a person faces is options that are staring them in the face, not having been resolved yesterday.

Hmm... Hard to capture that moment. It's like "NOW". I'm not sure we are conscious of now. Our conscious thinking always seems a step behind.

Can't even talk about now, because as soon as you start the moment you talk about has already passed.

Something to give some thought to though. In the future, not now.