Do you really have a choice?

[ppp]

I do not believe that s possible. I believe in deterministic free will.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Is there a coherent definition to deterministic free will?

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Is there a coherent definition to deterministic free will?

Below is my definition, one I wrote up.

I do not believe that humans are just a function of electrical impulses in our brains. I believe that humans have a soul that operates through the brain and mind while we are alive in a physical body, and the soul is the person, our personality, which is what causes us to make choices.

I believe we have a will and we make choices based upon our desires and preferences, which come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances - everything that goes into making us the person we are. All of these factors are the reasons why we choose one thing or another at any point in time.

How free our choices vary with the situation. Certainly, what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints such as ability and opportunity but we have volition as otherwise we could not do anything.

Recently I have changed my mind about how free we are when I realized just how limited I am in making choices different from the choices I am making now. I believe that free will is deterministic because the choices we make are 'determined' by a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances.

 

[ppp]

I do not believe that humans are just a function of electrical impulses in our brains. I believe that humans have a soul that operates through the brain and mind while we are alive in a physical body, and the soul is the person, our personality, which is what causes us to make choices.

I do not care what you believe. Iteration through a bunch of statements of belief is not a definition of what a word means. Try ignoring yourself, and just state what the word means as you are using it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I do not care what you believe. Iteration through a bunch of statements of belief is not a definition of what a word means. Try ignoring yourself, and just state what the word means as you are using it.

There are many definitions of free will and determinism, you can find those on the web. These definitions will differ because people do not agree on what these words mean.

What I believe about free will has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. These are all my own ideas.
When it comes to free will, it cannot be proven if we have it or not, and that is what it is a belief, and not a fact.

 

[ppp]

When it comes to free will, it cannot be proven if we have it or not

Then I don't care.

 

[Spice]

I am sorry, but in the example given I do not see anything that is right or wrong. Or anything that is untethered from the brain and from the environment.

Right or wrong in the "awareness of consequences." Some of the children didn't think the adult would truly not give them another cookie. They made their decision aware of the "wrong" consequences.

 

[ppp]

Right or wrong in the "awareness of consequences." Some of the children didn't think the adult would truly not give them another cookie. They made their decision on "wrong" consequences.

You just mean " incorrect.

 

[Ajax]

I have seen this video before. What a blundering idiot she is.
Anyone can make a video and call it science.
Denying that humans have free will to choose between right and wrong is just an excuse, a way to abdicate responsibility for one's actions.

Judge, judge, I had to kill my wife because I had no choice since I had no free will to choose!

The entire justice system all over the world is predicated on free will. So they are all wrong and this idiot of a woman is right?

First of all we are talking about two different versions of free will, the theological and the scientific. For me our theological discussion, as I told you earlier, has no purpose, because personally I don't believe in the omniscience of a supreme being, therefore neither in the theological determinism. I admit, that our discussion began as an attempt to see the theists' views.

On the scientific version, it seems to be a fact though, firstly described by Libet's experiment in the 80's and subsequently by others, that our brain takes the decisions for our choices, up to 10 seconds before we become conscious of these decisions. It also seems that the brain takes these decisions influenced, as you rightly wrote, by many factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances, advertisements etc. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have. Free will is actually more than an illusion, in that it cannot be made conceptually coherent. Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are also not responsible for them.

As to the moral behavior, it is clear that drugs/chemicals, brain damage, education, illness, sleep deprivation, etc can affect what people think, how they think and how they act. Judicial systems have for a long time adopted this to a lesser extend, when a person's malfunction of the brain (i.e. insanity) can not provide him with the right choices and does not allow him/her to distinguish right from wrong, or to be in control of their actions. Alzheimer's disease which is a brain's disorder can change dramatically one's behavior. Therefore Sabine Hossenfelder is not an idiot, because says a few things you don't agree with, for whatever reason. Most neuroscientists have the same views with her.
Even your "enemy" atheist neuroscientist and philosopher ..Sam Harris.

Making Sense | Sam Harris

From the Free Press:A belief in free will touches nearly everything that human beings value. It is difficult to think about law, politics, religion, public policy, intimate relationships, morality—as well as feelings of remorse or personal achievement—without first imagining that every person is...

www.samharris.org

 

[muhammad_isa]

Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control..

I don't know anybody who believes that we have total autonomy over our actions.
There are many factors that affect our behavior, but that does not mean that we have
no control whatsoever. On the contrary, many individuals are strong-willed,
and emotionally balanced.

We do not have the freedom we think we have. Free will is actually more than an illusion, in that it cannot be made conceptually coherent. Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are also not responsible for them.

Delusion .. perhaps we believe things like that, due to our own idealistic view of the world.
Claiming it is all about fact & science, is misleading .. "the blind leading the blind".

 

[ppp]

Right or wrong in the "awareness of consequences." Some of the children didn't think the adult would truly not give them another cookie. They made their decision aware of the "wrong" consequences.

In the cookie example that you gave, I would not consider either choice the child made to be an example of right/wrong. Not in the moral/immoral sense of the words. Nor in the correct/incorrect sense of the words.

 

[Spice]

In the cookie example that you gave, I would not consider either choice the child made to be an example of right/wrong. Not in the moral/immoral sense of the words. Nor in the correct/incorrect sense of the words.

I agree. You still miss my point on "right or wrong." It's not about the choice/decision. It's about what we use in addition to our moral conscience to make our decisions.

We make our decisions with the awareness of the consequences, though we may be mistaken on what those consequences truly are.

If someone decides to dive into uncertain water thinking/believing that the water is at least 15 feet deep, but in reality it's only 6 feet deep, that is a bad decision, not due to moral conscientious but to incorrect awareness of the consequences of which they weighed their decision.

 

[ppp]

We make our decisions with the awareness of the consequences, though we may be mistaken on what those consequences truly are

I do not think that sentence can be true. If we are mistaken about the true nature of the consequences, then we are not aware of those consequences. I think what you meant is that, We make our decisions with the belief about the consequences, though we may be mistaken on what those consequences truly are.

I agree. You still miss my point on "right or wrong." It's not about the choice/decision. It's about what we use in addition to our moral conscience to make our decisions.

I think that our moral conscience is a function of our brains expressed via instinct and intelligence guided by experience. What do you think it is?

If someone decides to dive into uncertain water thinking/believing that the water is at least 15 feet deep, but in reality it's only 6 feet deep, that is a bad decision, not due to moral conscientious but to incorrect awareness of the consequences of which they weighed their decision.

I would agree that the consequences are bad, but the decision is not necessarily bad. Flip it around. If someone decides to make the same dive believing the water to be 6 feet, but it turns out to be 15 feet, did they make a good decision?

 

[Spice]

I do not think that sentence can be true. If we are mistaken about the true nature of the consequences, then we are not aware of those consequences. I think what you meant is that, We make our decisions with the belief about the consequences, though we may be mistaken on what those consequences truly are.


I think that our moral conscience is a function of our brains expressed via instinct and intelligence guided by experience. What do you think it is?


I would agree that the consequences are bad, but the decision is not necessarily bad. Flip it around. If someone decides to make the same dive believing the water to be 6 feet, but it turns out to be 15 feet, did they make a good decision?

Exactly