Do you Think we have Free Will

[leroy]

None that I can name, but remember, I'm agnostic about a lot of things - not just free will and gods. I'm agnostic about what lies outside of the theater of consciousness. I live as if there is a world out there but understand that I cannot know it. What I can know is that when I intend my finger go into a flame, I feel the pain of fire. That's the truth, not the finger or the fire, which may be illusion like free will might be illusion.

I don't assume that, but I live as if it's the case. Why? Because it works. Maybe the experience of driving a car, for example, is really a simulation, more like an arcade driving game, where turning a steering wheel results in no actual tires turning and no actual car turning. Even in an arcade game where we know the monitor is not a windshield but rather a display of pixels, it works best to imagine that one is driving an actual car, because thinking about the reality of computer boards and chips doesn't help one get a high score.

That is strange and nonsense in my opinion,, but ok you are not being inconsistent.

You seem to be saying that without free will, I can't come to conclusions, as if the fact that I do come to conclusions means I have free will, but computers generate solutions without free will. A computer with a sufficient data base, software, and processing capability could answer that question for you. It is extremely likely that the earth is billions of years old, and this can be decided using current knowledge and computing algorithms.

Without free will, you can´t descide which world view is correct. To descide is part you’re the definition of free will.

 

[Copernicus]

If we are allowed to define "free will", I would define it as freedom to do what one most wants to do, given the available options. What one most wants to do at the time of making a choice is not under the control of the agent, of course, so agents often choose to make excuses for past choices. If the Devil made me do it, then it's really the Devil's fault, isn't it? Unless, of course, the Devil didn't really make me do it, and I am just trying to deflect blame.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Please explain how brain scanning technology can determine if free will exists or am i just misunderstanding you.

What I'm saying is that if will is determined outside of consciousness and delivered to a conscious self that then acts on it without question while believing that that idea began with itself inside of consciousness, that future technology might be able to demonstrate that. It was part of the larger

That is strange and nonsense in my opinion

I agree that it is counterintuitive, but it is not nonsense, and in my opinion, it is correct. I know that you disagree, but since you don't offer a reason for disagreeing better than how things feel to you, that dissent isn't meaningful to me. When I disagreed with you, I told you why your conclusion regarding free will was premature, that there was another option that you seem to have ruled out for no better reason than hunch and intuition. Your job if you can do it is to explain how you ruled out other option. You can't, and because of that, you cannot be called correct nor I wrong.

Without free will, you can´t descide which world view is correct. To descide is part you’re the definition of free will.

You're begging the question again. You defined decide as freely decide, then say because a decision was made, it was made freely. But we know that machines can decide questions. Computers can decide which chess pieces to move where and win at chess. If you want to say that that is not deciding, then one has to say that if free will doesn't exist, nothing that appears to be a decision actually is one and that deciding doesn't actually occur in the universe.

 

[Bear Wild]

What I'm saying is that if will is determined outside of consciousness and delivered to a conscious self that then acts on it without question while believing that that idea began with itself inside of consciousness, that future technology might be able to demonstrate that. It was part of the larger

There is clear evidence that decisions are made before they are expressed consciously. That is how our brain translates our decisions into conscious actions. That does not however in any way indicate that the initiation of the decision was not of free will. That only shows that decision is planned well within us but in direct connection with our conscious self expression. There is no evidence to show that free will does not exist and our experiential self both conscious and unconscious says that free will does exist.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You're begging the question again. You defined decide as freely decide, then say because a decision was made, it was made freely..

No .. if you are right that we do not have free-will to make decisions, then there is
no good reason why we should be held responsible for our actions.

In such a case, there is no basis for civilisation.

 

[Copernicus]

No .. if you are right that we do not have free-will to make decisions, then there is
no good reason why we should be held responsible for our actions.

In such a case, there is no basis for civilisation.

The fact that we are held responsible for our actions acts as a deterrent that affects the choices we make. It becomes part of the causal chain that makes us choose to do what we do, whether it is fear of punishment by others or fear of feeling guilty. If doing the right thing gets approval from others and makes us feel good about ourselves, then that becomes an incentive to do the right thing. It would be stupid not to hold people accountable for their actions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is clear evidence that decisions are made before they are expressed consciously.

I don't know that the evidence is conclusive, but let's stipulate to it being so. That sounds like what I call the illusion of free will - unconscious neural mechanisms generating will through some combination of determinate and perhaps indeterminate quantum-level processes which is received by conscious agent - the self or Freud's ego - which mistakenly understands itself as the original source, hence the illusion of free will.

That does not however in any way indicate that the initiation of the decision was not of free will.

I'd say it does. I say that if this process could be manipulated externally and the desires generated changed artificially, the self wouldn't know and would continue to think it was the author of those desires, because he is uninvolved in their generation, which is all an unseen black box to him generating output according to unseen algorithms.

Does a person decide when a joke is funny, or does some unseen neural mechanism process the joke and tell him what to think about it according to rules he cannot elaborate. None of us can say what the rules are for themselves for finding something funny. It's another black box that processes the joke according to unseen algorithms and delivers a conclusion: not funny versus worth a smile versus very funny. This seems similar. Just as the brain informs the mind of what is funny, it seems to also inform the mind of what it wants.

There is no evidence to show that free will does not exist

The evidence you just alluded to suggests that. Furthermore, there is no evidence that will is free - just a compelling intuition that can be and is doubted philosophically by many of a philosophical bent.

and our experiential self both conscious and unconscious says that free will does exist.

That's not good enough. Experience also tells us that the earth is immobile, but with understanding, we can know what we can't sense.

if you are right that we do not have free-will to make decisions, then there is no good reason why we should be held responsible for our actions.

I don't know what you mean by responsible. If you mean punished, then I agree. If you mean forced to make amends or pay restitution, then I disagree.

Assume for the moment that free will is an illusion. How would knowing that change how we should live individually and as a species? I've said several times that I question the existence of just about everything but my conscious experience including my interpretation of what it represents, but that this is only philosophical doubt, meaning understood but not felt as doubt, and as such changes absolutely nothing for me.

I live as if my will were free knowing that it might not be and in fact probably isn't, and Iive as if the outside world exists as it appears knowing that it might not be. Although he may have trouble wrapping his head around them, there is no reason once he does for the critical thinker to resist these ideas. He can't refute them and they demand nothing of him.

 

[leroy]

It is not that absolute knowledge over a future choice removes or constrains freedom, it is rather that absolute knowledge over a future choice is only possible in the absence of freedom. Free will necessarily entails a degree of uncertainty.

If a choice is free willed, it is only at the exact moment that the choice takes place that we can know it's outcome. To know the outcome of a future choice requires that the outcome has been determined beforehand (which is incompatible with free will).

Is that only supposed to work with absolute knowledge?

If I know with 90% certainty your choices are you less free than if I know them with 50%?

Or to put it this way more uncertainty = more freedom? (to me it sounds like nonsense.)

 

[muhammad_isa]

The fact that we are held responsible for our actions acts as a deterrent that affects the choices we make.

..hopefully..

It becomes part of the causal chain that makes us choose to do what we do, whether it is fear of punishment by others or fear of feeling guilty..

Is that why the prisons get filled?

It would be stupid not to hold people accountable for their actions.

I agree .. because they should be .. there is no civilisation without it.

Pretending that we are not, is more likely to produce anti-social behaviour.

 

[leroy]

The fact that we are held responsible for our actions acts as a deterrent that affects the choices we make. It becomes part of the causal chain that makes us choose to do what we do, whether it is fear of punishment by others or fear of feeling guilty. If doing the right thing gets approval from others and makes us feel good about ourselves, then that becomes an incentive to do the right thing. It would be stupid not to hold people accountable for their actions.

If accidentally fall from the stairs and kill you, should I be hold responsibility? Should I be treated like a murderer? (NO)

But if there is not free will, there wouldn’t be a difference between me and a murderer, both simply happened to kill someone, none of us **decided** to kill………..

 

[shunyadragon]

I always appreciate your level of knowledge especially on evolution but I know of no studies that demonstrate that free will is an illusion. I feel I am fairly up to date on neuroscience research but am willing to reconsider if you can provide this evidence. Otherwise it is the illusion of what our research is telling us that is the illusion and free will is still free will.

I never proposed Free Will in and of itself is an illusion. I advocate of limited Free Will. What is an illusion is Libertarian Free Will, mainly because many exterior factors, and inherited evolved factors that limit our Free Will choices.

 

[shunyadragon]

Without free will, you can´t descide which world view is correct. To descide is part you’re the definition of free will.

The problem with this assertion is that by far most, 80 to 90%, people choose the religion, political party or world view of their family or peer group out of many diverse conflicting religions and world views.

New research finds parents want kids to share their religious beliefs

Teens follow in the religious and political footsteps of their parents, according to a new study done by the Pew Research Center.

kslnewsradio.com

The Pew researchers also surveyed kids about these issues, asking teens between the ages of 13 and 17 about their beliefs. They found that between 80- and 90% of teens held the same religious beliefs and political beliefs as their parents.

 

[leroy]

I agree that it is counterintuitive, but it is not nonsense, and in my opinion, it is correct. I know that you disagree, but since you don't offer a reason for disagreeing better than how things feel to you, that dissent isn't meaningful to me. When I disagreed with you, I told you why your conclusion regarding free will was premature, that there was another option that you seem to have ruled out for no better reason than hunch and intuition. Your job if you can do it is to explain how you ruled out other option. You can't, and because of that, you cannot be called correct nor I wrong.

Well I simply grant that my intuition is a good source of knowledge, I rule out other options based on my intution and the lack of evidnece against such intution.

I agree that it is counterintuitive, but it is not nonsense

It is nonsense because it leads to absurdities, all laws, models theories etc. make assumptions that can’t be tested empirically, so by your logic you should reject (or be agnostic) about everything. ……. At some point all theories trust in human “intuition”

}

You're begging the question again. You defined decide as freely decide, then say because a decision was made, it was made freely. But we know that machines can decide questions. Computers can decide which chess pieces to move where and win at chess. If you want to say that that is not deciding, then one has to say that if free will doesn't exist, nothing that appears to be a decision actually is one and that deciding doesn't actually occur in the universe.

Yes I meant “freely decided”…….. if there is not free will; you didn’t freely decided that “old earth” model is better than YEC.

Given this. I don’t see how can you “know something”

 

[Bear Wild]

I don't know that the evidence is conclusive, but let's stipulate to it being so. That sounds like what I call the illusion of free will - unconscious neural mechanisms generating will through some combination of determinate and perhaps indeterminate quantum-level processes which is received by conscious agent - the self or Freud's ego - which mistakenly understands itself as the original source, hence the illusion of free will.

I disagree and it that does not explain the complexity of responses that occur. I disagree with Freud in favor of Jung. People who are ego centered see it as an illusion because they deny the extent that the unconscious is in control of the conscious. There is no evidence at all that the unconscious cannot make free will decisions that are projected outward as the conscious reactions. Free will is not an illusion it is an inherent ability of the brain. There is no evidence in existence that disproves this although there are lots of opinions. Otherwise this conversation was predetermined at the time of the big bang and the future is already determined.

 

[Bear Wild]

I'd say it does. I say that if this process could be manipulated externally and the desires generated changed artificially, the self wouldn't know and would continue to think it was the author of those desires, because he is uninvolved in their generation, which is all an unseen black box to him generating output according to unseen algorithms.

I will just disagree. The complexity of the activity of the brain and responses indicates this is not true. Yo can believe it if you want but after a full career of dealing with mental aspects of patients and keeping updated with neuroscience research including its limitations indicates this is not the case.

 

[Bear Wild]

The evidence you just alluded to suggests that. Furthermore, there is no evidence that will is free - just a compelling intuition that can be and is doubted philosophically by many of a philosophical bent.

And also supported philosophically with a philosophical bent from my years of reading and experience. It is no surprise that there is differences of opinions but for me there is more than sufficient support.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well I simply grant that my intuition is a good source of knowledge, I rule out other options based on my intution and the lack of evidnece against such intution.


It is nonsense because it leads to absurdities, all laws, models theories etc. make assumptions that can’t be tested empirically, so by your logic you should reject (or be agnostic) about everything. ……. At some point all theories trust in human “intuition”

Considering the many diverse and conflicting claims of beliefs based on intuition this could hardly be considered a valid argument. Also 80-90% youth chose the religion and church of their parents further dilutes the belief in Free Will choice.

 

[shunyadragon]

If accidentally fall from the stairs and kill you, should I be hold responsibility? Should I be treated like a murderer? (NO)

But if there is not free will, there wouldn’t be a difference between me and a murderer, both simply happened to kill someone, none of us **decided** to kill………..

Legally there is wide spread considerations such as mental illnesses and mental maturity that are taken into consideration od Free Will issues in enforcing the laws.

 

[Bear Wild]

That's not good enough. Experience also tells us that the earth is immobile, but with understanding, we can know what we can't sense.

Experiential may not be enough to explain the earth in orbit but it is how we know about ourselves. The research is dependent on the responses of people in the research.

 

[shunyadragon]

No .. if you are right that we do not have free-will to make decisions, then there is
no good reason why we should be held responsible for our actions.

In such a case, there is no basis for civilisation.

Extreme over simplification that neglects the reality of being held to account for your actions. Yes in the past people were held account for their crimes without any regard to whether Free Will exists or not. In recent history legal systems have taken into account issues where people obviously are not capable of determining right or wrong such as mental illnesses and mental immaturity.

The bottomline remains that legal systems have to enforce laws and maintain a responsible society without regarding all possible Free Will issues.