Do you Think we have Free Will

[Ponder This]

* In this context Free Will is defined as the ability to make choices that are not fully determined by past events nor fully random

I know this is a hard question and that nobody claims to have 100% certanity..... but in your opinion what is more likely to be true?... do you think humans have the aility to make choices ?

You shouldn't have used the words "Free Will" in your poll when your intent was to ask about something other than Free Will. It just confused the issue for everyone trying to give an answer. The "Free" in "Free Will" means free from coercion as opposed to refering to free from all supposed physical limitations. For example, people cannot fly unassisted and thus most people walk around on the ground. Walkways exist by which people may travel from one place to another. Walkways are a form of order as opposed to enabling travel in random directions. It would be self-evident that all decisions made about walking around on a city's walkways are decisions neither fully determined by past events nor fully random. Of course, the answer to this question has nothing to do with the question of Free Will.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do agree you. Free will is embedded in the deterministic would around it. There is no free will without influence but within that setting it still is present. If you get time I would like to know the studies you inferred as evidence.

I view Free Will exists to a limited potential degree as a part of the nature of being human. Our physical existence is deterministic, but within a fractal context, which considers a degree of freedom based on a range of possible outcomes. I believe a limited potential Free Will exists within this range of possible outcomes of cause and effect events in the course of human affairs. It is long and involved and will take sometime to digest.

My primary source is: Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The source gives strong arguments against Libertarian Free Will and goes into detail of different perspectives and problems of different views. The arguments against Libertarian Free Will is the overwhelming evidence for outside influences that influence and determine our choices. Our choices are definitely limited within a range of possible outcomes. I believe the the question is how limited.

I use the concept of potential free will to conclude that there are possible choices we can make, but do not because of determined outside influences. I believe education increases the possibility of making alternate choices that we normally would not make.

An interesting section to look into is 3.2 The closest view on the question that is like mine is compatibilism.

I do not make any assumptions of the question of Free Will based on religious beliefs.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes .. something like that..
..but of course, if we assume that there IS a future (and the universe hasn't ceased to exist, for example),
one can argue that the series of events HAS to be something.

The determinist will say ah! , if it is "fixed", we are not making choices, we are merely
"following the script".

..but that is faulty reasoning .. it is our choices that "fix" it!

But we are spatiotemporal beings, so the past, present, and future are illusions produced by our bodily interactions across a range of times that have a beginning and an end. Along that pathway, we always operate under conditions of uncertainty--the same circumstances under which we program our robots to operate. So the interesting challenge for those of us who have worked with robots is to figure out how to get them to make critical choices while operating under those conditions. In doing so, we come to understand how it is that fleshy robots such as ourselves make choices without perfect knowledge of how the future will turn out. Of course, the robots' "gods" (i.e. human programmers) can only make guesses as to the conditions that the robots will encounter. Think about that when you get into a self-driving vehicle in the future. Robots are the quintessential example of agents that are supposed to lack "free will", but they actually do have free will in a much more limited sense than animals do.

 

[Koldo]

You shouldn't have used the words "Free Will" in your poll when your intent was to ask about something other than Free Will. It just confused the issue for everyone trying to give an answer. The "Free" in "Free Will" means free from coercion as opposed to refering to free from all supposed physical limitations. For example, people cannot fly unassisted and thus most people walk around on the ground. Walkways exist by which people may travel from one place to another. Walkways are a form of order as opposed to enabling travel in random directions. It would be self-evident that all decisions made about walking around on a city's walkways are decisions neither fully determined by past events nor fully random. Of course, the answer to this question has nothing to do with the question of Free Will.

Tell me you haven't read about the debate concerning libertarian free will vs. hard determinism without telling me you haven't read about the debate concerning libertarian free vs. hard determinism.

 

[Copernicus]

You shouldn't have used the words "Free Will" in your poll when your intent was to ask about something other than Free Will. It just confused the issue for everyone trying to give an answer. The "Free" in "Free Will" means free from coercion as opposed to refering to free from all supposed physical limitations. For example, people cannot fly unassisted and thus most people walk around on the ground. Walkways exist by which people may travel from one place to another. Walkways are a form of order as opposed to enabling travel in random directions. It would be self-evident that all decisions made about walking around on a city's walkways are decisions neither fully determined by past events nor fully random. Of course, the answer to this question has nothing to do with the question of Free Will.

Tell me you haven't read about the debate concerning libertarian free will vs. hard determinism without telling me you haven't read about the debate concerning libertarian free vs. hard determinism.

I think that Ponder is making the perfectly valid point that free will debaters often get caught up in an equivocation on the meaning of "free". Originally, the free will debate was part of a theological debate about the ability of human beings to disobey God, whose omniscience guarantees that they can only choose to do what God knows they will choose to do. How can they be free to choose from God's perspective, if he always knows in advance how they will choose? IOW, how can God judge people for making bad choices? That would be like a carpenter blaming his hammer for striking his thumb.

The determinism debate changes the goal posts. Suddenly, the concept of what is "free" has to do with physical limitations rather than morality, obligation, or duty. How can society hold people culpable for robbing and murdering if their brain chemistry and physical circumstances fully determine their actions? The answer to that dilemma is that society is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, so people can only be prevented from posing a danger to society if they restrict their own behavior. Otherwise, they are "free" to commit dangerous acts. A system of laws and penalties exists to deter people from posing a danger to society--to become part of the chain of events that determines individual choices. God has the option of intervening to prevent bad choices in advance of actions, so culpability judgments are more difficult to justify in the theological debate than in the determinism debate. It makes sense for governments to judge human behavior, but does it make sense for God to judge it?

 

[shunyadragon]

But we are spatiotemporal beings, so the past, present, and future are illusions produced by our bodily interactions across a range of times that have a beginning and an end. Along that pathway, we always operate under conditions of uncertainty--the same circumstances under which we program our robots to operate. So the interesting challenge for those of us who have worked with robots is to figure out how to get them to make critical choices while operating under those conditions. In doing so, we come to understand how it is that fleshy robots such as ourselves make choices without perfect knowledge of how the future will turn out. Of course, from the robots' "gods" (i.e. human programmers) can only make guesses as to the conditions that the robots will encounter. Think about that when you get into a self-driving vehicle in the future. Robots are the quintessential example of agents that are supposed to lack "free will", but they actually do have free will in a much more limited sense than animals do.

I disagree with some of the wording and how you describe robotics.

In terms programing robotics I do not believe guesses are programed to respond to guesses or randomness, but a range of possible choices in any given situation or change in the environment. The possible choices become very limited in any given situation encountered. One of the direction of programing is to give programs and robotics the ability to learn when confronted by an unknown situation, At present if a robotic programed system has to guess we would be in trouble. As technology advances in AI the depth and variation of robotic responses and learning will increase in any given cause and effect outcome.

 

[Koldo]

I think that Ponder is making the perfectly valid point that free will debaters often get caught up in an equivocation on the meaning of "free".

This is where we are going to disagree. @Ponder This completly ignored the fact that freedom from coercion is insufficient to establish free will both in the perspective of libertarian free will defenders and hard determinism proponents.

He also stated that it is "self-evident that all decisions made about walking around on a city's walkways are decisions neither fully determined by past events nor fully random" showing a complete lack of knowledge on hard determinism's stance on this.

Originally, the free will debate was part of a theological debate about the ability of human beings to disobey God, whose omniscience guarantees that they can only choose to do what God knows they will choose to do. How can they be free to choose from God's perspective, if he always knows in advance how they will choose? IOW, how can God judge people for making bad choices? That would be like a carpenter blaming his hammer for striking his thumb.

The determinism debate changes the goal posts. Suddenly, the concept of what is "free" has to do with physical limitations rather than morality, obligation, or duty. How can society hold people culpable for robbing and murdering if their brain chemistry and physical circumstances fully determine their actions?

On this we agree. Notice however that @Ponder This made absolutely no mention of any of this.

The answer to that dilemma is that society is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, so people can only be prevented from posing a danger to society if they restrict their own behavior. Otherwise, they are "free" to commit dangerous acts. A system of laws and penalties exists to deter people from posing a danger to society--to become part of the chain of events that determines individual choices.

Suffices to say there are also other answers that can complement yours.

God has the option of intervening to prevent bad choices in advance of actions, so the free will debate is more difficult to justify in the theological debate than in the determinism debate.

Hmm... What do you mean by 'difficult to justify'?

 

[Copernicus]

I disagree with some of the wording and how you describe robotics.

In terms programing robotics I do not believe guesses are programed to respond to guesses or randomness, but a range of possible choices in any given situation or change in the environment. The possible choices become very limited in any given situation encountered. One of the direction of programing is to give programs and robotics the ability to learn when confronted by an unknown situation, At present if a robotic programed system has to guess we would be in trouble. As technology advances in AI the depth and variation of robotic responses and learning will increase in any given cause and effect outcome...

You aren't really disagreeing with me, since I did not go into details of differences between animal intelligence and programmed machine intelligence. A discussion of AI programming would be off-topic here, so I didn't want to get bogged down in discussing issues like machine learning and how we get robots to adapt to patterns that they recognize in their immediate environments. Animals are much more complex machines that have been designed over eons of evolutionary change to survive and adapt to chaotic environments.

 

[shunyadragon]

Tell me you haven't read about the debate concerning libertarian free will vs. hard determinism without telling me you haven't read about the debate concerning libertarian free vs. hard determinism.

The following article deals with part of the question by addressing hard determinism vs soft determinism and the concept of Will called compatibilism. I do not fully agree with compatibilism, but is a good start for the middle road.

Queensborough Community College

www.qcc.cuny.edu

Compatibilism​

We were raised in a culture that teaches us or encourage us to believe that we have free will and are responsible for our actions. On the other hand there is the belief that humans are not responsible for their actions: that there are forces over which we have no control and that our actions are causal. Which means that there are antecedent causes that explains behaviour such as the laws of nature e.g. gravity, and also conditioning. If we were to consider some basic human behaviour like response to stimuli we might argue that humans are determined, but then there are voluntary actions which are as a result of our desires and emotions, which would make it seem like we are free.

This problem of free will and determinism has attracted many great minds that have put forth some very attractive arguments in support of their beliefs. The different positions on this issue are: Libertarianism – which is the theory that humans are entirely free and are first cause for all their actions. Determinism – there is Hard Determinism with the belief that all actions are caused and then there is Soft Determinism or Compatibilism – a third position that tries to combine the best of the other two positions, which says that although everything is determined we can still act voluntarily (Pojman 324). I will to the best of my ability present conclusive arguments and counter arguments for each of these positions and then give my support and defend the one I consider to be the most reasonable – Compatibilism.

Determinism is the theory that everything in the universe is governed by causal laws; that is, everything in the universe is entirely determined so that whatever happens at any given moment is the effect of some antecedent cause (Pojman 327). This position of causation as the explanation for all actions is termed Hard Determinism. It contends that there are no other explanations for human actions except that it is as a result of antecedent causes. Although, our ability to deliberate – argument for Libertarian – seems obvious that we are free, the determinist argues that we often feel free, but these feelings are illusory and that the deliberation is the product of antecedent cause.

I go with soft determinism there is not the rigid linear necessary cause and effect one on one relationship predetermined outcomes of the chain of outcomes. I prefer the version of limited potential free will similar to compatibilism.

 

[Copernicus]

This is where we are going to disagree. @Ponder This completly ignored the fact that freedom from coercion is insufficient to establish free will both in the perspective of libertarian free will defenders and hard determinism proponents.

We are still in disagreement, but I can't really say for sure what was in Ponder's mind. That was just my take on his post.

He also stated that it is "self-evident that all decisions made about walking around on a city's walkways are decisions neither fully determined by past events nor fully random" showing a complete lack of knowledge on hard determinism's stance on this.

Again, I think you need to make a distinction between permissibility and possibility here. I wouldn't have used Ponder's words "fully determined" there. Rather, I think that one needs to take into account the two different referential frames--that of an omniscient observer, and that of a knowledge-limited chooser. Where people choose to walk is determined by where they desire to walk, and desires are determiners of choice--not under the control of the chooser.

On this we agree. Notice however that @Ponder This made absolutely no mention of any of this.

True. I was trying to explain my support for his point about the different senses of "free", and that led me into a discussion of the origin of the determinism debate--the theological question over God's omniscience and divine judgments on human culpability.

Suffices to say there are also other answers that can complement yours.

No doubt.

Hmm... What do you mean by 'difficult to justify'?

I was referring to the controversy surrounding theodicy-- the attempt to vindicate divine judgment in view of the existence of evil. It is difficult to understand how an omniscient God can judge immoral acts, but it is considerably less difficult to understand how a government can judge dangerous behavior. (I'm not a big fan of libertarian analyses of human behavior, but I'm in agreement with muhammad_isa's point that people ought to be held accountable for what they do.)

 

[shunyadragon]

We are still in disagreement, but I can't really say for sure what was in Ponder's mind. That was just my take on his post.



Again, I think you need to make a distinction between permissibility and possibility here. I wouldn't have used Ponder's words "fully determined" there. Rather, I think that one needs to take into account the two different referential frames--that of an omniscient observer, and that of a knowledge-limited chooser. Where people choose to walk is determined by where they desire to walk, and desires are determiners of choice--not under the control of the chooser.




True. I was trying to explain my support for his point about the different senses of "free", and that led me into a discussion of the origin of the determinism debate--the theological question over God's omniscience and divine judgments on human culpability.



No doubt.



I was referring to the controversy surrounding theodicy-- the attempt to vindicate divine judgment in view of the existence of evil. It is difficult to understand how an omniscient God can judge immoral acts, but it is considerably less difficult to understand how a government can judge dangerous behavior. (I'm not a big fan of libertarian analyses of human behavior, but I'm in agreement with muhammad_isa's point that people ought to be held accountable for what they do.)

Even though I am a theist I have difficulty justifying the issues of Free Will and Determinism to fit or justify theology.

First I believe moral accountability as a natural nature of human history for over 300,000 years regardless of whether we have Free Will, a degree of Free Will or Determinism.

Determinism is an essential nature of our existence, but not absolute Hard Determinism.

The nature of our existence is not random, and diversity of the outcome of chains of cause and effect outcomes in nature follows consistent patterns, and this true of human behavior including our choices in life and collectively. We are rooted in tribal and family consensus in our choices for the most part.

 

[Copernicus]

Even though I am a theist I have difficulty justifying the issues of Free Will and Determinism to fit or justify theology.

First I believe moral accountability as a natural nature of human history for over 300,000 years regardless of whether we have Free Will, a degree of Free Will or Determinism.

Determinism is an essential nature of our existence, but not absolute Hard Determinism.

The nature of our existence is not random, and diversity of the outcome of chains of cause and effect outcomes in nature follows consistent patterns, and this true of human behavior including our choices in life and collectively. We are rooted in tribal and family consensus in our choices for the most part.

Hard determinism has a built in bias about the nature of free will--that it must somehow refer to a process that is incompatible with determinism. You, like me, are a compatibilist, but we may have some quibbles over how to define that compatibility. I don't see any substantive disagreements there.

 

[leroy]

If it is necessarily the case that individual A will choose to do X, how exactly is individual A not fully constrained? How can you say he could have chosen to do Y if he would necessarily do X?

I take it we both agree that individual A and individual B can share the same mental states towards their choices, the same perception that they could have chosen otherwise. Both will also necessarily choose X. If their mental state is the same and the inevitability of their choice is the same, I see absolutely no distinction between those individuals. To say individual A could have chosen otherwise, on this context, is therefore devoid of any meaning.

The individual that has free will (A) could have chosen Y but it simply happened to be the case that he chose X...... so I dont grant that that he Necesairly choose X .


I simply dont see any incoherent thing in the following statement
"You have 2 options A and B, you can pick any option, you have the hability to pick ether option, but I know that you will chose A" (because I know you) or (because I saw the future with a time machineor something) or cause b theory of time is true and I can see the future)

*well I do think that time travel is absurd, but if it where possible, I dont see how would that imply that there is no free will

 

[Koldo]

The individual that has free will (A) could have chosen Y but it simply happened to be the case that he chose X...... so I dont grant that that he Necesairly choose X .

?

If it is 100% certain that a given individual is going to choose X in the future, how is it not the case that this individual will necessarily choose X?

 

[muhammad_isa]

If it is 100% certain that a given individual is going to choose X in the future, how is it not the case that this individual will necessarily choose X?

..but it isn't 100% certain .. it's only certain because you say so.
You could just as easily have said "if it is certain that he is going to choose Y"

What you SHOULD say, is that if it is 100% certain that he will choose (a choice), then how is it not the case that this individual will necessarily choose (that choice)?

..and then, as is blatantly obvious, he will necessarily choose something!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Free in this case means to be able to respond outside of the predicted from the current deterministic factors.

That's not what I mean when I refer to free will. What I mean by free is that self could have chosen another way under those precise circumstances. Prediction is not a part of it. If that's not what you mean, then we are discussing different things. If it IS what you mean, then I think we need to recognize that while me might be able to demonstrate that the answer is no if that's the case, we have no test if the answer is yes.

Desire, wish, preferences and wishes are not limited to the conscious brain.

Disagree. Those words have no meaning absent a conscious agent. Dead people and boulders don't do any of them. Of course, consciousness can be minimal as when dreaming, but there must be some degree of awareness.

These are generated before we have the conscious recognition.

If so, will is not free. It is determined by those pre-conscious neural activities.

you can´t prove empirically that you have that memory. my point being that there are things that you "know" (with high degree of confidence) despite the fact you can´t prove them empirically.

I have demonstrated to my own satisfaction that the rules that I've accumulated over the years work for how the world works are a reliable means of predicting and thus to some degree controlling outcomes. I've already explained to you what this means in terms of how beliefs, desires, and the senses work together. Nothing more need be "proved" about reality.

You have my complete answer given as clearly as I can make it. This is what empiricism is, and you know my position on skepticism and philosophical doubt. If you intend to continue with this point, I suggest that you go back and copy the last few posts I've written to you in this thread before you can't find them again. Also, I suggest that you address each point made in them, or say goodbye to them forever. I don't intend to repeat myself. As always, I assume that when you read something, you either express dissent or are tacitly accepting it EVEN IF LATER YOU SAY THAT YOU DON"T REMEMBER EVER SEEING IT.

Here are those posts (in chronological order):

Do you Think we have Free Will
Do you Think we have Free Will
Do you Think we have Free Will
Do you Think we have Free Will
Do you Think we have Free Will
Do you Think we have Free Will

 

[Bear Wild]

Disagree. Those words have no meaning absent a conscious agent. Dead people and boulders don't do any of them. Of course, consciousness can be minimal as when dreaming, but there must be some degree of awareness.

So the desire for someone who dislikes ham to get up while asleep, go into the kitchen and make a ham sandwich telling her children that the ham was good then going back to bed only to wake up not remembering anything has nothing to do with desire eat?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

* In this context Free Will is defined as the ability to make choices that are not fully determined by past events nor fully random

I know this is a hard question and that nobody claims to have 100% certanity..... but in your opinion what is more likely to be true?... do you think humans have the aility to make choices ?

My whole life, I have been a very strong advocate for free will. However, being in my 60s now, I've learned a lot more information, and had a long time to think things over. The more I've learned about psychobiology, the less inclined I am towards free will. I think at this point in my life, I think I can say that I've changed my mind. I no longer believe in free will.

Although the switch is due to a great many conversations and sources, probably the main person to have gotten me to rethink this was Dr. Robert Sapolsky in his set of online lectures in Human Behavioral Biology. I watched these videos the first time about 10 years ago, and then rewatched them about a year ago.

You can find all 25 of these lectures here:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So the desire for someone who dislikes ham to get up while asleep, go into the kitchen and make a ham sandwich telling her children that the ham was good then going back to bed only to wake up not remembering anything has nothing to do with desire eat?

I think we're drifting a bit from the topic of free will. If a person who is sleepwalking is unconscious, then the behavior is not an act of will. I'm saying that will begins with consciousness, and that if the conscious agent is not its original source, then it does not have free will. It operates under the illusion of free will. You seem to be saying that will precedes consciousness, that the neural circuits have a will, and calling that free will. That's matter transferring energy according to the laws of physics.

And it may well be the case that that is all volition ever is. How would we know if it were? How would we know if it weren't? If we can't decide such matters definitively, then we can only give our hunches, our intuitions, and how things feel to us. My will feels free, too, but I do not go so far as to say that it is, because I don't know and can't know. All I can say is that the world is mostly deterministic, and even quantum indeterminacy doesn't rescue free will. It just adds a random element to it, and though I cannot answer the question, I am content that it is possible that none of us have free will. Moreover, I need do nothing with that idea beyond present it in venues like this one. Nothing changed about the way I live or how I make decisions. I still discover desires and act on them unimpeded in most cases. I don't have a stake in determining where they come from or to what extent I am their author.

 

[Bear Wild]

I think we're drifting a bit from the topic of free will. If a person who is sleepwalking is unconscious, then the behavior is not an act of will. I'm saying that will begins with consciousness, and that if the conscious agent is not its original source, then it does not have free will. It operates under the illusion of free will. You seem to be saying that will precedes consciousness, that the neural circuits have a will, and calling that free will. That's matter transferring energy according to the laws of physics.

Will is generated subcortically then recognized with awareness which then modifies with downward feedback. In the case I presented which was a real case, why would she have deviated from her normal behavior. If it were purely deterministic then you would not expect her to eat something she does not like.
There is no reason to think that desires start from the cortical brain. We become aware of them and then alter the behavior, but your will initiates not in the cortex. There is also no reason to believe that the unconscious could not initiate a decision that was not arrived to by pure deterministic causes. There is no question that free will is not well imbedded in a deterministic environment, but novel ideas do occur. Some of the most profound and new ideas I have experienced have occurred in the trance state. I tend to go into the trance state while swimming and without consciously thinking about something I will find a pattern in a problem I had not considered when focusing on a subject. This is going on in the subconscious realm. So, yes will can be generated their then recognized later in the conscious state.