Do you Think we have Free Will

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Will is generated subcortically then recognized with awareness which then modifies with downward feedback.

I don't call that free will. That's the illusion of free will. That's the brain informing the self, not the self generating the will.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't call that free will. That's the illusion of free will..

There's no such thing .. either a person is responsible for their actions, or they aren't.

There are obviously occasions when a person's actions are beyond their control..
..and in such a situation, they shouldn't drive a vehicle, for example.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Free will. Is the ability to freely choose between options.
However. This does not mean that the choices we make can never be predicted by an observer.
Most choices that we make can be predicted with a fairly high degree of accuracy by someone with a good understanding of both us our past history and and the circumstances in question.

However none of these predictions have any degree of " force" on our decisions. There is absolutely no 100%. guarantee about our choices or their outcomes.

While choices may be closely predicted, they are never predetermined.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

either a person is responsible for their actions, or they aren't.

This is the central issue for the Abrahamist, isn't it. You zeroed right in on it. This is why so many argue so assiduously that will is free. It's about punishing people for exercising that will antisocially. Where else would this matter even apply? You choose fish and chips over a ham sandwich and nobody travails over whether the choice was made freely or predetermined by physics EXCEPT the guy who wants to see you in hell for eating pork. He alone has a stake in that argument.

This is also why so many people are content with prison being cruel, with people being raped, contracting AIDS, being put in solitary as a punishment rather than a safeguard, or being murdered for pedophilia. They think it's

The humanistic approach to such matters doesn't involve retribution (punishment for punishment's sake). Courtrooms and prisons are for constructive purposes only - to remove a danger from the streets (public safety), restitution (damages), to serve as a disincentive to those considering crime, and someday perhaps, rehabilitation.

Gratuitous punishment isn't a part of it, the extreme model of which is hell (or whatever version of perdition the believer accepts), where people are tortured forever to the benefit of nobody but onlooking sadists. There is no restitution to God for sinning. There is no lesson learned or behavioral modification. Nobody is safer. Nobody is rehabilitated. There's just anguish for the sake of causing suffering, and the Abrahamist, who claims that his god is good and just, seeks to justify it with this free will argument, as if free will justified such an action on the part of this god. Humanists also promote tolerance, and don't find such a deity any more moral for punishing any conscious agent like just because it has free will.

Think about how you deal with children, who you presume have free will. Do you make them suffer just to see them suffer because they defied you? Not unless you're a sadist yourself. Your interventions are all constructive, whether that's grounding or taking away telephone privileges or forcing an apology to one's sibling or making the child pay for a broken window from his allowance. Yet the Abrahamist accepts such morals from his god and even comes onto the Internet to defend them.

 

[Bear Wild]

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

I have always enjoyed his books and lectures, but he expressed a position that shamans were schizotypal and extended this out to other religious visionaries. You know like Moses listening to a burning bush. Was Moses schizotypal?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have always enjoyed his books and lectures, but he expressed a position that shamans were schizotypal and extended this out to other religious visionaries. You know like Moses listening to a burning bush. Was Moses schizotypal?

I have no idea.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is the central issue for the Abrahamist, isn't it. You zeroed right in on it. This is why so many argue so assiduously that will is free. It's about punishing people for exercising that will antisocially..

No .. you ignored the rest of my post.

"There are obviously occasions when a person's actions are beyond their control..
..and in such a situation, they shouldn't drive a vehicle, for example."

If a person only had "an illusion" of free-will, I would be concerned that they were not safe to drive.
Either we are in control, or we are not !

Think about how you deal with children, who you presume have free will. Do you make them suffer just to see them suffer because they defied you?

Young children are not mature .. an adult realises that they can't be relied upon to
always make correct decisions.
I agree that children have the ability to freely make choices i.e. they possess free-will, but
they are not mature enough to take responsibilty for their actions.
Hence, there is a mininum age for driving etc.

..the Abrahamist accepts such morals from his god and even comes onto the Internet to defend them.

Children need education and parents are a part of that.
..and that indeed includes morality and religion .. humanities as well as science/maths .. yes.

 

[Bear Wild]

I have no idea.

I asked because in one of his lectures he implied that although did not use the name Moses although how many references are to a burning bush when talking to god.

 

[Bear Wild]

I don't call that free will. That's the illusion of free will. That's the brain informing the self, not the self generating the will.

Thank you for listening to me. I will consider what you have said but I still believe the real illusion is the separation of the conscious and subconscious and not giving the credit to how the self extends well into the unconscious and can make decisions that although well embedded in the deterministic environment can still deviate from the expected from the deterministic factors. Will need to update myself in new information.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I asked because in one of his lectures he implied that although did not use the name Moses although how many references are to a burning bush when talking to god.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with whether Moshe was schizotypal or not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I still believe the real illusion is the separation of the conscious and subconscious and not giving the credit to how the self extends well into the unconscious and can make decisions that although well embedded in the deterministic environment can still deviate from the expected from the deterministic factors.

Perhaps our differences lie in how we define the self. If I say that I am or am not the author of my desires, I mean the part of me that is conscious. If those desires originate in the subconscious mechanism that support and inform the self, then the self is their puppet of sorts. Your hypothalamus detects hyperosmolarity and generates and delivers a desire to drink to the self, which sees itself as the source of that desire, and uses its body to find and consume a drink. This is what I am calling the illusion of free will.

Suppose I am going to surgery in the morning and have been instructed to ignore that desire to drink. One might call the parts of the brain that support that kind of reasoning the self, and some have. Perhaps you've seen the expression "free won't," referring to these higher centers vetoing the urges of the lower brain centers. To me, that's calling a part of the neocortex the self, but I see it in the same light as the desire to drink. The desire to not drink is a second desire generated outside of consciousness and delivered to the conscious subject.

No .. you ignored the rest of my post. "There are obviously occasions when a person's actions are beyond their control....and in such a situation, they shouldn't drive a vehicle, for example."

The comment is self-evidently correct, but I don't see the relevance to a discussion of whether will is free or determined.

If a person only had "an illusion" of free-will, I would be concerned that they were not safe to drive. Either we are in control, or we are not !

Yes, we are in control except when too sleepy or intoxicated or whatever whether the will is freely generated or determined. I would say that once perfected, the AI that drives cars will have even more control than a conscious driver while being unconscious itself and having no will.

Young children are not mature .. an adult realises that they can't be relied upon to always make correct decisions. I agree that children have the ability to freely make choices i.e. they possess free-will, but they are not mature enough to take responsibilty for their actions.

So then you see a day coming in that child's life when it will be sufficiently mature to begin to inflict discomfort on it just to make it suffer? You seem to be saying that the morals of a god that inflicts gratuitous suffering with no constructive purpose and which are imitated by Abrahamists that want what they consider sinners' (prisoners, LGBTQ+) lives to be more unpleasant are acceptable because they are mature. I hope not. Perhaps you can address the moral implications of inflicting gratuitous suffering.

Children need education and parents are a part of that...and that indeed includes morality and religion

Let's discuss that religious morality. You believe that your god gave man free will, and by exercising it in contradiction to scripture, he deserves punishment that has no constructive purpose. I call that immoral. Why don't you? You seem to be defending it and even promoting teaching it to children.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, we are in control except when too sleepy or intoxicated or whatever whether the will is freely generated or determined..

Determined by what/whom?? That is my point.
If it was determined by other than the driver, the driver would be out of control.

I would say that once perfected, the AI that drives cars will have even more control than a conscious driver while being unconscious itself and having no will.

..but what is the "AI that drives cars" ? Is that not programmed by mankind, to behave in a certain way?

Let's discuss that religious morality. You believe that your god gave man free will, and by exercising it in contradiction to scripture, he deserves punishment that has no constructive purpose.

..and who is to say that some kind of pain serves no purpose?
Not me, certainly..

I don't think anybody wants to suffer .. yet we do .. such as toothache, road traffic collisions etc.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Determined by what/whom?? That is my point.

Neural circuity. which is unconscious but reports its output to consciousness.

If it was determined by other than the driver, the driver would be out of control.

Correct. But it isn't. It's controlled by the driver's brain, which is also the driver, and which informs his mind.

what is the "AI that drives cars" ? Is that not programmed by mankind, to behave in a certain way?

Yes, it is, but it is not conscious and has no free will, and yet, it controls the car. You seem to equate a driver not having free will with cars driven by them being out of control, as if were he to have free will and then suddenly lose it while driving, the car would hit a tree. That's what happens if he loses consciousness, but not if he loses free will. He continues driving according to the instructions his brain generates. He wouldn't even be aware that anything had changed.

who is to say that some kind of pain serves no purpose?

This is your answer to a god inflicting gratuitous suffering after death - how do we know that it serves no purpose? If that's what you mean, then you've abdicated your responsibility to make moral judgments in deference to what you have been led to believe about an alleged god. You've let others convince you, and you argue with them, that maybe sadism is actually a good thing but we're too myopic to see how.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Neural circuity. which is unconscious but reports its output to consciousness.

Hmm .. a piece of meat reports to me (consciousness)?
Either there is a "me", or there is not .. if there IS a me, then there is no need
for "a piece of meat" to tell me anything, other than sensory input/output.

Correct. But it isn't. It's controlled by the driver's brain, which is also the driver, and which informs his mind.

Semantics .. you can't really separate brain/mind.
Either you (brain/mind) is in control, or it is NOT!

Yes, it is, but it is not conscious and has no free will, and yet, it controls the car.

It controls it, through a computer programmed by a human.
Right, it has no consciousness .. but it's "will" is determined by its software .. which is determined by
a human.

You seem to equate a driver not having free will with cars driven by them being out of control, as if were he to have free will and then suddenly lose it while driving, the car would hit a tree. That's what happens if he loses consciousness, but not if he loses free will. He continues driving according to the instructions his brain generates. He wouldn't even be aware that anything had changed.

I don't agree with that.
Obviously, one has to learn how to drive .. and like riding a bicycle, some of the skills
are not concerned with free-will .. balance, and steering etc.
..but a decision to plow into pedestrians, for example, is due to exercising our free-will.
..and being intoxicated also causes lack of inhibition, for example.

You've let others convince you, and you argue with them, that maybe sadism is actually a good thing but we're too myopic to see how.

I've no idea what you are talking about .. sadism?
What about the pain mechanism, is sadism?
Without pain, we could accidentally cut-off a limb, for example.

If you refer to the concept of hell, then please say so.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Either there is a "me", or there is not .. if there IS a me, then there is no need for "a piece of meat" to tell me anything, other than sensory input/output.

I don't know what this means or why you wrote it. Yes, there's a you. You are an aware and self-aware subject in your theater of consciousness, which is generated by your brain, which in turn activates your muscles to carry out functions and manipulate the environment outside of the body. We use the words for the self (I, me) to refer to all or part of that at various times. For the purpose of a discussion of free will, I limit the self to the subject apprehending the phenomena of consciousness, not the "meat" (brain and body).

Semantics .. you can't really separate brain/mind.

Sure I can. So can you. A ghost is said to have a mind but no brain. A dead body has a brain but no mind.

Either you (brain/mind) is in control, or it is NOT!

Free will is about the self being in control of what it desires. The self is neither mind nor body. It is the subject that experiences the mind and what it reveals to the self, which, if free will is an illusion, is the commands of the brain delivered to the self, which it mistakenly thinks it authored, and which it dutifully and reliably obeys.

It controls it, through a computer programmed by a human. Right, it has no consciousness .. but it's "will" is determined by its software .. which is determined by
a human.

Nevertheless, the control mechanism still in control. The fact that a human designed it is irrelevant. The car is being controlled and it lacks free will. That's the point. You were implying that if the driver doesn't have free will, he can't be in control, but as we see, control doesn't require free will or even consciousness. The sun controls the orbit of the earth.

a decision to plow into pedestrians, for example, is due to exercising our free-will.

You're assuming that such a thing exists or is necessary for that to occur. Neither assumption is justified.

I've no idea what you are talking about .. sadism?

The inflicting of punishment for no constructive purpose (gratuitous suffering),

If you refer to the concept of hell, then please say so

Yes, I am, and I did say so, but I also am also referring to humans imitating this god's penchant for infliction gratuitous suffering. I gave the example of inhumane prison conditions. Humanists don't advocate for suffering in prison beyond the regret that a loss of freedom necessary entails, and even that isn't intended to cause suffering. If you prefer that prisoners be raped and contract AIDS because you see them as deserving that, then you're imitating the god that damns souls, which I consider immoral on the parts of both the deity and the adherent.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Free will is about the self being in control of what it desires. The self is neither mind nor body. It is the subject that experiences the mind and what it reveals to the self, which, if free will is an illusion, is the commands of the brain delivered to the self, which it mistakenly thinks it authored, and which it dutifully and reliably obeys..

Whatever floats your boat.. to me, the above is gobbldigook.

..I also am also referring to humans imitating this god's penchant for infliction gratuitous suffering. I gave the example of inhumane prison conditions..

..that has nothing to do with faith..
People often oppress others, regardless.

 

[leroy]

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

But you can´t prove it *empirically* (in red letters above)

So my reply is the same as in my previous posts, you are accepting as truth stuff that you can´t show to be true empirically. …

I suggest that you address each point

“You suggest”? how do you know that you made that suggestion? how can you prove it “empirically”?...................how do you knwo that i didnt addressed your points? ...............maybe I addressed all those points , but a hacker came to the forum and delited my comments?




I understand and grant most of your points, … what you don’t seem to grasp is that each of the points that you made is justified by other mechanisms (other than empiricism) ……… when you say like “this rules work to my satisfaction” you are appealing to non-empirical knowledge...........

, or say goodbye

I agree, I don’t have anything to add, and nether do you.

I still think that on each of your commets you are grantining as truth things that you can´t show to be true *empirically”

 

[Ponder This]

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.

Isn't that debate about the compatibilism of free will with determinism rather than the definition of free will? If there is a specific point you are trying to make, please feel free to make it.

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.

Coercion is the question at issue when determining if will is free. Hard determinism is the position that determinism is incompatible with free will. @leroy defined free will as

the ability to make choices that are not fully determined by past events nor fully random

which is not what we mean when we talk about what it means for will to be "free". Some people argue that everything is determined and we have free will and others argue that things are not determined and we don't have free will, because the question of "free" is the question of coercion. By creating and using the erroneous definition provided by @leroy, someone who takes the position of hard determinism will simply say that there is no free will by definition.

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?

I wasn't exactly thinking about all of these theological details when I made my point, but, yes, the concept of what is "free" is not simply a question of physical limitations. Gravity may keep people from simply leaping off the Earth, but what we mean by free will isn't defined by an absence of physical limitations.

 

[Koldo]

Isn't that debate about the compatibilism of free will with determinism rather than the definition of free will?

The definition of free will is central.

If there is a specific point you are trying to make, please feel free to make it.

I have made it already: Your former post is an example of what we get when one doesn't read about a subject but proceeds to make baseless commentary about it.

Coercion is the question at issue when determining if will is free.

No, it is not. Coercion just scratches the surfarce.

Hard determinism is the position that determinism is incompatible with free will.

Because.... ?
You will quickly notice the reason lies on using some other definition for free will.

@leroy defined free will as

which is not what we mean when we talk about what it means for will to be "free".

It is. More or less.

Some people argue that everything is determined and we have free will and others argue that things are not determined and we don't have free will, because the question of "free" is the question of coercion.

No, it is not. This is a massive mistake.

By creating and using the erroneous definition provided by @leroy, someone who takes the position of hard determinism will simply say that there is no free will by definition.

If you believe that then you are a hard determinist. Congrats, I guess.

 

[shunyadragon]

Free will. Is the ability to freely choose between options.

It depends on how free the options are. Even in determinism there are possible choices within a very limited options.

However. This does not mean that the choices we make can never be predicted by an observer.

No, it does not, but our choices are indeed predictable within a limited number of possible choices and sometimes specifically predictable.

Most choices that we make can be predicted with a fairly high degree of accuracy by someone with a good understanding of both us our past history and and the circumstances in question.

True.

However none of these predictions have any degree of " force" on our decisions. There is absolutely no 100%. guarantee about our choices or their outcomes.

No, but the chains of past cause and effect events, culture, environment, and circumstances have a degree of force on future choices.

While choices may be closely predicted, they are never predetermined.

It depends on how we consider predetermined.