Do you Think we have Free Will

[leroy]

Not believing in free will is unreasonable, irrational and, I would even suggest, impossible.

Such an incredible claim, that humans have zero degree of control, is counterintuitive and contrasts with everything we experience. Is it possible that all we experience is just an illusion of free will? Sure. But such an incredible claim would surely require incredible evidence. People who claim free will does not exist(while I suspect they still believe in free will) fail to deliver any such incredible evidence. Often they point to a couple past studies with clear errors and assumptions.

I agree, those experiments, at most , show that reflexes and “short term” decisions aren’t really free, but these experiment do nothing to show that important decisions rent free.

And agree, denying free will is nonsense,

 

[leroy]

Whether you have to pay any price is another debate. As for this one, the strongest argument against free will is, curious enough, our very personal experience when making choices. If I asked you why you chose X over Y, you would refer to some parameter. For example, if I asked why you have bought one given chocolate candy over some other you would reply that your rationale was that one of them is tastier, or cheaper, or a complicated and elaborated list... You would be telling me that you pondered over the available alternatives for a moment, at least, and assessed which one best matched the parameters you sought. In other words, your choice was an act to satisfy your wants, your desires, your goals. And if you agree with this assessment, then there is simply no room for free will anywhere, because you will always choose what you think better satisfies you. It is an inevitability.

well presumibly I freely choose my "whants" and "goals" (atleast soemtimes).............. I descided that i dotn whant to spend too much money, therefore I bought the cheap chocolate.


do you thik this is arguemtn is srtong enough to conclude that free will is likelly not real ?

 

[muhammad_isa]

a person who presses the brake while driving HAS BEEN TRAINED BY THEIR ENVIRONMENT TO DO SO..

That is a meaningless argument .. we do not brake because of "our environment"..
..we choose to brake in order to involve collision, amongst other things.

IT IS A CONSCIOUS CHOICE.
..so-called training is irrelevant. You infer brainwashing.

 

[Koldo]

well presumibly I freely choose my "whants" and "goals" (atleast soemtimes).............. I descided that i dotn whant to spend too much money, therefore I bought the cheap chocolate.


do you thik this is arguemtn is srtong enough to conclude that free will is likelly not real ?

Yes, I do.

Let's start from here: Did you decide that you didn't want to spend too much or didn't you want to spend too much in the first place? Which one actually took place?

If the latter, then your goal was already ingrained into you beforehand, and therefore there was no free will involved. If the former, why did you choose you didn't want to spend much? Whatever reason you give me goes back to the same situation as before: you had the goal to have the goal of not spending too much, and therefore acted towards that goal. In other words, you can only choose a different goal by having the goal to choose a different goal in the first place. And this how we either end up with infinite regress or you have to accept that your choice stems from a goal you didn't choose.

 

[shunyadragon]

* 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 ?

Yes, humans have very limited potential of free will. Example: Clinging to ancient tribal worldviews greatly limits one to make coherent choices based on the factual evidence such as in the sciences of evolution.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, humans have very limited potential of free will. Example: Clinging to ancient tribal worldviews greatly limits one to make coherent choices based on the factual evidence such as in the sciences of evolution.

That's nothing to do with free-will.
You made that post by your own choice .. no "ignorant person"
made you do it.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's nothing to do with free-will.
You made that post by your own choice .. no "ignorant person"
made you do it.

I did not say we did not have any free will.

Everything to do with whether we have free will or not whether we are able to use rational judgement to make choices to understand the evidence of science.

Are you willing to use your rational judgement and make choices based on the evidence concerning the sciences of evolution? I guess apparently not.

 

[YoursTrue]

The issue you're avoiding is that you're begging the question: you can't say that it "feels like" we have free will without first establishing what "free will" feels like... which would mean establishing thay free will exists.

Yeah -- even as a kid I knew certain things were dangerous. Like jumping off a cliff. Or over a deep ridge. Or out a high window.

 

[danieldemol]

LMAO at the people who are saying its not really possible to disbelieve in free-will.
I dont have a shred of belief in it.
I see humans as biological automatons.

We see computers make choices based on hard-wiring and programming, but they are not free of internal constraints and thus not able to choose against their hard-wiring/ programming so their faults and virtues are to be blamed or accredited to their designer.

So too with humans, our designer (nature) is what deserves the blame for our electrochemical defects and virtues, not us in my view.

 

[danieldemol]

Question for those who doubt the existence of free will; are we or are we not responsible for our actions?

Nature is responsible for our actions as I see it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Making choices between a limited number of options in everyday activities of our lives is not libertarian free will. Over time our choices are limited by the previous chains of choices, our culture, mental illnesses, religious beliefs and simply natural laws.

We are responsible for our actions regardless of whether they are free will decisions or not. That is the Law. Fortunately over time laws have adapted to issues such as mental illnesses and addictions.

 

[blü 2]

* 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 ?

I'd say that we humans make decisions in accordance with our evolved decision-making processes, which have been the subject of considerable study. You may recall the publicity, back in 2008 from memory, that surrounded the results of an experiment showing that your brain may decide what you're going to do, and sets actions in train accordingly, up to ten or more seconds before you become consciously aware of what you've decided. And here's >a more recent report<.

On that basis I'd say, first, that we can ONLY make decisions in accordance with our decision-making processes, including cases where we opt to leave the result to chance eg tossing a coin.

And I'd say, second, that our societies are largely built on the assumption of personal responsibility, though legal systems, especially in criminal matters, have long been used to judging defenses of insanity or similar psychological disturbances. And it's hard to think how we could sensibly displace that or what we could put in its place.

 

[vulcanlogician]

It´s impossibel to test free will, that is correct……….. all we have is “personal experience” as evidence so ether

1 personal experience is a reliable source of knowledge

2 we should reject the idea that we have free will

Ether one has interesting implications



If you go for “1” you have to reject methodological naturalism, empiricism or any other view that states that “we can only know things that can be tested”

If you go for 2 you would have to reject free will, which implies that there is no reason, nor critical thinking nor morality etc. in this world.

Let's focus on 1 for a moment.

"
1 personal experience is a reliable source of knowledge

2 If you go for “1” you have to reject methodological naturalism, empiricism or any other view that states that “we can only know things that can be tested”

I don't think that "going for 1" is necessarily a rejection of empiricism. The very foundation of empiricism is "experienced-based." You have to make an observation. Even if that observation is merely reading an instrument. In fact, you can't have science without observations. And all observations are personal experiences.

John Locke, the father of empiricism, argued precisely that. He rejected the rationalist notion of "innate ideas," instead favoring personal experience. Only things that are measurable (aka. experienceable). Granted, empiricists elevate the senses above other sorts of perceptions, which is very important-- and probably your point... but personal experience (namely sense experience) is not at odds with empiricism. It's the foundation.

 

[danieldemol]

And I'd say, second, that our societies are largely built on the assumption of personal responsibility, though legal systems, especially in criminal matters, have long been used to judging defenses of insanity or similar psychological disturbances. And it's hard to think how we could sensibly displace that or what we could put in its place.

I think we could displace the assumption of personal responsibility without substantial modification to the system.
What happens if a killer is not judged to have a psychological disturbance? One would lock them up. What happens if a killer is judged to have a psychological disturbance, they are incarcerated in a ward until they can be sufficiently treated for their safe release into public society.

I see no difference with all other killers etc. They would still be incarcerated unless and until they can be treated for safe reintegration to society as I see it. We simply wouldn't see them as deserving punishment for crimes that were outside the control of them in the sense that they didn't choose their internal constraints.

 

[blü 2]

I think we could displace the assumption of personal responsibility without substantial modification to the system.
What happens if a killer is not judged to have a psychological disturbance? One would lock them up. What happens if a killer is judged to have a psychological disturbance, they are incarcerated in a ward until they can be sufficiently treated for their safe release into public society.

I see no difference with all other killers etc. They would still be incarcerated unless and until they can be treated for safe reintegration to society as I see it. We simply wouldn't see them as deserving punishment for crimes that were outside the control of them in the sense that they didn't choose their internal constraints.

Hmm. Yes, in theory most of the psychologically disturbed are being 'treated ─ an attempt at repair ─ rather than being punished, and as you say, the walls around them are there to protect the rest of us.

(I have a theory that a just and benevolent God would never send anyone to hell ─ rather [he]'d simply heal the offender. And not least because [he] perfectly foresaw everything that was going to happen in the universe before [he] made it. I keep forgetting to drop Francis a line ...)

 

[leroy]

Yes, I do.

If here is no free will, there is no objective moraliy, nor critical thinking, nor reazon, ... are you willing to pay that price?

Let's start from here: Did you decide that you didn't want to spend too much or didn't you want to spend too much in the first place? Which one actually took place?

Both are possible, lets say its the first

If the latter, then your goal was already ingrained into you beforehand, and therefore there was no free will involved.

Agree

If the former, why did you choose you didn't want to spend much? Whatever reason you give me goes back to the same situation as before: you had the goal to have the goal of not spending too much, and therefore acted towards that goal. In other words, you can only choose a different goal by having the goal to choose a different goal in the first place. And this how we either end up with infinite regress or you have to accept that your choice stems from a goal you didn't choose.

I dont see, why there has to be an infinite regress...... in this example there could be a "first Goal" that started the chain.

Lets say that my first goal was "not to spend more than 1usd a day in chocolates " this goal determied my decision of buying the cheapest chocolate.

But this first goal was freely chosen by me (I could have stablished a different goal, but it happed to be the case that I descided to stablish this particular goal)

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nature is responsible for our actions as I see it.

..but that is just a cop-out..

I could see a pretty woman, and think "I would like to seduce her", but my sense of decency
tells me that it is wrong to do so, so make the conscious decision NOT to.

No one but 'me' has made that decision. Naturally, 'me' has evolved, or learned through life,
to be who I am .. 'nature' is but one aspect of that.

 

[blü 2]

If here is no free will, there is no objective moraliy,

There is no objective morality, simply evolved morality. All humans have evolved moral tendencies ─ dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. The rest of our morality is largely learnt with our acculturation.

And the reason we have those evolved moral tendencies is because they assist in allowing us to live in groups, and thus enjoy the substantial advantages of operating cooperatively. In other words, they aid survival and breeding.

nor critical thinking,

I think there are two levels of "free will". The absolute meaning you're going with here is correct, in that none of us can make decisions independently of our brain's evolved decision-making mechanisms, and these are biochemical-bioelectrical processes of formidable complexity, and have been much studied.

The other level of meaning is the ability to make decisions personally, meaning free of external coercion or obligation, which seems to be sufficient for the great majority of purposes.

nor reazon, ... are you willing to pay that price?

Well, I hope we're actually looking to make accurate statements about reality ─ truth ─ setting out what has been shown to be correct by examination and experiment, as with that link in my earlier post. For myself, I'm prepared to look at the consequences of accurate statements about reality, and I don't think of that as the price. A price is involved if we try to avoid the truth, and I'm not willing to pay that price.

 

[Koldo]

If here is no free will, there is no objective moraliy, nor critical thinking, nor reazon, ... are you willing to pay that price?

I disagree wíth your conclusion. And please don't make an appeal to consequences.

Both are possible, lets say its the first


Agree

I dont see, why there has to be an infinite regress...... in this example there could be a "first Goal" that started the chain.

Lets say that my first goal was "not to spend more than 1usd a day in chocolates " this goal determied my decision of buying the cheapest chocolate.

But this first goal was freely chosen by me (I could have stablished a different goal, but it happed to be the case that I descided to stablish this particular goal)

Let me try a step by step approach since explaining it fully all at once didn't work: Why did you choose not to spend more than 1 usd a day in chocolates?

Whatever reason/goal you give me, I am going to keep asking: Why did you choose this reason/goal... ? And we will either keep going forever (infinite regress) or you will eventually tell me you didn't choose that reason/goal. (Or that you had no reason in particular thus making your choice entirely arbitrary, which also excludes free will)

 

[muhammad_isa]

..In other words, you can only choose a different goal by having the goal to choose a different goal in the first place. And this how we either end up with infinite regress or you have to accept that your choice stems from a goal you didn't choose.

What an absolute load of nonsense.

If I decide to mow you down while driving, then it was beyond my control?? I didn't choose to?