Do you Think we have Free Will

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are just trying to fool us all with a special case.

I don't know that you're arguing the same point he is. He seems to be saying that there are times when the body reacts without the mind deliberating. He gave the example of a traffic emergency arising suddenly and reacting with an immediate turn of the wheel or slamming of the brakes. He is not saying that he drives in a trance or that he is never deliberating or concentrating on his driving or never making "conscious choices." But he is saying that drivers at times make instant decisions. If you agree with all of that, then there's no apparent disagreement.

And your comment about these instinctive reactions being akin to knee-jerk reflexes is technically inaccurate. The latter don't involve the brain and don't require that one even be conscious unlike when taking emergency evasive action on the road.

I think the discussion about free will is confined to deliberate actions, by which I mean deliberated upon and freely chosen from among at least two known options.

 

[Stevicus]

You are just trying to fool us all with a special case.
You imply that you can be asleep at the wheel and still safely drive.

Some people do fall asleep at the wheel when driving, although those who believe in free will must certainly agree that anyone who falls asleep at the wheel did so by conscious choice. No such thing as "accidents" in a world of free will, where everything exists as a result of conscious, deliberate actions by sentient humans.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Some people do fall asleep at the wheel when driving, although those who believe in free will must certainly agree that anyone who falls asleep at the wheel did so by conscious choice. No such thing as "accidents" in a world of free will, where everything exists as a result of conscious, deliberate actions by sentient humans.

I don’t think anyone would argue that free will puts us in complete control of our own destinies. Whether conscious or unconscious, we are all subject to forces beyond our control. Either way, I’d prefer that the driver of my bus home from work was conscious rather than unconscious.

 

[muhammad_isa]

How is that case "special"?
...
Instead, I'm talking about unexpected things on the road where you have to react in a split second and don't have the time to think

I said: "..the driver of a car is making choices of his own free-will,
when he steers or presses the brake"

and you start a conversation about "unexpected things"

 

[muhammad_isa]

I think the discussion about free will is confined to deliberate actions, by which I mean deliberated upon and freely chosen from among at least two known options.

..so do I.

 

[Stevicus]

I don’t think anyone would argue that free will puts us in complete control of our own destinies. Whether conscious or unconscious, we are all subject to forces beyond our control. Either way, I’d prefer that the driver of my bus home from work was conscious rather than unconscious.

I would also prefer that people stay awake when driving a motor vehicle. But free will sometimes carries implication that the "will" should override all, depending on how strong or weak one's will might be. I even recall being told things like "it's all in your mind" if I said I was hungry, tired, cold, in pain, or even when I had to go to the bathroom. The implication there is that it's simply a matter of the power of will to override and overcome these things. One often hears the term "willpower" to illustrate the point.

People who fall asleep at the wheel may also believe that the power of their free will to stay awake is stronger than their bodily demands for sleep. But they're wrong. Someone with a stronger will might have stayed awake, and someone with a weaker will would have stopped off at a roadside motel before their fatigue got the better of them.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don’t think anyone would argue that free will puts us in complete control of our own destinies. Whether conscious or unconscious, we are all subject to forces beyond our control. Either way, I’d prefer that the driver of my bus home from work was conscious rather than unconscious.

I believe the main argument is concerning "Libertarian Free Will versus "Limited Potential Free Will" where humans do make decisions withing a limited number of options in exercising our will. The belief in "Libertarian Free Will" ignores the chain of decisions over time limits our possible choices, culture, limits of human instincts, desire for a sense of community and identity limit our possible choices. Also the more committed one is to one particular belief system that most likely one is make decisions outside the limits defined by that belief system. The example of the influence of religion and education influences our decision making process is that if one's belief system rejects evolution the more likely one would reject the objective scientific evidence in support of evolution. Also, the higher level of education one has increases the likely hood that one will accept the science of evolution.

The contemporary free will philosophy of compatibilism does not propose there are no possible choices concerning our ability to make choices, but greatly limits the degree of possible "Free Will" choices. One criticism of the Compatibilist Philosophy is whether it takes into account 'moral responsibility. Over time legal systems have been taking into consideration of limited "Free Will" in laws and decisions related to 'mental illness,' mental maturity, and other circumstances that limit ones one's responsibility in failure to comply with legal laws and moral responsibility. In and of itself Compatibilism does take into consideration moral responsibility.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well not being fully determined is part of the definition of free will.

This a little to simplistic to address the complex question of the degree of Free Will and the determinism in nature and human existence.

The fact that the nature of our physical existence is "fully" deterministic and predictable does not conclude that humans have no Free Will. Like in all of nature the range of outcomes of cause and effect events occur within a range of possible outcomes. The degree of our 'Free Will' follows this natural pattern in that our possible choices in any given situation is limited within a range of possible choices.

 

[Koldo]

I believe the main argument is concerning "Libertarian Free Will versus "Limited Potential Free Will" where humans do make decisions withing a limited number of options in exercising our will.

Where have you read that?

 

[shunyadragon]

Where have you read that?

The facts of the history of the philosophical debate over the years concerning whether humans have "Free Will" or not, and whether humans have limited "Free Will."

Example: Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions. Questions concerning the nature and existence of this kind of control (e.g., does it require and do we have the freedom to do otherwise or the power of self-determination?), and what its true significance is (is it necessary for moral responsibility or human dignity?) have been taken up in every period of Western philosophy and by many of the most important philosophical figures, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant. (We cannot undertake here a review of related discussions in other philosophical traditions. For a start, the reader may consult Marchal and Wenzel 2017 and Chakrabarti 2017 for overviews of thought on free will, broadly construed, in Chinese and Indian philosophical traditions, respectively.) In this way, it should be clear that disputes about free will ineluctably involve disputes about metaphysics and ethics. In ferreting out the kind of control at stake in free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) causation, laws of nature, time, substance, ontological reduction vs emergence, the relationship of causal and reasons-based explanations, the nature of motivation and more generally of human persons. In assessing the significance of free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) rightness and wrongness, good and evil, virtue and vice, blame and praise, reward and punishment, and desert. The topic of free will also gives rise to purely empirical questions that are beginning to be explored in the human sciences: do we have it, and to what degree?

Read on it is comprehensive as to the philosophies and history.

 

[Curious George]

I don't consider the claim incredible if written "It might be the case that free will is an illusion."

Furthermore, the only evidence we have suggest that what we will is not chosen, but generated in neural circuits outside of consciousness and then delivered to the self as well as the illusion that that will was generated by the self rather than received by it. But this would be something the likes of which we have never encountered in reality - the self generating thoughts. The brain does that. How could the subject who observes the conscious content generate anything de novo?

Also, what would be evidence that will is freely chosen and acted upon by the self rather than received by it?

I would encourage you to review this research with a skeptical eye. Look over the method and the results. I have no interest in paying for each article and parsing them for you. If you want to rely on abstracts and pop-science articles, I don’t think you will have a thorough understanding of the subject.

Regarding what evidence we have that will is freely chosen? Literally every experience that you have. We rely on assumptions of free will which are reinforced with every moment we experience. The same is true for causality. If you cannot see this then I would question whether you are being intentionally obtuse.


Furthermore, our understanding of the world, indeed the entire scientific process, is underpinned on the assumption of freewill. The idea that a person could have acted otherwise. If our actions are wholly determined or random, such that we could not have done otherwise, then there is no basis to assert any knowledge. Determinism is essentially modern day solipsism.

The claim that freewill does not exist is equally as incredible as the assertion that a god does exist. That I can suggest that either freewill or a god not existing is a possible illusion does not lend credibility to either assertion.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would encourage you to review this research with a skeptical eye. Look over the method and the results. I have no interest in paying for each article and parsing them for you. If you want to rely on abstracts and pop-science articles, I don’t think you will have a thorough understanding of the subject.

Regarding what evidence we have that will is freely chosen? Literally every experience that you have. We rely on assumptions of free will which are reinforced with every moment we experience. The same is true for causality. If you cannot see this then I would question whether you are being intentionally obtuse.


Furthermore, our understanding of the world, indeed the entire scientific process, is underpinned on the assumption of freewill. The idea that a person could have acted otherwise. If our actions are wholly determined or random, such that we could not have done otherwise, then there is no basis to assert any knowledge. Determinism is essentially modern day solipsism.

The claim that freewill does not exist is equally as incredible as the assertion that a god does exist. That I can suggest that either freewill or a god not existing is a possible illusion does not lend credibility to either assertion.

When it comes to science and philosophy I view everything with a skeptical eye. My posts and references which you have not apparently read nor understood. I have researched and studied this issue for over fifty years including college courses on philosophy.
Please respond specifically to the points in my posts and the references I provide,

 

[Koldo]

The facts of the history of the philosophical debate over the years concerning whether humans have "Free Will" or not, and whether humans have limited "Free Will."

Example: Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions. Questions concerning the nature and existence of this kind of control (e.g., does it require and do we have the freedom to do otherwise or the power of self-determination?), and what its true significance is (is it necessary for moral responsibility or human dignity?) have been taken up in every period of Western philosophy and by many of the most important philosophical figures, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant. (We cannot undertake here a review of related discussions in other philosophical traditions. For a start, the reader may consult Marchal and Wenzel 2017 and Chakrabarti 2017 for overviews of thought on free will, broadly construed, in Chinese and Indian philosophical traditions, respectively.) In this way, it should be clear that disputes about free will ineluctably involve disputes about metaphysics and ethics. In ferreting out the kind of control at stake in free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) causation, laws of nature, time, substance, ontological reduction vs emergence, the relationship of causal and reasons-based explanations, the nature of motivation and more generally of human persons. In assessing the significance of free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) rightness and wrongness, good and evil, virtue and vice, blame and praise, reward and punishment, and desert. The topic of free will also gives rise to purely empirical questions that are beginning to be explored in the human sciences: do we have it, and to what degree?

Read on it is comprehensive as to the philosophies and history.

What part specifically relates to what you have said here: ...the main argument is concerning "Libertarian Free Will versus "Limited Potential Free Will" where humans do make decisions withing a limited number of options in exercising our will ?

 

[shunyadragon]

What part specifically relates to what you have said here: ...the main argument is concerning "Libertarian Free Will versus "Limited Potential Free Will" where humans do make decisions withing a limited number of options in exercising our will ?

Examples: Which shirt do you put on is limited by your preference, formal or casual culture and of course weather. What restaurant you choose to go to and what food you order is limited by your personal preference, what is available, and the history of your culture and religion. Jews will not order pork and desire Kosher foods, and devout Hindus will not eat meat at all, and often prefer Curried foods.

I previously gave this example: The example of the influence of religion and education influences our decision making process is that if one's belief system rejects evolution the more likely one would reject the objective scientific evidence in support of evolution. Also, the higher level of education one has increases the likely hood that one will accept the science of evolution.

 

[Koldo]

Examples: Which shirt do you put on is limited by your preference, formal or casual culture and of course weather. What restaurant you choose to go to and what food you order is limited by your personal preference, what is available, and the history of your culture and religion. Jews will not order pork and desire Kosher foods, and devout Hindus will not eat meat at all, and often prefer Curried foods.

I previously gave this example: The example of the influence of religion and education influences our decision making process is that if one's belief system rejects evolution the more likely one would reject the objective scientific evidence in support of evolution. Also, the higher level of education one has increases the likely hood that one will accept the science of evolution.

I understand what you are talking about. I am not asking about that though. I am asking where have you read that the main argument is between libertarian free will vs. "limited potential free will", rather than between libertarian free will and determinism.

 

[shunyadragon]

I understand what you are talking about. I am not asking about that though. I am asking where have you read that the main argument is between libertarian free will vs. "limited potential free will", rather than between libertarian free will and determinism.

The first source as cited: Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions. Questions concerning the nature and existence of this kind of control (e.g., does it require and do we have the freedom to do otherwise or the power of self-determination?), and what its true significance is (is it necessary for moral responsibility or human dignity?) have been taken up in every period of Western philosophy and by many of the most important philosophical figures, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant. (We cannot undertake here a review of related discussions in other philosophical traditions. For a start, the reader may consult Marchal and Wenzel 2017 and Chakrabarti 2017 for overviews of thought on free will, broadly construed, in Chinese and Indian philosophical traditions, respectively.) In this way, it should be clear that disputes about free will ineluctably involve disputes about metaphysics and ethics. In ferreting out the kind of control at stake in free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) causation, laws of nature, time, substance, ontological reduction vs emergence, the relationship of causal and reasons-based explanations, the nature of motivation and more generally of human persons. In assessing the significance of free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) rightness and wrongness, good and evil, virtue and vice, blame and praise, reward and punishment, and desert. The topic of free will also gives rise to purely empirical questions that are beginning to be explored in the human sciences: do we have it, and to what degree?

Here is an overview of what follows. In Section 1, we acquaint the reader with some central historical contributions to our understanding of free will. (As nearly every major and minor figure had something to say about it, we cannot begin to cover them all.) As with contributions to many other foundational topics, these ideas are not of ‘merely historical interest’: present-day philosophers continue to find themselves drawn back to certain thinkers as they freshly engage their contemporaries. In Section 2, we map the complex architecture of the contemporary discussion of the nature of free will by dividing it into five subtopics: its relation to moral responsibility; the proper analysis of the freedom to do otherwise; a powerful, recent argument that the freedom to do otherwise (at least in one important sense) is not necessary for moral responsibility; ‘compatibilist’ accounts of sourcehood or self-determination; and ‘incompatibilist’ or ‘libertarian’ accounts of source and self-determination. In Section 3, we consider arguments from experience, a priori reflection, and various scientific findings and theories for and against the thesis that human beings have free will, along with the related question of whether it is reasonable to believe that we have it. Finally, in Section 4, we survey the long-debated questions involving free will that arise in classical theistic metaphysics.

 

[Koldo]

The first source as cited: Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions. Questions concerning the nature and existence of this kind of control (e.g., does it require and do we have the freedom to do otherwise or the power of self-determination?), and what its true significance is (is it necessary for moral responsibility or human dignity?) have been taken up in every period of Western philosophy and by many of the most important philosophical figures, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant. (We cannot undertake here a review of related discussions in other philosophical traditions. For a start, the reader may consult Marchal and Wenzel 2017 and Chakrabarti 2017 for overviews of thought on free will, broadly construed, in Chinese and Indian philosophical traditions, respectively.) In this way, it should be clear that disputes about free will ineluctably involve disputes about metaphysics and ethics. In ferreting out the kind of control at stake in free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) causation, laws of nature, time, substance, ontological reduction vs emergence, the relationship of causal and reasons-based explanations, the nature of motivation and more generally of human persons. In assessing the significance of free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) rightness and wrongness, good and evil, virtue and vice, blame and praise, reward and punishment, and desert. The topic of free will also gives rise to purely empirical questions that are beginning to be explored in the human sciences: do we have it, and to what degree?

Here is an overview of what follows. In Section 1, we acquaint the reader with some central historical contributions to our understanding of free will. (As nearly every major and minor figure had something to say about it, we cannot begin to cover them all.) As with contributions to many other foundational topics, these ideas are not of ‘merely historical interest’: present-day philosophers continue to find themselves drawn back to certain thinkers as they freshly engage their contemporaries. In Section 2, we map the complex architecture of the contemporary discussion of the nature of free will by dividing it into five subtopics: its relation to moral responsibility; the proper analysis of the freedom to do otherwise; a powerful, recent argument that the freedom to do otherwise (at least in one important sense) is not necessary for moral responsibility; ‘compatibilist’ accounts of sourcehood or self-determination; and ‘incompatibilist’ or ‘libertarian’ accounts of source and self-determination. In Section 3, we consider arguments from experience, a priori reflection, and various scientific findings and theories for and against the thesis that human beings have free will, along with the related question of whether it is reasonable to believe that we have it. Finally, in Section 4, we survey the long-debated questions involving free will that arise in classical theistic metaphysics.

Great. Now quote the specific part of that source that cites that the main argument is between libertarian free will vs. "limited potential free will", rather than between libertarian free will and determinism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

* 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 ?

It's not hard. We know it doesn't exist due to a lot of things, like genetics and culture.

 

[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 ?

Nothing in nature is 'fully' determined. Though determinism limits the range of outcomes of cause and effect events including human choices. Randomness does not exist in nature except for the timing of individual outcomes of cause and effect events.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would encourage you to review this research with a skeptical eye. Look over the method and the results.

As far as recommending skepticism to others, you're a theist (faith-based thinker) and I'm an atheistic critical thinker. Do I need to elaborate further why that undermines your claim of being skeptical yourself?

Furthermore, it appears that you've dismissed the implications of the Libet and related experiments without rebuttal. A skeptical critical thinker doesn't do that.

I don’t think you will have a thorough understanding of the subject.

Yes, I do, but it seems that you didn't understand what I wrote. You didn't address any of it beyond dismissing it out of hand. You made no attempt to rebut it, so there is no evidence that you read and understood it.

Regarding what evidence we have that will is freely chosen? Literally every experience that you have.

Here it appears that you didn't understand the concept of the illusion of free will and the intractable problem of demonstrating that one could have made another choice. All you have here is what it feels like to you.

our understanding of the world, indeed the entire scientific process, is underpinned on the assumption of freewill.

Nope. Free will is assumed, but its existence or nonexistence is irrelevant to the scientific method.

If our actions are wholly determined or random, such that we could not have done otherwise, then there is no basis to assert any knowledge.

Disagree again. Knowledge is the collection of demonstrably correct ideas.

The claim that freewill does not exist is equally as incredible as the assertion that a god does exist.

The actual claims are that free will and gods MIGHT NOT exist. And what you find credible is of no interest to the critical thinking empiricist without a compelling argument that indicates that the incredulity is justified.

You seem to be content believing your intuitions. If it seems like free will to you, then it is. If it seems like a god exists to you, then you conclude one does. But there is another way to think, to decide what is true about the world and how it works, one that identifies the ideas that should not be believed. Intuitions, hunches, gut feelings, and comforting ideas aren't among the ideas fit to be believed or considered knowledge.

What are your thoughts on my comments about Abrahamic religion requiring that free will be a thing, and that this is what motivates such people to argue for its existence? The rest only say that their will feels free, but don't fight the idea that it might not be even if they can't wrap their heads around the real possibility that free will is an illusion. It's the Abrahamist who makes the argument that a deity can have omniscience and that free will can coexist with that omniscience.

The unbelievers see how that is an incoherent argument - internally self-contradicting - and don't make it, probably because they have no stake in free will being a thing. They just feel like it is a thing because the illusion of free will is seductive, but feel no need to make arguments that free will and omniscient deities aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

Any comment there, or do you agree? The loss of free will is as destructive to Christian theology as the loss of the de novo creation of Adam and Eve one day. How can you have a religion which a just god punishes mankind because of the fall of man following the free will choice of the first two people if there were no first two people and there is no free will?