Do you Think we have Free Will

[blü 2]

Then why aren’t you off living that full and satisfying life without god or religion, instead of writing protracted essays about how unimportant religion is to you, on a religious forum?

What do you think the Science and Religion forum, part of the "Religious Debate" section, is for?

 

[Bear Wild]

I think of it like this:

If everything we do is predetermined, why do we feel, think and act as if we have the concept of choices? Why does society have justice systems to punish certain choices people make? Why did we come up with the concept in the first place? Howcome we experience the feeling and action of choice?

We certainly cannot empirically determine whether we have free will or not. So we might as well go with whatever we feel like believing hey.

I agree. It would be like saying The Words I Am Writing Right Now were determined to happen already when the Earth was first formed. The reality of our world is spontaneity like the act of free will is an inherent aspect of our world.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I agree. It would be like saying The Words I Am Writing Right Now were determined to happen already when the Earth was first formed. The reality of our world is spontaneity like the act of free will is an inherent aspect of our world.

I agree with you to an extent. It seems, from what we have learnt from psychology, sociology and experience, there is a loose pattern of behaviour that results from past personal events and past societal events experiences. To the extent where that form of determination happens and where free will begins cannot be examined.

 

[PureX]

Once again, you are not using the term 'free will' in a way that is pertinent to the debate.

And once again your response has no content, as there is no other definition, as evidenced by your continuing not to offer one.

 

[leroy]

P2: If someone knows what I will choose to eat beforehand, my decision of what I will eat is not free.

----

A free willed choice can not be predicted/known beforehand with 100% accuracy. Else, what would explain this accuracy if not pre-determination?

Why would that be true ? Why would someone elses knowledge limit your freedom. ?

Else, what would explain this accuracy if not pre-determination?

Someone that knows you might know with high degree of certainty your decisions

But why would this knowledge constrain your freedom.

Pretend that There are 2 options red and blue. And you freely picked red

If a random guy is looking, he would be 50% certain that you would pick red...... but if this random guy happens to be your friend who knows you, he would be 80% certain that you would pick red..... do you sudenly become "less free" ? (No)

Now change 80% for 100% why would that magically remove your freedom?

 

[shunyadragon]

I think of it like this:

If everything we do is predetermined, why do we feel, think and act as if we have the concept of choices? Why does society have justice systems to punish certain choices people make? Why did we come up with the concept in the first place? How come we experience the feeling and action of choice?

First, I take somewhat a middle road concerning Free Will. The extremes of Hard Determinism and Libertarian Free are just too unrealistic to be considered based on the evidence. Yes, I believe we have a 'Limited potential free will,' and this view is open to further research and information.

The evidence is overwhelming that nothing is predetermined at the absolute level.

I have repeated this before, the legal systems of the world are taking into consideration mental illness, mental maturity and other issues where an individual has issues of commiting crimes without Free Will knowledge of the crime. Nonetheless legal systems as a matter of fact must convict crimes regardless of whether they are Free Will asts or not.

We certainly cannot empirically determine whether we have free will or not. So we might as well go with whatever we feel like believing hey.

Well, to a certain extent we can determine some aspects of our will and our cause and effect outcomes of our choices. Research in human behavior related to mental illness, mental maturity and other abnormal behavior is documented beyond any reasonable doubt that Libertarian Free Will is not a reasonable consideration

 

[shunyadragon]

It is absolutely free will but within a fated world. Both free will and fate (deterministic chaos of our world) exist at the same time. This is a paradox of our world. That final choice is ours. It may be influenced by our surroundings but that does not negate it is still ours to make. Fate seems real because of the unfathomable complexity of relations that are around us and Free will seems true because we make decisions about our relationship to this world. Both exist and both are real.

Consistent research over recent history concerning mental illness and behavior issues like mental maturity.has demonstrated the absolute Free Will is an unbelievable illusion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's rather trivial to set up experiments to test people's choices and see that there is no statistical significance showing that choices are pre-determined.

Another poster wrote to you, "I don’t think is possible to set up those experiments, such that the result shows if a decision is free." I have to agree. Statistical significance relative to what? What other agents chose in similar circumstances? What you chose in similar or seemingly identical circumstances?

Suppose that we are considering a restaurant menu selection. On January 9th, 2024, Bob went to one of his favorite restaurants for breakfast and ordered his usual. The next day, he returned and ordered something different. How can we say that Bob could have done otherwise either morning? Not by comparing his choices.

From the perspective of omniscience, all is predetermined.

Agreed, but your Abrahamic counterparts who say that their deity is omniscient won't agree. They can't. They're committed to free will also existing, and are simply not free to agree to what you wrote.

It is absolutely free will

The argument is that you don't know that. You can only claim that it feels free. That is understood to mean that you become aware of desires and execute them, but it does not ensure that the self is their source rather just the witness to all of this, witness to the brain operating the body.

there is no "foreordained script"

You don't know that. You assume that, which is begging the question.

your world view is not restricted to only things that you can test empirically as you claimed in a previous post.

My view of how reality works is determined empirically - by trial and error.

sometimes you grant things that can´t be tested.

I agree that there are questions that can't be answered.

A free agent could look at both world views, compare them and *decide* which is better and more likely to be true , but a robot can´t do that.

Assuming that by robot we mean a conscious person, why not? We all do that continually.

I had the impression that you reject free will

That wasn't written to me, but similar words have been, and I want to reiterate the skeptic's position: What appears to be free will may in fact not be free. What is rejected is that the intuition that will is free because it feels free should not be trusted. It may be incorrect. My argument has never been that free will doesn't exist, merely that it need not and there is evidence it does not.

I've also added that if that's how reality is, that's OK with me, and I remain content knowing that, knowledge which does not affect how I live life (how could it if free will is an illusion) or more relevantly, how I feel about life. The idea that if one accepts this possibility, that none of the rest of reality makes sense and we have to give up notions life deciding truth or deciding what is useful or that critical thinking or empiricism become untenable absent free will is contradicted by my own experience.

Premise 1 Somebody knows what I will eat tomorrow
Premise 2 ??????????????
Therefore my decision of what I will eat is not free.
What would be your premise 2 such that the conclusion follows?

Your conclusion derives directly from premise 1. If you like, premise1 can be rewritten as two premises to give you the syllogism you seek:

Premise 1: It is possible to have infallible knowledge of what somebody will eat tomorrow.
Premise 2: Somebody knows what I will eat tomorrow.
Conclusion: I am not and will not be free to decide otherwise tomorrow.

Why would someone elses knowledge limit your freedom. ?

It doesn't. If free will is an illusion, your freedom would still be limited even if nobody knew it or what you would choose.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I dont think it follows. Please develpe your argument

Premise 1 Somebody knows what I will eat tomorrow

Premise 2 ??????????????

Therefore my decision of what I will eat is not free.

What would be your premise 2 such that the conclusion follows?

p2: that somebody can not be wrong

conclusion: i am not free to choose to eat something else instead

..

do you think the B theory of time (if true) would refute the possibility of free will?

I have no idea what "b theory of time" is

 

[RestlessSoul]

I have no idea what "b theory of time" is

B-theory of time - Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What?
You choose what you choose, because you WANT to .. it's your choice!

You never decided to do something you didn't want to do?

It is a recording i.e. history

You just said "History already occurred. You can't change choices made in the past."
Which is correct .. they have already been made.
But note: the choices were made.

In the past. We are talking about future choices.
Our past has already occurred. Our future hasn't.
Therefor the past is certain. The future isn't (if free will exists).

If free will exists, the future is uncertain.
If the future is certain, free will can not exist.

You want both to be true but they are fundamentally incompatible.

We only get one time-line .. we can see that from history.
The future is no different .. after all, it "becomes" the past.

It only becomes the past once it is in the past. Not while it is still the future.
The past already happened. The future hasn't.

..but that is all about perception, as I've already said.

That makes no sense.
The arrow of time goes forward. The future hasn't happened yet.

They see the future has having many possibilities, and the past as only one.

IF free will exists.
If only one future is possible, then free will does not exist.
Then it's like a scripted movie that you can fast forward and rewind.

But it really is incorrect. There is only ONE possibility .. and that is called the future.
WHAT WILL BE WILL BE.

Then no free will exists. Then all future events, choices, decisions,... are pre-determined.
Then at best, an illusion of free will exists.

Then we are just actors in a movie merely thinking we make free choices while in actuality all we do is play out a pre-determined script.

What we call 'now' does not exist .. it is a perception .. without a 'now', the timeline is just one continuous
series of events. Simple really .. but that perception .. it is really convincing.

I, for one, can see past it.

Cool. But free will doesn't exist in such a universe.

 

[PureX]

The only perspective from which existence can be deemed predetermined is omniscience. And since none of us are omniscient, nor do we even know that such a condition exists, for any of us to proclaim existence to be predetermined would be absurd.

 

[leroy]

My view of how reality works is determined empirically - by trial and error.

Are there examples of things that can’t be tested empirically that you grant as true? (like the fact that you live in physical world and not in the matrix. )

Assuming that by robot we mean a conscious person, why not? We all do that continually.

Because if there is no free will, you can´t “decide” on the basis of evidence which world view is likelly to be correct (old earth or YEC)

My argument has never been that free will doesn't exist, merely that it need not and there is evidence it does not.

And my point is the there are things that you accept as true, despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence for them (like the claim that we live in a physical world and not in the Matrix)

So why making an exception with free will? What type of rules or criteria do you use?


My Criteria is, “if soemthign feels real and true” I will gran tit as true unless good reasons for the opposite are given.

What would be your criteria, and why you think your criteria is better

Premise 1: It is possible to have infallible knowledge of what somebody will eat tomorrow.
Premise 2: Somebody knows what I will eat tomorrow.
Conclusion: I am not and will not be free to decide otherwise tomorrow.

It doesn't. If free will is an illusion, your freedom would still be limited even if nobody knew it or what you would choose.

Well if I freely pick an other alternative, the guy with “infallible knowledge” would have different knowledge…..

In other words, his knowledge would be determined by my decisions………. But my decisions would not be determined by his knowledge.

 

[PureX]

Agreed, but your Abrahamic counterparts who say that their deity is omniscient won't agree. They can't. They're committed to free will also existing, and are simply not free to agree to what you wrote.

Even their rejection is still their choice. Barring omniscience, all we have are choices (endless possibilities to choose from).

But my "Abrahamic" cohorts would actually proclaim BOTH free will and divine predetermination, I think.

The argument is that you don't know that. You can only claim that it feels free. That is understood to mean that you become aware of desires and execute them, but it does not ensure that the self is their source rather just the witness to all of this, witness to the brain operating the body.

The fact that we do not and cannot possibly know otherwise stands as pretty good evidence in favor of free will, especially when we would have to transcend our own human condition to claim otherwise.

 

[Bear Wild]

Consistent research over recent history concerning mental illness and behavior issues like mental maturity.has demonstrated the absolute Free Will is an unbelievable illusion.

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

 

[Koldo]

Why would that be true ? Why would someone elses knowledge limit your freedom. ?



Someone that knows you might know with high degree of certainty your decisions

But why would this knowledge constrain your freedom.

Pretend that There are 2 options red and blue. And you freely picked red

If a random guy is looking, he would be 50% certain that you would pick red...... but if this random guy happens to be your friend who knows you, he would be 80% certain that you would pick red..... do you sudenly become "less free" ? (No)

Now change 80% for 100% why would that magically remove your freedom?

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

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

 

[Bear Wild]

The argument is that you don't know that. You can only claim that it feels free. That is understood to mean that you become aware of desires and execute them, but it does not ensure that the self is their source rather just the witness to all of this, witness to the brain operating the body.

I know that free will exists because it is an inherent aspect of nature. Creative new events are a fundamental aspect of nature.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In the past. We are talking about future choices.
Our past has already occurred. Our future hasn't.
Therefor the past is certain. The future isn't (if free will exists).

I understand what you mean..
The future is not known .. the past is known.
Today becomes the past tomorrow, and then hence known.

That is all I'm saying .. the time line is continuous .. the only thing that
"splits it" is the concept of "now" .. but "now" is never really achieved,
as time continually flows.

the past -->-->known-->-->"now"-->-->unknown-->--> the future

Most people will agree with the above. Notice it is ONE line, and not many!

If free will exists, the future is uncertain.
If the future is certain, free will can not exist.

There you go .. just repeating your assertion from intuition.
Can you not see, that the future is only ONE line, and not many.
The only reason it is "uncertain", is because you do not know what it is.
i.e. it has not been decided, as far as we can perceive

It is this perception that provides the intuition that if it is known, it must have been decided
by the agent that knows it.
..but intuition would be wrong.
IT IS ABOUT THE NATURE OF TIME .. what we perceive it to be.

The past already happened. The future hasn't.

That's right .. as far as we perceive .. but what about the perception of
an agent that is not part of the universe?
I know .. you prefer to ignore the possibility .. "the universe rules, ok!"

If only one future is possible, then free will does not exist.

Nonsense .. I have shown you above, that we have only one future!
It is just that we don't know what it is.

Then no free will exists. Then all future events, choices, decisions,... are pre-determined.

Perception!
The human perception.
Is that the total sum of "reality"?
Of course not.
..so somebody shows you theory of relativity, and you think "ah! I know it all now"

Then we are just actors in a movie merely thinking we make free choices while in actuality all we do is play out a pre-determined script.

Nope .. not even close.
There is no "pre-determined script".
The "script" is determined by our choices, just as in the past.

You see, if it was impossible to know the future, you wouldn't be talking about
"pre-determined" scripts .. now THAT is the whole point.
THAT is what I believe your agenda to be.

i.e. proving religion is all nonsense

Time is part of the space-time continuum .. as in "measured time".
You cannot know for sure, what lies outside of our universe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I know that free will exists because it is an inherent aspect of nature. Creative new events are a fundamental aspect of nature.

I'm not convinced you know that. I am convinced that you believe it. And I don't consider the universe creating things a manifestation of will, which is a quality of conscious minds.

Are there examples of things that can’t be tested empirically that you grant as true?

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

(like the fact that you live in physical world and not in the matrix. )

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

Because if there is no free will, you can´t “decide” on the basis of evidence which world view is likelly to be correct (old earth or YEC)

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

My Criteria is, “if something feels real and true” I will grant it as true unless good reasons for the opposite are given. What would be your criteria, and why you think your criteria is better

I don't consider anything true or correct or factual or knowledge unless it is demonstrated to be so empirically, that is, that the idea can be used to predict future outcomes. I prefer this because it allows me to accumulate only correct ideas and no wrong ones.

In other words, his knowledge would be determined by my decisions………. But my decisions would not be determined by his knowledge.

Yes.

my "Abrahamic" cohorts would actually proclaim BOTH free will and divine predetermination, I think.

Yes, many do. I suggested that the reason for this is that they need for both foreknowledge of future actions and free will to coexist in the same universe simultaneously if they are to say that their god knew before it created our world how it would unfold and still blame man for some of that.

The fact that we do not and cannot possibly know otherwise stands as pretty good evidence in favor of free will, especially when we would have to transcend our own human condition to claim otherwise.

You seem to be arguing that because we cannot answer the question of whether will is generated by or received by the subject, i.e., that it is freely generated by the self rather than that being an illusion - that that is evidence that will if free.

Is that correct? If so, I disagree. Yes, we go on living as if it were free, but we should not assume that once we understand the difference between free will and the illusion of free will, and apparent impossibility of resolving that question unless will is not free and that that can be shown by predicting another's choices using brain scanning technology.

But if will is free in the sense that one didn't have to make the apparent choice he did and actually could have chosen otherwise at that moment, it seems to me that that can never be demonstrated to be the case even with a time machine. How would we?

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes, we go on living as if it were free, but we should not assume that once we understand the difference between free will and the illusion of free will, and apparent impossibility of resolving that question unless will is not free and that that can be shown by predicting another's choices using brain scanning technology.

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