Does Free Will Exist?

[ikitikitembo]

So I've been pondering free will lately and I've come to somewhat of a conclusion that it doesn't exist. Here's what I think...

Free will is something that everyone should at least think twice about. Consider the ideas of cause-effect, chain reactions, randomness, and beginning. In my opinion, everything that happens in this universe has a cause, or, it is determined by something (thus, I am a Determinist). There are only a few things that scientists have narrowed down and identified as truly "random". These would include quantum mechanics (the randomness of the different decay rates of different elements), the random movement of gas particles through space, the random placement of freckles on a person's face, and a few others. Now, the things that they have identified as "random", we really dont know if they are truly "random". They are just random to us, because we haven't figured their deterministic factors. So we can say that they are "unpredictable" (meaning humans haven't discovered why these things do the things they do, therefore we are not able to predict how they occur), but we don't truly know that they are random (there's a difference between randomness and unpredictability). There are most likely secrets on the quantum level or things that happen internally within the nucleus of atoms that we haven't discovered. These things that we may/may not discover in the future, in my opinion, would most likely be the determining factors in why these things act the way they act. So I believe that everything is determined, it's just that we haven't discovered ALL of the causes (we've certainly done a good job in narrowing them down though). I also believe, that if we live in a wholly deterministic universe, then nothing is free to do anything. Freedom is incompatible with determinism (thus, I'm a Determinist/Incompatiblist; there are also "compatablists" who believe that the two can exist with one another. To me that is absurd, but whatever).

I'll try to make more sense of this. We've all been in a discussion where we get totally off-topic. The point eventually comes where one person is like, "How did we get on that topic anyways?" and the other person is like, "First we were talking about this, then this led to that, which lead to this..." and so on until they explain how they got on the off-topic discussion. This is one little example of cause-effect. It may have appeared random, but there were actually underlying causes for each event, which led the the next event, and so on.

Another one applies to the classic question concerning fate and free will: A business man on foot is on his way to work. Upon crossing a street, he is suddenly struck by a bus. Could he have avoided that situation? or was it is fate? I say it was his fate, due to deterministic causes within a line of chain reactions of cause-effect events, which ultimately can be traced back to an origin or beginning. Let's say the man got hit because he was clumsy, and did not see the car coming. Well, this could be due to an insecurity he has which causes him to be clumsy. That insecurity could stem from a number of environmental factors like for instance, he wasn't socially accepted during his childhood, or perhaps feels overwhelmed at life, etc. This could aslo be in combination with hereditary factors that were passed down from one of his parents (a "clumsy" gene). Maybe he's clumsy because he's always wondering off into space, thinking about other things. This is a defense mechanism the brain goes through to escape the pains of reality (perhaps he's got a depressing life). Maybe he doesn't have a depressing life and was just wandering off for that one instance, thinking about a girl he fell in love with yesterday. This could be indirectly due, to his tastes (which are for the most part passed down genetically), his looks, his personality, where he lives (if he would have been somewhere else, he would have never met the girl, therefore he wouldn't have been thinking about her), etc. Let's say his timing was off. Well, if he would have taken some extra time to make a cup of coffee, he wouldn't have been hit by the car (The coffee could be due to his mood [whether he felt like coffee], which is itself due to environmental factors: what you eat, sunlight [low levels of light rays causes your brain to produce more melatonin in your blood stream, thus making you sleepy], how people treat you, how you've treated other people, etc.)

We might be able to pinpoint some of the cause-effect relationships, but life is so complex we could never comprehend the series of causes which leads up to a single event. We are directly/indirectly affected by so many things in life...heredity, stimuli (environment), natural chemical balances/imbalances in our brains, etc, etc, etc. There are too many to list. Each choice we make is preceded with a lifetime of experiences, memories, and things we inherit at birth. Once the zygote is formed, every move it makes, in combination with what it has genetically, and what it's exposed to will set up a chain of events which will ultimately determine who that person is, how they react to things, and where they end up. Think of anything that happens to anyone, any thought they think, any action they take, and I guarantee it is caused by a combination of things they've have experienced, done, or triats they have been given. Everything leads back to a beginning, which is ultimately the beginning of the universe. Perhaps the Big Bang, perhaps formation by a God, perhaps something entirely different. Whatever it is I do know that that one event or set of events determined everything that would come after it. Once it starts, everything will be determined. Beginning is the fate, the destiny of our lives. The idea of free will is nice, and brings people comfort, but it just doesn't make sense. Should we set the truth aside in order to believe in something that makes us more secure? Or should we be honest, and strong enough to look truth in the face, no matter what it pertains to?

____________________________________________________


What do you think? Do you believe in a deterministic universe? If so, do you think it would be compatible with free will? If not, could you provide an example of something that is not determined by anything? Also, will you at least agree that we are heavily heavily influenced?

:cigar:
​

I'm looking forward to your responses. I always like to gain new perspectives and insights. Afterall, to me, debates are win-win situations. You either teach someone something, or you learn something new...

 

[Sunstone]

I know it's never much fun to do the housekeeping, but what do you mean here by "will", and what do you mean by "free"?

For something to be "free" must it be uncaused or random?

BTW, this is just niggling, but it's much easier to read text when it's broken into paragraphs.

 

[ikitikitembo]

I know it's never much fun to do the housekeeping, but what do you mean here by "will", and what do you mean by "free"?

For something to be "free" must it be uncaused or random?

BTW, this is just niggling, but it's much easier to read text when it's broken into paragraphs.

Hmm, I was thinking choice.

It seems like randomness would be a prerequisite for choice. If it isn't, what is?
Am I thinking to simply or using too much common sense here? :bonk:

....oh yeah you're right about the paragraphs. My bad. I'll edit that.

 

[Sunstone]

Hmm, I was thinking choice.

It seems like randomness would be a prerequisite for choice. If it isn't, what is?
Am I thinking to simply or using too much common sense here? :bonk:

I'm not sure randomness is a prerequisite for choice. The catch, you see, is who is making the choice? Who is calling the shots? Is that part of us which we most likely consider our "I" or self calling the shots? That is, is ordinary consciousness making these choices? If so, then it might fairly be said that "I choose".

On the other hand, is something besides ordinary consciousness making those choices? Are choices made on an unconscious level that we are not ordinarily aware of? If so, there is still a sense in which it can be said that "I choose", but it's a bit different "I" this time, isn't it?

Then again, there's a related question here. Are all choices equally free? Or equally determined? Is it possible that some choices are freer in some important sense than other choices?

And another question. Are positive and negative choices equally free? Or, equally determined? When we decide to do something, is that just as free, or just as determined, as when we decide not to do something?

These might look like niggling questions, but they are based on what little I know of psychology.

As you might notice, the way I'm approaching this issue is a bit untraditional. Perhaps the best thing to do here is to ask you first "who" is doing the choosing? The conscious mind? The unconscious mind? Something else?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It seems like randomness would be a prerequisite for choice.

Choice is both determined and determining - randomness has nothing to do with it.

A rather good resource for the question can be found here.

 

[michel]

Choice is both determined and determining - randomness has nothing to do with it.

A rather good resource for the question can be found here.

Very interesting; thanks for the link.
I must admit to only having read two of the passages, but I find myself saying"....but........"
The first is from http://www.naturalism.org/spontaneous_self.htm
Where I would challenge the participation of what the writer calls "my true self". I do believe that I have a Soul (what he meant), but I do not believe that the soul has any interaction during my life. What drives me is my brain, my physical mind.

I realise that a lot of the way I react may be a learned behaviour, and therefore not "free will"; I understand that argument.

But would I honestly choose to reply to this thread if I had no free will ? Would not learned experience tell me to ignore this post, because I feel that my argument will most likely be torn to shreds?
Another one:

From http://www.ethicalfocus.org/index.php?mpage=34/Free_Will.htm (for example)

Let’s start by being clear about what free will isn’t. We don’t think that earthquakes are the result of free will, no matter how unpredictable earthquakes are, because earthquakes are so obviously the result of a chain of physical causes and effects, blindly obeying the law of physics. If it turns out that the strength of the various desires we have, and the choices we make as a result of those desires, are all merely physical events, chains of causes and effects, the result of natural law, that would not be free will. If our minds are merely brains containing electrochemical signals buzzing mechanically back and forth – and that’s certainly how our brains appear to a neuroscientist – then we don’t have free will. Our brains are simply computers built by genes and programmed by our experience of our environment from conception onwards. Our brains are constructed of synapses that each absorb a pre-set level of input and then release a signal. They have no more free will than a Game Cube. We have desires because those desires have been brought into existence by mechanical causes. We may have a general desire for food because of evolutionary hard-wiring, for example, and a specific desire for pasta because of a TV commercial we saw a moment ago.

I honestly cannot understand the way the writer brings in natural events such as earthquakes, into the argument.

Of course Earthquakes are

result of a chain of physical causes and effects, blindly obeying the law of physics.

, and I admit that my free will, on seeing the ground tremble will be predictably telling me to "Run for it"; what happens though, If I choose to stay to rescue someone I see cannot escape?

These, and many other questions make me find the arguments not representative of the way we interact.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But would I honestly choose to reply to this thread if I had no free will ?

Apparently yes.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

The concept of free will is based, not so much on what choices you make, but how you react to situations. There is a difference between freedom of choice (which involves consequences to your actions), and free will, which is control over your emotions.

In the matter of free choice, you are still bound to cause and effect. Free will is not based in the material world, and if you change the way something effects you, you then eliminate the cause instead of reacting to it. . . .

Let's say that you get angry and frustrated with heavy traffic. The cause is heavy traffic, the effect, anger and frustration. But if you choose to change the effect, then the cause is eliminated . . . the heavy traffic may still be there, but it is no longer a cause for your anger.

I don't know if I'm making any sense, I will try to find the original writing on this, the author did a much better job of explaining it than I can.

 

[ikitikitembo]

I'm not sure randomness is a prerequisite for choice. The catch, you see, is who is making the choice? Who is calling the shots? Is that part of us which we most likely consider our "I" or self calling the shots? That is, is ordinary consciousness making these choices? If so, then it might fairly be said that "I choose".

On the other hand, is something besides ordinary consciousness making those choices? Are choices made on an unconscious level that we are not ordinarily aware of? If so, there is still a sense in which it can be said that "I choose", but it's a bit different "I" this time, isn't it?

Its definately both the conscious, and the subconscious, operating as a coherent whole. They mutually effect each other. The subconscious influences thoughts or actions you make consciously. In turn, what the conscious mind is undergoing or experiencing (thoughts, actions) is having an impact on the subconscious. When it comes down to it, it's you who's calling the shots, and experiencing the experiences. Who's "you"? Your mind. What is the "mind"? In my opinion (however some would argue) it's without a doubt collectively the subconcious and concious working as one system. I wouldn't really put each one into it's own category, or separate them because they are mutually influential.

Then again, there's a related question here. Are all choices equally free? Or equally determined? Is it possible that some choices are freer in some important sense than other choices?

What exactly do you mean by equally free or equally determined? Well, it depends on if you believe in choice at all. Assuming choice, I could say hypothetically (even though I don't have the ability to picture choice at all anyway at this moment) that some would be more free and less influenced by other things than others. But I don't make that assumption, so in response to the question I would personally say no, because I don't believe in choice in the first place.

And another question. Are positive and negative choices equally free? Or, equally determined? When we decide to do something, is that just as free, or just as determined, as when we decide not to do something?

I would say (from what I'm understanding on what you mean by equally) that to do something and to not to do something, is the same from a deterministic standpoint. Thousands of factors play a role in determining the actions we take (as well as thoughts we make), as well as the actions/thoughts we don't take/make.

These might look like niggling questions, but they are based on what little I know of psychology.

Nah not niggling. Actually quite the opposite. Essential for the foundation of a solid ethos.

As you might notice, the way I'm approaching this issue is a bit untraditional. Perhaps the best thing to do here is to ask you first "who" is doing the choosing? The conscious mind? The unconscious mind? Something else?

Well obviously in my opinion it can't be "something else". The only "something else" there could be is a "soul". The argument for a soul would be the only (at least the only one I can think of) source for choice...which as I stated before I don't believe in. Once again "who" is the subconscious and conscious mutually influencing each other, and in effect, producing "mind".

 

[ikitikitembo]

Choice is both determined and determining - randomness has nothing to do with it.

A rather good resource for the question can be found here.

I agree. Yet I would replace choice by actions/thoughts. If "choice" is determined, how then is it choice?

Also, do you yourself believe in our ability to choose? If so, since you say randomness has nothing to do with it, what does have something to do with it?

 

[ikitikitembo]

Very interesting; thanks for the link.
I must admit to only having read two of the passages, but I find myself saying"....but........"
The first is from http://www.naturalism.org/spontaneous_self.htm
Where I would challenge the participation of what the writer calls "my true self". I do believe that I have a Soul (what he meant), but I do not believe that the soul has any interaction during my life. What drives me is my brain, my physical mind.

I realise that a lot of the way I react may be a learned behaviour, and therefore not "free will"; I understand that argument.

If you believe in the soul, yet you do not believe it has any interaction during your life, what would you say its function is? Can you define it? What makes you believe or convinces you that there is a soul?

But would I honestly choose to reply to this thread if I had no free will ? Would not learned experience tell me to ignore this post, because I feel that my argument will most likely be torn to shreds?

No you didn't choose. Here are a few factors I can think of off the top of my head, but of course there are plenty of others: You're here on RF in the first place because you obviously have an interest in discussing religious and philosophical matters (if not that reason, there is some other reason). Where did the interest come from? Who knows I don't want to judge you...perhaps some of the interest you inhereted genetically, perhaps most of it came from a life experience. Maybe you experienced something which forced to you look at life a different way, and caused you to become interested in the questions one can ask about it. Perhaps coupled with those factors, someone told you about the site, and that's what got you "in". Then once you're here, okay, you respond to this particular question, at this particular time. Why? Mood definately plays a part. Perhaps if there was already another thread dealing with freewill in which you already exhausted your thoughts on, you wouldn't have said what you said. Or at least maybe would have overlooked it at first. Timing: if you had a different sleep schedual, (which is itself due to your daily "awake" schedual), there's a good chance you wouldn't have signed on when you did, or chose to respond to this thread when you did. Also, Jayhawkers link influenced what you said. If he wouldn't have provided that, about half of what you said would be omitted, and you would also have been at the previous perspective state (the state your mind was in before you learned what you learned from the site). These are just surface factors. So many things affect our mood, timing, etc. Food we eat or don't eat, sleep we get or don't get, sunlight we're exposed to, people we're exposed to, habits, memories, etc. They go on forever. These environmental factors, coupled with your hereditary traits are what precede and determine the choice you made to post your response, how you posted it, and when you posted it.

Another one:

From http://www.ethicalfocus.org/index.php?mpage=34/Free_Will.htm (for example)

I honestly cannot understand the way the writer brings in natural events such as earthquakes, into the argument.

Of course Earthquakes are , and I admit that my free will, on seeing the ground tremble will be predictably telling me to "Run for it"; what happens though, If I choose to stay to rescue someone I see cannot escape?

These, and many other questions make me find the arguments not representative of the way we interact.

He's simply trying to illustrate how an event like an earthquake can appear random but is actually determined, and fits into a line of organized physical chain-reactions, and that an earthquake is an example of "free will that isn't." He's also using it to relate it with the "neuroscientists view"of mind. He's bringing in natural causes because it has everything to do with it, IF the natural cause is all there is. He's saying what it would be like, if there wasn't a concept like a "soul" to give us the freedom of choice. If everything can be explained naturally, and absolutely naturally, what he described the mind would be exactly how he described it. We would simply be fixed into the line of cause and effect. Personally, as you no doubt can tell from the thread, I don't think there is room for the soul. It would, like you put earlier, have no interaction with our lives. And if it has no interaction, what is it? and what is it's function then? If it has no interaction, it cannot give us this "free choice" It has to interact to give us this ability, yet how can it be fit in naturally in a line of chain reactions, when it would disrupt that whole physical system?

Here's my answer to your question about "choosing to rescue someone". No, there was no deviation. It was destined to happen. You did not have a choice in rescuing her. It's not like you were destined to "run for it", then you deviated from that destination and "chose" to rescue her. The rescue itself was bound to happen. Whatever caused her to be in that situation in the first place (perhaps she was on vacation, maybe just taking a walk checking out the scenery [these would be caused by previous events in the line...such as she was on vacation because her work stressing. She was taking a walk because she has a fancy for the aesthetic qualities in nature, etc, etc, etc, until the events are traced back to her very conception], perhaps she was a scientist getting readings or what not on stress levels of the plates...who knows. But we do know there were reasons, there were causes, there were determining factors), in turn caused you to take action, because she was there.She didn't just pop out of the blue and deviate you from a destiny you think you had. It's simple. Whatever actually happens, is the destiny.

 

[MaddLlama]

It depends on what you believe - if you believe in fate, destiny or predetermination, then there is no free will. If you don't, then free-will can exist.

These are the questions the philosophers died still asking.

 

[ikitikitembo]

Your suggestion that you are perhaps not making sense is a good one. Here's why:

The concept of free will is based, not so much on what choices you make, but how you react to situations. There is a difference between freedom of choice (which involves consequences to your actions), and free will, which is control over your emotions.

There may be a difference on the surface, but it all leads back to deterministic factors. Even in agreeing with your definition of the two terms, I still find that they are both determined by things. First off, in reply to your first sentence here, I will propose that "free will" or no will applies equally to both the choices you make, and how you react to situations. They are one in the same. How you react to a situation would be a "choice" you make. Also, how you react to situations is determined by things like mindset, which is determined by things like natural chemical makeup of the brain (which has a preset at as the brain first forms), and stimuli you've experienced. Secondly, control over emotions plays a role in how you react to situations. Emotions themselves are determined. You think they just come out of the blue? How you control your emotions is also determined, by the same things I've been mentioning. Once again there may be a surface difference, but emotions, how you control emotions, and how you react to situations all stem from chemical makeup, and the change your brain has undergone due to experience.

In the matter of free choice, you are still bound to cause and effect. Free will is not based in the material world, and if you change the way something effects you, you then eliminate the cause instead of reacting to it. . . .

Yes, your definition of free will (control over emotions) is based on the material world. Once again emotions, how you handle them, etc. all is determined by factors. For example, most people are heavily influenced on how they parent due to how they were parented. This would be an example of stimuli you've experienced. And parenting, I'm sure, deals a lot with controling certain emotions, and the way you handle certain situations. It's also not wholly due to how you've been parented, or ways of teaching you have experienced yourself, but probably some genetic factors are thrown into the mix as well. The "change" you're referring to above, is itself caused. For example, I smoke cigarettes. If I decide to quite, it doesn't just come out of nowhere. You certainly eliminate a cause, but the elimination itself is caused, by the same things I've been mentioning. You're simply reacting to another cause, which makes you eliminate the first cause.

Let's say that you get angry and frustrated with heavy traffic. The cause is heavy traffic, the effect, anger and frustration. But if you choose to change the effect, then the cause is eliminated . . . the heavy traffic may still be there, but it is no longer a cause for your anger.

Once again, you're reacting to a new cause (perhaps you think to yourself, "I shouldn't be getting angry at this, it's something I'm going to have to deal with, and getting angry about it just makes it worse"), which makes you eliminate the old cause. The change of heart doesn't just pop out of a corner from nowhere.

I hope I've made myself clear, and that in reading this we can reach some agreements. Your post did give me some insight into definitions of free will and choice. Thank you for your consideration and words on the matter. If you can produce this original author, I'm certainly looking forward to reading what he/she has to say.

 

[ikitikitembo]

It depends on what you believe - if you believe in fate, destiny or predetermination, then there is no free will. If you don't, then free-will can exist.

These are the questions the philosophers died still asking.

Certainly. All I'm trying to conjur are peoples proposals on why they think a certain way so perhaps we can debate, learn, and reach some new conclusions.

Let us be philosophers who are living trying to answer these questions! Afterall, that's what RF is for right?

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Once again, you're reacting to a new cause (perhaps you think to yourself, "I shouldn't be getting angry at this, it's something I'm going to have to deal with, and getting angry about it just makes it worse"), which makes you eliminate the old cause. The change of heart doesn't just pop out of a corner from nowhere.

Yes, the change of heart does not just pop out of a corner, this is the essence of free will. Free choice would be to choose an alternate route, or change jobs so you don't have to comute in traffic, or get a bike. Free will, is how you react to the decisions you make, or how you react to situations that are out of your control. How you react to the world around you.

 

[Comet]

It depends on what you believe - if you believe in fate, destiny or predetermination, then there is no free will. If you don't, then free-will can exist.

These are the questions the philosophers died still asking.

Not true.... as the ancients explained: Destiny is that you cannot change and Fate is that which you can. For example (in an easy explanation):
It is your Destiny to die.
How you get there is by your freewill, which only effects your fates.

You can't change the end result of everything, but you can "bob and weave" your way around the middle. Just like with time, but that is another topic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Choice is both determined and determining - randomness has nothing to do with it.

A rather good resource for the question can be found here.

Thanks for the resources Jay.

 

[ikitikitembo]

Yes, the change of heart does not just pop out of a corner, this is the essence of free will. Free choice would be to choose an alternate route, or change jobs so you don't have to comute in traffic, or get a bike. Free will, is how you react to the decisions you make, or how you react to situations that are out of your control. How you react to the world around you.

Choosing an alternate route, or changing jobs is still reacting to a cause. Also, reacting to decisions you make, or reacting to things outside of your control are reactions to causes. Either way, the actions your taking or thoughts your thinking in both situations are determined by something. They may be in different contexts or you may be acting/thinking according to different scenarios, but they both come down to reacting to the world around you in response to causes which are deterministic.

 

[GreyHam]

its a really tricky one and personally, id like to think that we do. but that depends on your beliefs.
a determinised probably wouldnt, going on a regressing chain of cause and effect. but somewhere along the line, free will MUST come into play. does a man walk one way, or another? you could argue that the choice he makes is dependent on many individual factors such as time, how nice the area is, what time it is etc. but personally, i feel that he makes that choice himself, based on what he knows. he could quite easily choose the least effective route.

ive heard that free will is taken away when a person makes a decision that 'under the same circumstances, noone could be expected to do the opposite' ie a person threatened at gunpoint. a person who hands over his wallet to a mugger could be argued to have his free will taken away, as for the sake of 10 quid id probably do the same (theres very little in my wallet, im poor lol). But yet, there are always people who will die horribly for a cause they believe in. tianemen square for example is a prime example of someone demonstrating their free will. noone could ever expect that courage of someone, but they did it. and for whatever reason, it was ultimately their own choice. methinks

 

[Opethian]

I'm determined that this universe is determined too .
I don't believe in free will, just like I don't believe in a soul. Something I do not quite understand though is why some people who do not believe in a soul, do believe in free will.

Oh btw, I don't know if you had already seen it or not, but I made a thread about this once which got quite a few replies, you might find it interesting: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31341