If you believe in free will, respond to these two objections

[Agnostic75]

Free will could be best demonstrated in your own self denial.

Only if you could reasonably prove that genetics and/or enviromnent had nothing to do with the self denial, which you can't. As far as I know, free will can only exist completely independent of genetics and/or environment.

Every year, in most or all parts of the world, women consistently become theists more than men do. Why is that?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The first objection in the original post still applies. Everyone gets hung up on some external force controlling us; that's a red herring. The causality objection also applies to internal events.

That's true. But causality and free will are not incompatible. Again, we can consider two possibilities here (there are many more variations on this issue of course):

1) The decisions/choices I make are the result of internal and external events (firing of neurons, a car coming down the road, a hurricane, whatever) all determined exclusively and completely by the laws of physics. In this case, arguably I do not have free will, because while I think I'm making certain decisions of my own volitions, in reality the events leading up to the particular sequences and patterns of neural firing which IS my decision could theoretically be known ahead of time if all the preceding conditions and laws which act on everything from the particle level up were known.

In this view, the "mind" is a completely determined system and could theoretically be perfectly modeled and mapped out in the same way a computer program can.

2) Some systems are constrained by the laws of physics, but are complex enough that they are self-organizing and to at least some extent capable of self-determination. Under this view, knowing all the physical laws which govern the universe would not be sufficient to predict human behavior. "Free will" become the ability of the "mind" as a complex and self-determined system to exhibit completely unpredictable responses. The argument of causality is at best trivial here, because it doesn't negate volition.

 

[idea]

Only if you could reasonably prove that genetics and/or enviromnent had nothing to do with the self denial, which you can't. As far as I know, free will can only exist completely independent of genetics and/or environment.

Every year, in most or all parts of the world, women consistently become theists more than men do. Why is that?

I think the natures of our eternal spirit helped determine our physical gender.

chicken or the egg - which comes first? You suggest that we are nurturing/mothering/spiritual because of our body, but I think our spirit came before our body, and that many (not all) of our physical attributes were caused by our spirit (rather than visa versa)

Only if you could reasonably prove ...

you cannot prove either side of coarse -

The Perry Model of Intellectual and Ethical Development

The Perry Model of Intellectual and Ethical Development

Stages of Cognitive Development Transitions in Cognitive Development

#1: Dualistic Thinking

• Students generally believe knowledge is certain and unambiguous: black/white, right/wrong
• Questions have immutable, objective answers
• Students generally believe authorities possess valuable wisdom that contains eternal truths
• Certainty yields to uncertainty and ambiguity
• 
  

#2: Multiplicity

• Students come to believe that where uncertainty exists, knowledge and truth are essentially subjective and personal
• Students come to recognize that mere opinion is insufficient because specific critieria help evaluate the usefulness and validity of knowledge claims:

• methodology • empirical evidence
• explanatory power • predictive power
• logical consistency
• positive vs. normative conclusions

#3: Contextual-Relativism

• Students come to believe that even where uncertainty exists, people must make choices about premises, frameworks, hypotheses, and theories to apply; policy conclusions are not self-evident
• Students may come to recognize that even in a world of uncertainty, they must make choices (whether about ideas, hypotheses, theories, or policies). These choices require methods of critical thinking.
• 
  

#4: Context-Appropriate Decisions

• Students may come to acknowledge that choices require analysis and values. Knowledge, theories, and methods are imperfect and uncertain, thus personal choices require acknowledging personal responsibility that follows from personal values.

have to reach above the dualist stage, and rely on personal values - if you cannot prove something one way or another, if uncertainty exists - what do you choose?

When there is no proof, we have free will - we can choose to believe what we want...

"believe knowledge is certain and unambiguous" ... vs. accepting ambiguity, and making a personal choice based on analysis and personal values - use personal values from within rather that just relying on what is without... this is finding free will I think...

not everyone uses their will, some do though.

 

[idea]

That's true. But causality and free will are not incompatible. Again, we can consider two possibilities here (there are many more variations on this issue of course):

1) The decisions/choices I make are the result of internal and external events (firing of neurons, a car coming down the road, a hurricane, whatever) all determined exclusively and completely by the laws of physics. In this case, arguably I do not have free will, because while I think I'm making certain decisions of my own volitions, in reality the events leading up to the particular sequences and patterns of neural firing which IS my decision could theoretically be known ahead of time if all the preceding conditions and laws which act on everything from the particle level up were known.

In this view, the "mind" is a completely determined system and could theoretically be perfectly modeled and mapped out in the same way a computer program can.

your own volition vs. patterns of neural firing... do you see yourself as being a separate entity from your physical mind?

considering a computer - there are two parts to it.

1. The information/program
2. physical material chip etc. etc.

A computer that is loaded with a programs vs. one that is not loaded both have the same mass - the same physical properties...

The atoms move around in the computer to record the binary code (0's and ones represented by electrons either being within a hole or not) but the binary code - the program - it did not come from atomic interaction potentials... it came from a programmer.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

your own volition vs. patterns of neural firing... do you see yourself as being a separate entity from your physical mind?

considering a computer - there are two parts to it.

1. The information/program
2. physical material chip etc. etc.

The mind/body dualism of Descartes has obviously been abandoned in psychology. However, psychologists and cognitive scientists still speak of the "mind." This is not because they believe that the self exists independently from the body and brain. Rather, it is just a convenient term to describe something that isn't understood: the parts of the brain that make humans (arguably) self-aware and self-governing agents capable of conscious reflection and decisions (not to mention adaption, learning, etc.). Not all of the brain is the "mind" as certain areas are no more responsible for this sense of "self" and "agency" than the heart or liver.

The question, however, is whether or not this "mind," given that it is composed of neurons, subject to the same sort of determinism that a computer program is? If neural patterns and firing are essentially just vastly more complicated versions of a computer responding to inputs, then while we might think that we are free agents, this is only because the conditions responsible for every thought and action are far to complex for us to model.

However, if the "mind" is not just a turing machine running through a vast number of algorithms, but is instead capable of "reprogramming" itself in non-deterministic ways, then knowing all the initial conditions prior to a decision as well as all the laws of the universe is insufficient to predict what the decision will be, because the "mind" is in some sense self-determining.

 

[Tiberius]

"\1) Causality —If causes are understood as conditions prior to an effect that guarantee an effect, and all events have causes, then it follows that all events were preceded by conditions that guaranteed those events. But this is the same as saying all events are determined. Since the choices of humans are events, it follows that the choices of humans are determined.

Prove that in every instance all previous conditions guarantee the event.

If, however, all previous conditions produce the possibility of more than one event, then free will is still fine.

\2) Responsibility —Rather than salvage human responsibility, some maintain that libertarian freedom destroys it. If our choices have no causes, in what sense are they our choices? Is it any more agreeable to reason to hold humans responsible for choices they didn’t cause than to hold them responsible for choices that were caused and thus determined?"

This assumes that for any set of causes only one event is possible. This has not been proven.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Prove that in every instance all previous conditions guarantee the event.

If, however, all previous conditions produce the possibility of more than one event, then free will is still fine.



This assumes that for any set of causes only one event is possible. This has not been proven.

Nor can it ever be proven according to current scientific understanding. That doesn't negate the problem. You refer to the possibility of conditions allowing for more than one event. The question then becomes, given the laws which govern the physical universe, what might enable more than one outcome given the complete set of all conditions which precede it?

 

[Sunstone]

"\1) Causality —If causes are understood as conditions prior to an effect that guarantee an effect, and all events have causes, then it follows that all events were preceded by conditions that guaranteed those events. But this is the same as saying all events are determined. Since the choices of humans are events, it follows that the choices of humans are determined.

I think free will is an absurdly silly notion, but argument #1 here strikes me as weak. One could easily say, "Yes, choices in humans are determined. They are determined by an undetermined will. A free will."

Of course, there would be no scientific evidence for such a thing, but one could argue for it as a sort of ghost in the machine.

And the objection that "all events have causes, therefore a 'free will' must have a cause" is insufficient since it is easily dismissed on the grounds there is no absolute proof all events have causes.

 

[Willamena]

"\1) Causality —If causes are understood as conditions prior to an effect that guarantee an effect, and all events have causes, then it follows that all events were preceded by conditions that guaranteed those events. But this is the same as saying all events are determined. Since the choices of humans are events, it follows that the choices of humans are determined.

Effects have more than one cause, and it's impossible to say if we've accounted for them all, or even that any particular one that is primarily responsible. It's even conceivable that every event is in some way responsible for each event.

It follows, then, that...
If P, then Q.
Q.
Then P.

...is a logical fallacy. P is the necessary condition, Q is the "guaranteed" effect. Q may be guaranteed by P, but could also have other causes.

If there is an intruder, the dog will bark.
The dog barked.
There is an intruder.

But there's also that pretty little lady dog next door. The dog is well trained, and will bark at every intruder, but the condition doesn't guarantee that that condition is the only thing that will cause the effect.

\2) Responsibility —Rather than salvage human responsibility, some maintain that libertarian freedom destroys it. If our choices have no causes, in what sense are they our choices? Is it any more agreeable to reason to hold humans responsible for choices they didn’t cause than to hold them responsible for choices that were caused and thus determined?"

They are "our" choices simply because the thought arises that they are a possession, and that thought of possession is a necessary condition for free will. I've maintained this in other threads, and it is a valid take on the libertarian stance.

I haven't read the thread, so I apologize if these points have already been covered.

 

[Falvlun]

No.

I don't mean to be short with you, but that statement was the crux of your post. I see no difference between "A causing B" and "A determining B".

I am all for brevity, but I do believe there were other crucial points within that post, including the idea that causes merely predispose, rather than fully determine, and the concept that self-awareness changes the game. As for the part you responded to, let me try a different way to word this:

I believe that our choice is what determines which cause will create the effect.

I can choose either waffles or cereal. If I chose waffles, there will be causes that led to the waffles. If I chose cereal, there will be causes that led to the cereal. The cause, however, was not what determined the choice. It was the choice which determined the cause (which then produced the effect).

 

[idea]

The mind/body dualism of Descartes has obviously been abandoned in psychology. However, psychologists and cognitive scientists still speak of the "mind." This is not because they believe that the self exists independently from the body and brain. Rather, it is just a convenient term to describe something that isn't understood: the parts of the brain that make humans (arguably) self-aware and self-governing agents capable of conscious reflection and decisions (not to mention adaption, learning, etc.). Not all of the brain is the "mind" as certain areas are no more responsible for this sense of "self" and "agency" than the heart or liver.

The question, however, is whether or not this "mind," given that it is composed of neurons, subject to the same sort of determinism that a computer program is? If neural patterns and firing are essentially just vastly more complicated versions of a computer responding to inputs, then while we might think that we are free agents, this is only because the conditions responsible for every thought and action are far to complex for us to model.

However, if the "mind" is not just a turing machine running through a vast number of algorithms, but is instead capable of "reprogramming" itself in non-deterministic ways, then knowing all the initial conditions prior to a decision as well as all the laws of the universe is insufficient to predict what the decision will be, because the "mind" is in some sense self-determining.

I view the mind as more of a receiver - than a producer - of thought. Like a radio or a TV, the signal that produces the images/sounds come from waves in the air - different parts of the radio process different signals, but the signals are are a separate entity from the radio/TV.

I'm currently watching my beloved grandfather go through dimensia right now - he is like a radio/TV with static coming through... every now and then the picture flickers into focus, but then the signal is gone again. The moments where the picture comes into view tell me that his decaying physical brain is not the same as the signal - the spirit....

so I do not believe that the physical firing of neurons in our brain is responsible for producing our mental thoughts - just as I do not believe that the TV or radio is responsible for creating the music that is played on them... I do not think the signal is generated within the radio/TV/mind - I think it is generated within the spirit - that the spirit controls thought, not physical mechanical laws.

 

[Falvlun]

And to expand on my previous Western analytical refutation, heres my argument in syllogistic form.

P1: There exists things not determined by an external agent or cause.
P2: If it is not determined by anything else but itself, it is self-determined.
P3: If it is self-determined, it is free.

I thought this was an excellent point. Often times, it's construed as a death-knell for free-will when it is conceded that we ourselves, due to our individual personalities, desires, and wants, are the cause of our actions. Why? Isn't that the whole point-- that we are the ones who ultimately determine our actions? Isn't that precisely what free-will is?

 

[Falvlun]

However, if the mind is a system (composed of neurons) which is self-organizing and capable of creating new initial conditions by, say, re-organizing itself in ways which are influenced, but not determined, by external stimuli, then initial conditions do not determine the outcome of agents with minds.

This is precisely what I had in mind regarding self-awareness being a game changer. But since it was said so much better here, I wanted to highlight your point.

 

[idea]

Tself-awareness

I think self-awareness is an independant entity that can step out of the self - and look back and see it.... it is spirit looking back onto the physical body / physical surroundings.

 

[Falvlun]

I think self-awareness is an independant entity that can step out of the self - and look back and see it.... it is spirit looking back onto the physical body / physical surroundings.

That's fine. In principle, I think we are in agreement. Self-awareness, however you conceive of it, still has the ability to generate its own causes.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

One result from the uncertainty principle is simply a limit of knowledge. However, extending that notion to human experience, one could argue that human perception alters the state of particles which are responsible for thought. If the mere act of observation can alter a system in completely unpredictable ways, then isn't it possible that an integrated, dynamic, and "ordered" system like the human brain is not completely constrained by intitial conditions?

It's true that an inability to predict does not equal a non-deterministic system. One question, however, is how the system can be deterministic? Determinism implies that, given particular initial conditions and a knowledge of all the relevant laws, all future states can be known. However, if the interaction of particles results in states which cannot be determined because any attempt to determine them changes them, is the system really deterministic?

It’s all part of the same system though. Observing a system does alter it, but not in a way that makes any of the particles involved stop doing exactly what they’re supposed to be doing. The changes are unpredictable not because they are random, but because they are too complex for us to deal with, at least in real time. For example, using photons we wouldn't even know the amount that had hit the particle we were observing, let alone what angle they hit at.

When you’re talking on a universe scale, the idea of determining any given outcome at any given time requires that the universe stays static, or that your processing equipment runs considerably faster than the universe itself. The idea is only useful in concept. But that’s also all determinism requires, that it is determined, not that we could determine it.

That's one view, certainly. For the most part, complex or chaotic systems are thought of as those systems whose future behavior are extremely sensitive to initial conditions, and therefore close to impossible to predict. However, one reason for this approach is simply that work in nonlinear dynamics has focused on increasing our ability to predict and understand complex systems, not determine if (and under what conditions) this is impossible.

To go back to your example, in a fairly simple, completely constrained system, we could predict any future state. But this doesn't answer the question of whether a system can reach a qualitatively different level of complexity. The capacity for human thought is a good counter to a completely deterministic view. Some systems appear to reach a level of complexity which enables self-ordering independent of (but still subject to) physical laws. I'll stick with neural dynamics as this is my field. Independently, neurons are subject to predictable laws of physics. They fire under certain circumstances and at particular rates. However, the patterns which emerge from the vast complexity may very well not be determined by physics. Rather, the system begins to organize itself.

I’d argue that the self-ordering is a result of the laws of physics rather than something independent of them. I don’t really see any reason why large groups of neurons would act independently to the laws of physics purely because of the number involved. It’s just that you’re adding a lot more complexity to the system by adding more of them, making it harder to take account of all the interactions. Hence why simulators are important in that particular field, I recall reading a couple years ago about an IBM supercomputer they were using to simulate part of a cats brain.

There are simpler examples as well, natural selection of bacteria in evolution say.

 

[The Genesis Code]

Everyone knows that humans make decisions; that is a red herring in the debate on free will. The only real controversy here is Libertarian free will.

"Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All “free will theists” hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise."

The objections are (quotes are from theopedia.com):

"\1) Causality —If causes are understood as conditions prior to an effect that guarantee an effect, and all events have causes, then it follows that all events were preceded by conditions that guaranteed those events. But this is the same as saying all events are determined. Since the choices of humans are events, it follows that the choices of humans are determined.

\2) Responsibility —Rather than salvage human responsibility, some maintain that libertarian freedom destroys it. If our choices have no causes, in what sense are they our choices? Is it any more agreeable to reason to hold humans responsible for choices they didn’t cause than to hold them responsible for choices that were caused and thus determined?"

Just as a reminder, this thread is about the above two objections. No one disputes the red herring of compatibilism; it is self evident:

"In compatibilism, free will is affected by human nature and man will never choose contrary to his nature and desires. Man will always do what he desires most at any particular moment - even when there are competing desires."

If you believe in free will, respond to the above two objections under the bolded headings.

Causality: We are all born with definite dispositions. Who we are as an entity, and what we are born into, influences our total being. Therefore, until our consciousness matures, we are unable to make decisions through 'free choice' because we remain locked into pre-disposition. When we are young, we are programmed through DNA, our environment, our parents and social surroundings, and through the teachings of the matrix we are born into. As a child, our choices are limited. As we mature into ourselves and come to experience our essence, we are left with one choice: DO WE CHANGE WHO WE ARE, OR DO WE REMAIN THE SAME? Most changes come about through pain and anguish and when we are faced with tremendous obstacles. We can never be free from ourselves, but we are free to choose "which possible self" we want to experience.

Responsibility: The question is, "What are we responsible for?" We can only be responsible for our choices, not another's. If we make a choice, whatever it is, we must understand as a human being, we are responsible for that choice. We are the summation of the choices we have made, together with the choices we 'never' made. Inherent within our responsibility is "freedom." If one takes the Libertarian point of view, one must still realize whatever the choice, there is a responsibility that comes with the choice. That is true freedom.

To answer your question, Causality and Responsibility are both subject to change, renewal, and, ultimately, each of us is always responsible for our own choices.

 

[punkdbass]

"\1) Causality —If causes are understood as conditions prior to an effect that guarantee an effect, and all events have causes, then it follows that all events were preceded by conditions that guaranteed those events. But this is the same as saying all events are determined. Since the choices of humans are events, it follows that the choices of humans are determined.

This is a pretty poor argument against free will IMO. Although it might seem intuitive to think that all events have causes, quantum theory and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle show that this is not true, thus this is not a logical argument for the nonexistence of free will.

Also, scientists define the big bang as an event without cause as well for example(read a book about it, too hard for me to explain). So since current science shows that there IS and CAN be events without cause, then your argument is illogical.

 

[Nakosis]

Causality: We are all born with definite dispositions. Who we are as an entity, and what we are born into, influences our total being. Therefore, until our consciousness matures, we are unable to make decisions through 'free choice' because we remain locked into pre-disposition. When we are young, we are programmed through DNA, our environment, our parents and social surroundings, and through the teachings of the matrix we are born into. As a child, our choices are limited. As we mature into ourselves and come to experience our essence, we are left with one choice: DO WE CHANGE WHO WE ARE, OR DO WE REMAIN THE SAME? Most changes come about through pain and anguish and when we are faced with tremendous obstacles. We can never be free from ourselves, but we are free to choose "which possible self" we want to experience.

Could you have really become anybody other then who you are? We change as a response to our experiences. What real choice was involved?

Responsibility: The question is, "What are we responsible for?" We can only be responsible for our choices, not another's. If we make a choice, whatever it is, we must understand as a human being, we are responsible for that choice. We are the summation of the choices we have made, together with the choices we 'never' made. Inherent within our responsibility is "freedom." If one takes the Libertarian point of view, one must still realize whatever the choice, there is a responsibility that comes with the choice. That is true freedom.

The actions we decide to take are a summation of all the experiences we've had in the past. Given the exact same past up to the moment of your decision, would you really have decided on any other action then the one you took?

To answer your question, Causality and Responsibility are both subject to change, renewal, and, ultimately, each of us is always responsible for our own choices.

First you have to show that you were capable of making any other choices then the ones you did make. You can look in the past and imagine having made different choices but that does prove you actually would have. Given the same circumstances and knowledge you had at the time of decision, could you have decided anything other then what you decided?

 

[shawn001]

These are brand new from Neuroscience.

Neuroscience, free will and determinism: 'I'm just a machine'

Our bodies can be controlled by outside forces in the universe, discovers Tom Chivers. So where does that leave free will?


Neuroscience, free will and determinism: 'I'm just a machine' - Telegraph


Neuroscience Challenges Old Ideas about Free Will

Celebrated neuroscientist Michael S. Gazzaniga explains the new science behind an ancient philosophical question

Neuroscience Challenges Old Ideas about Free Will: Scientific American


This is older but worth reading.

The Electric brain

NOVA | The Electric Brain


There is also this on some history

Free will: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article