• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Lets solve Free will once and for all!!

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Both fish and wildebeest have behaviors well beyond the innate. Just because we do not want to recognize them does not exclude their existence.
Maybe they do, I simply haven't seen it demonstrated. And from what I can see, the majority of scholars also do not think that animals have free will as humans do. That doesn't mean that they have no agency at all, but to compare it to that of humans I think is wrong. I think the human brain is completely unique in that aspect of the animal kingdom. There are some animals that shows signs of more complex will or at least better at understanding its environment, like the octopus etc.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
..it doesn't matter. It could be because I felt like chocolate, and I felt like it because I'd been hyponotized
or whatever.
The fact is, that I CHOSE it !


Huh?
I think you misunderstand me.

It is our perception of a "fixed future", which the determinists claim takes away our power to choose, that is flawed.
It simply does NOT, even though it appears to .. THAT is the "illusion" .. our flawed conclusion due
to perception of the passing of time.
You still haven't demonstrated that you chose which ice cream you liked, you simply concluded it. And if you were hypnotized then clearly you were influenced by something external which goes against the very definition of free will.

the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

So the question still stands, how did you choose to feel like you wanted chocolate? The answer is you didn't choose to like chocolate more than vanilla, you had no say in it. You chose it because your senses which you had no control over decided that you liked it. So at least we can conclude that in this particular case, you didn't have any free will in regard to what flavors you like or don't.

I don't think anyone acts as if they think the future is fixed, even determinists will have a rough time claiming that this is how they live their lives.

Can you give an example that will clarify what you mean? Where it is obvious that this is correct? That would help me a lot with understanding what you mean, because I don't really think I get what you are trying to say. :)
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
...unless we ARE the interface for understanding it???!!! (He said in a wild speculative tone).
Yeah, long live the simulation theory :D

But (again)...my hunch is that it is not just knowing that cannot be sufficiently precise, perhaps even the "setting" of the initial conditions was not that precise either...e.g. as far as I know, it is impossible - even in principle - to predict exactly when a single atom of a radioactive element will decay...that is the kind of thing I meant by "quantum indeterminacy" earlier...the half life is a bulk property and works when there are lots of atoms...but also in principle, a single atom decaying unpredictability could initiate a chain reaction that was itself entirely unpredictable...and a chain reaction could, I presume, knock the bit of the universe where it happens "off the rails" and change the course of the evolution of the universe thereafter...I'm probably not heading in a useful direction with this...but I'm keeping it in, because I am fairly sure its right...
We obviously have to extend this to free will, as that is what we are talking about. And if that article I linked you earlier is true. It raises a new line of questions, which I honestly hadn't even considered before that article, which is whether something even affects us. Quantum whatever could be completely random, but if it can be demonstrated that it doesn't affect us, then we are back to the start. This is far beyond my understanding, again hardly understood anything from that article.

I raised this question to another person here in the thread but I don't think they answered. But I don't see the evolutionary benefit of free will? If evolution is survival of the fittest, then free will doesn't seem to be particularly beneficial or needed. If we agree that the majority of animals don't have it, and are doing just fine, why would it be beneficial for humans? Let's assume that we don't have free will, then nothing would really change about how we go around things, clearly, our moral codes are completely screwed, but in regards to how we behave I don't think anything would really change, we would still create computers, planes, aim to learn things and expand our knowledge etc. So looking at it from an evolutionary perspective, there doesn't seem to be anything really gained from having free will when it comes to survival, it seems very much like a human desire. But maybe I just don't see the benefit of it?

2. Are we genuinely able to change them with genuinely purposeful deliberateness? Because even if the answers to 1 are all positive, we could still be conscious automatons simply responding as nature requires whenever we make a "choice".
I think where I at least is most in doubt, is because we can train ourselves, even if we ultimately have no free will and that is whatever :) You can still train yourself in things and become better, does it matter where the interest came from, if you are happy doing them?

Also, we do seem to have the ability to at least suppress a lot of these influences and even our emotions. Like your example with the shark, even though we fear it and our instinct after such an event might be to not want to go near the ocean again, we can overcome it. Even if we ultimately had no say in whether we decided to overcome it or not, at least the feeling or experience of having the option might be enough. Obviously doesn't solve the moral issue, but even that is a problem today, with or without knowing whether we have free will or not.

I'm not sure that all morality goes out with free will - maybe morality will simply become whatever is the most rational way of dealing with human issues...for us that's a scary thought - but 'dog eat dog' works pretty well for lots of animals that don't seem to be troubled by 'morality'...not saying we should revert, but maybe we could find a way forward that leaves both animalistic behavior and irrational moral strictures behind us, regardless of whether we truly have free will or not.
I think Robert in the video makes a good example, if we look to the past, humans have judged each other due to reasons that are demonstrably wrong, like burning witches etc. We have assigned all kinds of well-known diseases to whatever we thought was right at the time. And we have judged people based on these wrong ideas.

But what im thinking, is that if there is no free will at all, and we assume we created a device that could scan fetuses' DNA for whether they would become murderers or not. Then we would have to manipulate the DNA to get rid of it, which would be the humane thing to do. But let's assume we couldn't do that. Then we are faced with a moral issue, if this person will become a murderer should we let them be born to either kill someone or to force them to live in a facility?

My point is, that it wouldn't make sense for morality to be as it is, if we know with 100% certainty that people can't change. And if that is the case, then passing moral judgments around would be kind of weird, in fact a lot of things would be extremely weird :)

Exactly - are the fundamental limits of precision limiting what can be known, or delimiting what can be? I'm guessing its probably both (but at different levels).
I have no clue. Humans are capable of insane things, just look at the amount of knowledge we have acquired in the last 300 years, it is crazy :D Even my grandparents would be completely in shock today if they saw the things we have. My mother has told me a story about when she was little and had to wash the dishes with her friend they would often imagine that maybe someday you could get a machine to do it.

And today, the hot topics are robotics and AGI, what will it be in 30 or 50 years?
 
Last edited:

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
You still haven't demonstrated that you chose which ice cream you liked, you simply concluded it. And if you were hypnotized then clearly you were influenced by something external which goes against the very definition of free will.
No it doesn't.

"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

It's pretty obvious that we all have external influences that affect our choices.
..but .. I'll say it AGAIN .. We have STILL made a choice !

i.e. we exercised our discretion, be it influenced or otherwise

..I don't really think I get what you are trying to say. :)

No .. you are probably more a linguist than a physicist ;)
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
2 Peter 3:9, Contemporary English Version
“The Lord isn't slow about keeping his promises, as some people think he is. In fact, God is patient, because he wants everyone to turn from sin and no one to be lost.”

Are humans turning from sin?
Most are not.

Therefore, they’re not doing what ‘God wants.’

Therefore, free will exists.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
I think freewill is limited by the society we choose to live in. It exists, but there are laws in place limiting free will. I have the free will to eat what I choose for breakfast, but I don't have the free will to kill my neighbor because society has enacted laws to restrict such behavior
But you can still kill your neighbor, if you want.

You may not be able to do much else, afterwards.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
No it doesn't.

"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

It's pretty obvious that we all have external influences that affect our choices.
..but .. I'll say it AGAIN .. We have STILL made a choice !

i.e. we exercised our discretion, be it influenced or otherwise
A person is born with a mental disability and as a result, they end up killing someone. Just so I understand, in your opinion, they are guilty and used their free will to murder this person?

No .. you are probably more a linguist than a physicist ;)
Most likely, we all have to start somewhere :D
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
Just so I understand, in your opinion, they are guilty and used their free will to murder this person?
That's right .. they exercised their free-will.
Naturally, whether they can be held responsible for their actions is another matter.

I'm sure you realize that the law reflects that, as in the young children and mentally incapacitated
are treated differently than a sane adult.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
That's right .. they exercised their free-will.
Naturally, whether they can be held responsible for their actions is another matter.

I'm sure you realize that the law reflects that, as in the young children and mentally incapacitated
are treated differently than a sane adult.
The reason they are treated differently is because they are deemed to not be sane, in control, or able to comprehend what they did. If they used their free will (meaning, was in control) then they wouldn't be treated differently.

So how would you categorize these.

Person A: Is born with a mental disability that forces them to be in a wheelchair and they need help to make it through the day, obviously, this might sound absurd, but did this person use free will to choose this?

Person B: Suffers from a mental disability, that causes them to lose control and be unable to feel empathy and therefore as a result ends up murdering someone, this is them using their free will, according to what you wrote?

How do you reach that conclusion, and Im going to assume you agree that Person A is not held responsible for their disability, yet Person B is for theirs?
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
The reason they are treated differently is because they are deemed to not be sane, in control, or able to comprehend what they did. If they used their free will (meaning, was in control) then they wouldn't be treated differently.
No .. you are slyly changing the definition of free-will. ;)
A person who is unable to control their emotions STILL chooses to do what they do.

Person A: Is born with a mental disability that forces them to be in a wheelchair and they need help to make it through the day, obviously, this might sound absurd, but did this person use free will to choose this?
Yes.

Person B: Suffers from a mental disability, that causes them to lose control and be unable to feel empathy and therefore as a result ends up murdering someone, this is them using their free will, according to what you wrote?
Yes.

Yes, yes, yes. Stop fooling around with the definition.
"A person can do otherwise, if they WANTED to do otherwise".

Children and the insane have "wants", I feel sure. :)
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
No .. you are slyly changing the definition of free-will. ;)
A person who is unable to control their emotions STILL chooses to do what they do.
Im not changing the definition, we can obviously talk about whether it is a correct one or not.

Person A: Is born with a mental disability that forces them to be in a wheelchair and they need help to make it through the day, obviously, this might sound absurd, but did this person use free will to choose this?

Just want to be sure, that you understood my question. Do you believe that a person born with a mental disability that forces them to be in a wheelchair, could have chosen otherwise?

If that is not the case, then you didn't answer my question.

"A person can do otherwise, if they WANTED to do otherwise".
If the person suffers from a mental illness that causes them to do one thing, then they wouldn't do otherwise. And still, you haven't addressed the wants?

Can you choose to WANT to love chocolate if you don't like it?

Can you choose to WANT to like to kill things?
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Maybe they do, I simply haven't seen it demonstrated. And from what I can see, the majority of scholars also do not think that animals have free will as humans do. That doesn't mean that they have no agency at all, but to compare it to that of humans I think is wrong. I think the human brain is completely unique in that aspect of the animal kingdom. There are some animals that shows signs of more complex will or at least better at understanding its environment, like the octopus etc.
The question was about the existence of free will and not the degree.. There is no question there are degrees of complexity in behavior and I have never said there is not. You made the statement "Im saying that i don't think the hamster (crab) is able to do it, I don't think it has the brain capacity to do it. Rather it is guided by its instincts." and I would argue that they do not run on instincts alone. They have memory and analyze their world with planned reactions and not just instincts. You were asking to solve the question of free will or not and you chose the example of the crab to start with. If you follow the studies on animal behavior over time the one obvious finding is the underestimation of what animals other than human can or cannot do and that is what I am trying to express. Do humans have a more complex brain, of course we do. The question who has free will or not goes back to the question is there free will or not.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
The question was about the existence of free will and not the degree.. There is no question there are degrees of complexity in behavior and I have never said there is not. You made the statement "Im saying that i don't think the hamster (crab) is able to do it, I don't think it has the brain capacity to do it. Rather it is guided by its instincts." and I would argue that they do not run on instincts alone. They have memory and analyze their world with planned reactions and not just instincts. You were asking to solve the question of free will or not and you chose the example of the crab to start with. If you follow the studies on animal behavior over time the one obvious finding is the underestimation of what animals other than human can or cannot do and that is what I am trying to express. Do humans have a more complex brain, of course we do. The question who has free will or not goes back to the question is there free will or not.
Ok, we probably don't disagree then, at least not on a major level from what I can tell. Sure, animals can learn and remember things and even animals have different brain capacities and can react/adapt to their environment accordingly. We have lots of evidence for this, every dog that has ever learned a trick or a parrot saying things etc. So there are degrees of this, which is also one of the reasons I don't buy that free will could pop into existence and I think if we could increase the brain capacity of cats for instance, they would behave more like humans in that regard. But a fish for instance you can hook and then throw out and wait a few minutes and then hook again, it apparently didn't learn anything. It's not uncommon to find fish with old hooks in them.

So I don't underestimate animals and what they can do, but at the same time we also have to accept that they are not writing books and poetries etc. There seems to be a connection between brain capacity and what a living being is capable of.

Again, I agree, the question is whether free will even exists or not. And from an evolutionary point of view, I could buy it as being a result or offspring or what to call it from curiosity or at least that it played a crucial role in the early stages of how it could evolve.

However, there is still the issue of why something like free will would evolve? To me, it doesn't seem particularly "important" or even connected to evolution. I don't see how free will would be of any concern for evolution or what to say. Eyes evolving, hands, etc makes sense because it makes us more mobile, better at observing the environment in which we live etc. Free will, doesn't seem to add anything. But it might simply be a result of a complex brain a side effect (or mistake) or what to say.
 
Last edited:

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
Person A: Is born with a mental disability that forces them to be in a wheelchair and they need help to make it through the day, obviously, this might sound absurd, but did this person use free will to choose this?
I answered "yes" .. they could choose NOT to use a wheelchair.
What's your point, anyway?

If the person suffers from a mental illness that causes them to do one thing, then they wouldn't do otherwise..
This is nothing to do with the free-will of a person .. it's more to do with how we might be affected
in how we CHOOSE things .. unless of course, the person is a complete "vegetable" .. but
then you are getting into " minority exceptions" .. which is not what the compatibilist / determinist debate
is really about.

Can you choose to WANT to love chocolate if you don't like it?
Huh? How does that have anything to do with our ability to choose?
Either we like it, or we don't .. and we then exercise our free-will in making the choice.

What you are describing, is the degrees to which we are affected by external forces in making a choice.
There are ALWAYS external things to affect our choices.
eg. If I'm driving a car, I might be forced to put on the brakes due to some other driver etc.

Can you choose to WANT to like to kill things?
A person is affected by their environment.
I seek refuge with G-d, from the cursed devil. :)
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Huh? How does that have anything to do with our ability to choose?
Either we like it, or we don't .. and we then exercise our free-will in making the choice.
It does include that.

Because it affects our desires and preferences which we ultimately use when making a choice. But just as the person born to live in a wheelchair had no choice whether or not they were born with such disability (Not whether they want to use a wheelchair or not). We have barely any say in what we like and don't like. If you were raised in China, you probably prefer eating other things than someone raised in the US etc. That doesn't mean every single thing you eat, but culture also affects our decisions, yet we aren't in control of them. Your belief in God could have been completely different had you been raised in another culture. For you to change your mind about that, you need someone or something to cause that, someone with an argument that convinces you about it. Can you choose to not truly believe in God?

If you have true free will this should be possible, right?

There are ALWAYS external things to affect our choices.
eg. If I'm driving a car, I might be forced to put on the brakes due to some other driver etc.
Causal determinism proposes that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. The relation between events and the origin of the universe may not be specified. Causal determinists believe that there is nothing in the universe that has no cause or is self-caused. Causal determinism has also been considered more generally as the idea that everything that happens or exists is caused by antecedent conditions

So you agree with this? The other driver was the cause of your braking right?
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Ok, we probably don't disagree then, at least not on a major level from what I can tell. Sure, animals can learn and remember things and even animals have different brain capacities and can react/adapt to their environment accordingly. We have lots of evidence for this, every dog that has ever learned a trick or a parrot saying things etc. So there are degrees of this, which is also one of the reasons I don't buy that free will could pop into existence and I think if we could increase the brain capacity of cats for instance, they would behave more like humans in that regard. But a fish for instance you can hook and then throw out and wait a few minutes and then hook again, it apparently didn't learn anything. It's not uncommon to find fish with old hooks in them.

So I don't underestimate animals and what they can do, but at the same time we also have to accept that they are not writing books and poetries etc. There seems to be a connection between brain capacity and what a living being is capable of.

Again, I agree, the question is whether free will even exists or not. And from an evolutionary point of view, I could buy it as being a result or offspring or what to call it from curiosity or at least that it played a crucial role in the early stages of how it could evolve.

However, there is still the issue of why something like free will would evolve? To me, it doesn't seem particularly "important" or even connected to evolution. I don't see how free will would be of any concern for evolution or what to say. Eyes evolving, hands, etc makes sense because it makes us more mobile, better at observing the environment in which we live etc. Free will, doesn't seem to add anything. But it might simply be a result of a complex brain a side effect (or mistake) or what to say.
It would seem to me that free will allows for novel types of behavior whether it is good or bad but in evolution novel changes are what create significant changes in evolution. Novel behaviors not predicted by standard environment could lead to improved survival or mate selection. Certainly the amazing variation of behaviors exhibited by the birds of paradise in new guinea suggest that there is some ability to generate variation on the behavior of the male birds choice as it competes with another male bird. A degree of free will to make alterations in behavior would seem a better explanation than a pure deterministic explanation.

What is clear to me that if there is free will it is deeply imbedded in the influences of the environment both internal and external but even a tiny occasional free will behavior can have large impacts based on chaos theory.
So the Norns may have woven our destinies most of which is completely out of control for us but within our destinies we can still exert a small but possibly important impact on the future.

Deterministic explanations work well on simple systems but there seems to be something inherently different in the way complex systems function that cannot be completely explained by deterministic means as in complex neural networks or ecosystems.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Deterministic explanations work well on simple systems but there seems to be something inherently different in the way complex systems function that cannot be completely explained by deterministic means as in complex neural networks or ecosystems.
Can you elaborate on that, what do you mean by a simple system, what could be an example of that?

Certainly the amazing variation of behaviors exhibited by the birds of paradise in new guinea suggest that there is some ability to generate variation on the behavior of the male birds choice as it competes with another male bird. A degree of free will to make alterations in behavior would seem a better explanation than a pure deterministic explanation.
Im not aware of this, can you elaborate on it. How do their behavior differ?
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
It does include that.

Because it affects our desires and preferences which we ultimately use when making a choice..
We are going round in circles..
You insist that the definition of free-will, must include everything, and the "kitchen sink". :rolleyes:

If you want to keep moving the goalposts, then yes .. we have no free-will .. because just about anything
that can be said, can be retorted with a moving goalpost.

We have barely any say in what we like and don't like..
Speak for yourself.

If you were raised in China, you probably prefer eating other things than someone raised in the US etc.
Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

Can you choose to not truly believe in God?
Yes .. by deciding to follow evil, I will corrupt myself.

Causal determinism proposes that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. The relation between events and the origin of the universe may not be specified. Causal determinists believe that there is nothing in the universe that has no cause or is self-caused. Causal determinism has also been considered more generally as the idea that everything that happens or exists is caused by antecedent conditions
That's right .. and it is a materialist philosophy .. one that refuses to recognize anything but the material.
eg. thoughts are a product of the brain etc.

It's not reality .. the study of psychology is a LOT more than exploring "brainwaves" :)

So you agree with this? The other driver was the cause of your braking right?
- - -
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Can you elaborate on that, what do you mean by a simple system, what could be an example of that?


Im not aware of this, can you elaborate on it. How do their behavior differ?
In terms of neurologic systems things like consciousness, emotions, empathy, theory of mind and other phenomena of the nervous system seem to appear with increasing complexity of the neurologic system.

This is one example of an amazing array of bird of paradise dances. They can vary in timing and presentation for an particular species but the variation between species is spectacular.

Another is the Satin bower bird who has not only variation on the dance but also into the design of the "love nest". Again pure determinism seems inadequate without some degree of free will on the birds behalf

 

Stan77

*banned*
@Nimos ;-)

It appears you are being falsely accused of moving goalposts, you aren't moving them, are you? ;-)

Your initial post # 133 was good enough, not sure why you had to edit and add so much.

So how far we in solving free will? Have we started on the a,,b,c's of poetry yet?
 
Top