Should we believe in Free Will?

[Nakosis]

Aside from these studies, which I would love to see (Got a link or two?), like the comfort of religion that so many need for getting through life, I can see a real comforting need to believe one has an actual say in what they think and do. So, although freewill is an illusion, the illusion does have a valuable purpose.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cc72/53b2b7e7f0d68f6f31b65cfea7879f2705ad.pdf

Yup. Many people simply don't have the strength to accept determinism, particularly when it undercuts the core of their religious belief.
.
.

Your statement seems to imply that folks have a choice in what they believe.

 

[Curious George]

That is the concept of determinism, basically, in a nutshell.

It's perhaps better to explain your coin flip in terms of entropy. There are really no random events however they may seem. It is rather impossible to collect enough data to tabulate the outcomes or predict something accurately, but random? No, never. A full discussion of entropy would be far too in-depth for a forum post, so I'll leave it on the readers to research if they care.

It'd also be predetermined whether you picked head or tails, tossed the coin or shook it in a container, or what force you used and where it landed as well as how it did, Basically, free will and randomness are beliefs - they can't be proven. Determinism has the other problem in that it cannot be disproved and any attempts to do so only show our lack of data.

Nope, neither can determinism be proved.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

According to studies, belief in determinism can cause both immoral behavior and general unhappiness. Is it then better to believe in free will even if it is a lie?

Or is Sam Harris right? Is it better to accept the "truth" (according to scientific understanding) of determinism.

When people hear there is no free will, they wrongly become fatalistic; they think their efforts will make no difference. But this is a mistake. People are not moving toward an inevitable destiny; given a different stimulus (like a different idea about free will), they will behave differently and so have different lives. If people better understood these fine distinctions, Harris believes, the consequences of losing faith in free will would be much less negative than Vohs’s and Baumeister’s experiments suggest.

There’s No Such Thing as Free Will

Belief can change our lives? But, are we free to choose what we believe?

Seems to me it's hard to escape a need for indeterminism, at least the belief in it, for the sake of civilization.

The universe was built by God, if God exists, for the one and only purpose to share or impart free will with fully self-aware creatures, such as we. God could have done anything else instantly instead of taking 14 billion years

Scientific determinism is a sham holdover from a total misreading of quantum mechanics into the bogus Copenhagen interpretation. Knowledge of a photon is revealed not by conscious observation, but when it is absorbed--by a retina, an instrument, or a rock...it's all the same to it:

 

[`mud]

Sometimes the coin lands on it's edge !
Then it's anyone's choice !

 

[Nakosis]

Not even reading past this point. What studies? Let's have your sources.

The studies are referenced in the link and a direct link is supplied in my response to Skwim.

 

[Skwim]

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cc72/53b2b7e7f0d68f6f31b65cfea7879f2705ad.pdf

Thanks.

Your statement seems to imply that folks have a choice in what they believe.

Certainly didn't mean to.

CORRECTION.

On rereading it, I may have done just that. It's very difficult to talk about people doing this rather than not doing that without the presumption of choice. It's one of those things I have no choice about doing or not doing. I'm a slave to determinism, and can only go along for all the unexpected turns and twists in the ride.

.

.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

The studies are referenced in the link and a direct link is supplied in my response to Skwim.

Yes I read it. Too problematic to warrant serious discussion.

As per the OP, think of it like this.

Billions of years of motion affecting motion, setting off incredibly complex waves of cause and effect spreading out nearly infinitely until at some point in the relatively recent past all of that stopped, but just for us.

That sir is a very extraordinary claim.

 

[Mindmaster]

Apparently being and believing your actions make a difference is necessary.

Fatalism is the belief that your actions don't make a difference.

However do people have a choice to believe that or is their belief determined?

Conditioned, as many people in dharmic religious backgrounds likely never develop the association. Also, such notions are not found in many native folk religions.

I never really thought of it so much in a religious context, but maybe the free will illusion is simply to sell the popular religions. I mean, you can't sin if it's not your choice right? Western cultures are heavily affected by moral and personal beliefs from Christianity, for example. While you may not believe in sin, you still believe in the agent of it - neither can be proven either way.

 

[`mud]

Freewill is valued unless one cheats.
Or when a coin lands on it's edge,
and that could be because of cheating.
But I doubt that the man in the sky has anything to do with it !

 

[shunyadragon]

In determinism the concept of no 'free will' is not the only option. Compatibilism where there is limited free will (Dennett describes it a wiggle room in the decision making process.) is also an option. I prefer the scientific determinism over philosophical determinism.

 

[Nakosis]

The universe was built by God, if God exists, for the one and only purpose to share or impart free will with fully self-aware creatures, such as we. God could have done anything else instantly instead of taking 14 billion years

Scientific determinism is a sham holdover from a total misreading of quantum mechanics into the bogus Copenhagen interpretation. Knowledge of a photon is revealed not by conscious observation, but when it is absorbed--by a retina, an instrument, or a rock...it's all the same to it:

Ok, but the point is, regardless of whether determinism is true or not, folks who believe in free will are generally better behaved.

The argument being that belief in determinism leads to a belief in fatalism which according to determinist this is wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The truth is that regardless of where we say we stand we all still believe in free will.

I am agnostic and ignostic here. First, we need to define what we are calling free will. If it is merely the experience of having a desire and unfettered access to making it a reality, then free will obviously exists

For me, the discussion is really only meaningful if by possessing free will we mean that we are the authors of that which we will. And I am referring to the self-aware self, not the parade of conscious phenomena passing before it including urges and desires, nor the neural substrate generating them.

That seems unlikely. We appear to be the passive recipients of the urges and desires of extra-conscious neural circuits that inform us from without of what it is we want, and we accept those instructions unquestioningly, and execute them without further consideration unless different neural circuits send conflicting messages, such as one say that I don't want that cigarette that another part of the brain says I do want.

Regarding that second understanding of free will, I'm agnostic, but lean toward believing that it is an illusion.

Please actually find the research that supports determinism

Neither determinism or indeterminism allow for free will as I just defined it above. It doesn't matter whether the process that generated that which we will was one or the other. Even if indeterministic, it still doesn't make the self the author of this desires - just the passive vector that observes them being executed.

I'm not really arguing for or against determinism. Assuming determinism is true, for the sake of the argument, is it still better to believe in free will?

Now we can get to your central point: I believe that it's better to think and act as if our choices matter whether they are really ours or not.

 

[idav]

According to studies, belief in determinism can cause both immoral behavior and general unhappiness. Is it then better to believe in free will even if it is a lie?

Or is Sam Harris right? Is it better to accept the "truth" (according to scientific understanding) of determinism.

When people hear there is no free will, they wrongly become fatalistic; they think their efforts will make no difference. But this is a mistake. People are not moving toward an inevitable destiny; given a different stimulus (like a different idea about free will), they will behave differently and so have different lives. If people better understood these fine distinctions, Harris believes, the consequences of losing faith in free will would be much less negative than Vohs’s and Baumeister’s experiments suggest.

There’s No Such Thing as Free Will

Belief can change our lives? But, are we free to choose what we believe?

Seems to me it's hard to escape a need for indeterminism, at least the belief in it, for the sake of civilization.

When it ccomes mes to free will and determinism both are true. We know that causality takes precedence however we also have the ability to see and predict different futures and paths. It’s this knowledge that really takes precedence, so to say it is more knowledge of determinism that gives real choices, knowing doesn’t take away options it leaves them open. It’s basically saying that determinism is a tool that can be used in our advantage with an ability to see and predict different futures. That’s what I think Sam Harris is getting at. Choices make a difference and knowing their causality doesn’t change that but it is true we can’t change the past which is the only place that determinism has us in its grips.

 

[Curious George]

I am agnostic and ignostic here. First, we need to define what we are calling free will. If it is merely the experience of having a desire and unfettered access to making it a reality, then free will obviously exists

For me, the discussion is really only meaningful if by possessing free will we mean that we are the authors of that which we will. And I am referring to the self-aware self, not the parade of conscious phenomena passing before it including urges and desires, nor the neural substrate generating them.

That seems unlikely. We appear to be the passive recipients of the urges and desires of extra-conscious neural circuits that inform us from without of what it is we want, and we accept those instructions unquestioningly, and execute them without further consideration unless different neural circuits send conflicting messages, such as one say that I don't want that cigarette that another part of the brain says I do want.

Regarding that second understanding of free will, I'm agnostic, but lean toward believing that it is an illusion.



Neither determinism or indeterminism allow for free will as I just defined it above. It doesn't matter whether the process that generated that which we will was one or the other. Even if indeterministic, it still doesn't make the self the author of this desires - just the passive vector that observes them being executed.



Now we can get to your central point: I believe that it's better to think and act as if our choices matter whether they are really ours or not.

By free will I mean any measure of conscious control. Without such we lapse into solipsism.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

According to studies, belief in determinism can cause both immoral behavior and general unhappiness. Is it then better to believe in free will even if it is a lie?

I think that soft determinism provides a reasonable middle way between fatalism and 'free will'. I am not saying that as wishful thinking or out of utility. Soft determinism means we have a degree of agency. We simply don't have enough to control what we find ourselves confronting. We still determine how we meet it in a softly deterministic framework.

Belief can change our lives? But, are we free to choose what we believe?

We each know what convinces us of the truth as we think it. If we don't know what convinces us- we haven't given our beliefs enough thought.

If a person has given his/her beliefs enough thought to know why they're convinced, then right or wrong- they've done all that can be reasonably expected.

Seems to me it's hard to escape a need for indeterminism, at least the belief in it, for the sake of civilization.

Interesting finding the need for belief isn't it? I think people should note that need before reaching the problem of determinism. How about the problem of human worth, grounding of rights, and moral consistency? There is as of yet, no satisfactory materialist explanation for any of those things.

Whenever I acknowledged that, I went from atheism to belief. Yes, it can in fact happen. I acknowledged I needed belief in something.

 

[Mindmaster]

Ok, but the point is, regardless of whether determinism is true or not, folks who believe in free will are generally better behaved.

The argument being that belief in determinism leads to a belief in fatalism which according to determinist this is wrong.

I disagree with this first point in only that most of the moral beliefs we have aren't things we chose to participate in, thus suddenly realizing the ego is a construct wouldn't automatically preclude us from the effects of our conditioning. Even if we knew it was all made up, we'd still basically live the same way. There isn't a history of Guru's in India going on homicidal rages after they find enlightenment and curb their egos, for example. If anything, we can argue that the ego itself is the means of destruction falsely taking credit for ones beliefs and thereby prompting the responses out of fear that are largely undesirable.

 

[Nakosis]

I think that soft determinism provides a reasonable middle way between fatalism and 'free will'. I am not saying that as wishful thinking or out of utility. Soft determinism means we have a degree of agency. We simply don't have enough to control what we find ourselves confronting. We still determine how we meet it in a softly deterministic framework.

How is this different than saying we choose how to meet what is confronting us? If the argument of determinism is there is no choice?

We each know what convinces us of the truth as we think it. If we don't know what convinces us- we haven't given our beliefs enough thought.

If a person has given his/her beliefs enough thought to know why they're convinced, then right or wrong- they've done all that can be reasonably expected.

I'm pretty flexible with the truth. I'm not really 100% convinced of anything. I see the truth as being able to change from moment to moment and I don't assume to have complete knowledge of what that truth happens to be in that moment. I also find myself being fairly flexible in my beliefs. Belief ends up being what I will myself to believe.

Interesting finding the need for belief isn't it? I think people should note that need before reaching the problem of determinism. How about the problem of human worth, grounding of rights, and moral consistency? There is as of yet, no satisfactory materialist explanation for any of those things.

Whenever I acknowledged that, I went from atheism to belief. Yes, it can in fact happen. I acknowledged I needed belief in something.

It's hard to escape the implications of free will being part of our normal thinking/speech. Even by hard determinists.

 

[Nakosis]

I disagree with this first point in only that most of the moral beliefs we have aren't things we chose to participate in, thus suddenly realizing the ego is a construct wouldn't automatically preclude us from the effects of our conditioning. Even if we knew it was all made up, we'd still basically live the same way. There isn't a history of Guru's in India going on homicidal rages after they find enlightenment and curb their egos, for example. If anything, we can argue that the ego itself is the means of destruction falsely taking credit for ones beliefs and thereby prompting the responses out of fear that are largely undesirable.

Are Indian Gurus determinists?

Choice seems limited but still it seems necessary to leave some wiggle room.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

How is this different than saying we choose how to meet what is confronting us? If the argument of determinism is there is no choice?

The argument of determinism can go two ways. Hard determinism and soft determinism is how they tend to be termed by philosophers. Hard determinism means you cannot control anything. Not even create variables in reacting to situations.

Soft determinism acknowledges you have some freedom, but not in choosing your will that causes you to act. However, you might act in several different ways to solve a problem. There is choice there. It simply isn't will.

Another point to consider is that knowledge enables us to defy fatalism. If fatalism were true, we shouldn't ever be able to fly. Yet knowledge makes us able to fly. Still, that knowledge does not give us all control.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

It's hard to escape the implications of free will being part of our normal thinking/speech. Even by hard determinists.

What people mean by 'will' seems a wrong definition. One can act on will- but choose will? Do you know anyone that willed their will? IE: if your desire is to cool off- did you have some agency in wanting to do that? Or did the outside agent of heat determine your will to do so?

If choice is what people mean by will- calling it choice is accurate, and we do have that.

 

[Nakosis]

Freewill is valued unless one cheats.
Or when a coin lands on it's edge,
and that could be because of cheating.
But I doubt that the man in the sky has anything to do with it !

Purely secular discussion, hopefully.