The debate of free will

[dyanaprajna2011]

In the many religious debates here, it's often assumed, especially by the side arguing for religious ideas, that free will is real. But it's not really been debated whether this is the actual case or not, so I'll start a thread on it.

So, does free will exist? If so, how does it work, and what is the evidence? If it's not real, what is an alternative?

 

[idav]

Simply the idea of free will may be enough to make it real. Reason being that if I feel like I have no free will then decisions would be made for me and I would be helpless to cause and effect. Now with believing free will is real, we use the idea to make choices, not feeling as helpless to cause and effect. So just the very idea of not having free will is limiting the self, setting ourselves up for failure.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Oh boy here we go again...

 

[Falvlun]

In the many religious debates here, it's often assumed, especially by the side arguing for religious ideas, that free will is real. But it's not really been debated whether this is the actual case or not, so I'll start a thread on it.

So, does free will exist? If so, how does it work, and what is the evidence? If it's not real, what is an alternative?

There have been a multitude of debates on this.

I think it's one of those questions that just doesn't have an answer. "We don't know" is probably the most accurate response. Which leads us to beliefs. Both sides have reasons for their beliefs. The "no free-willers" claim logic and current understanding of cause-and-effect. The "free-willers" claim experience, and may hold out for new understanding.

Personally, I choose to believe that free-will exists. Yes, many of our actions and choices are pre-programmed or conditioned. I don't deny that. But I think that we do have some control; some situations may allow you more control than others; and some people may be better at exercising their free will than others.

I think that consciousness is the thing that allows free-will to exist. Basically, yes, our consciousness is shaped by the environment in which we find ourselves, but I believe that consciousness is uniquely able to also shape the environment itself. This is what I call free-will.

 

[InChrist]

I think it is obvious we have freewill in some things, such as choosing chocolate instead of vanilla or our response to a given situation, but we cannot choose to do things which are beyond our power or ability, such as create a new planet or jump off a cliff, flap our arms and fly. But I really think the most important aspect of freewill relates to the most important decision which God gives to every human starting with Adam and Eve. Follow God or follow satan. This decision impacts not only life now, but one's eternal destination and freewill is a necessity for this decision.

 

[MD]

There is a poster here by the name of Legiononomamoi who probably knows more about neuroscience and quantum physics than anyone else here and probably has the best perspective regarding free will I've read on this forum.

If quantum mechanics is involved in thought processes (which I think it is) then free will exists, since wave particle dualities are probabilistic and non deterministic. Prominent neuroscientists such as Christof Koch even claim that even insects such bees have some degree of randomness and as such 'free will' in their thought process.

 

[nilsz]

My position on the other hand is that randomness in behaviour is, unlike what free will is often said to be, not a foundation for personal responsibility, but that some degree of determinism can be.

 

[bobhikes]

Here's the deal with Free will.

If it doesn't exist everything is caused so you are no different than a atom, rock, fish or etc.

You will never be able to fully show the caused path because there are to many variables.

You will never be able to predict the next action.

You have to live your life as free will exists, meaning pretending to make decisions even though they are all caused.

Everything happens because it is supposed to happen you can't change it.

You might as well just believe in free will because causation can get you nothing except drive you crazy trying to prove it but it can only do that if its supposed to happen so maybe your OK or maybe your local.:sorry1:

 

[nilsz]

A deterministic computer can make decisions. Why can not a deterministic human?

 

[bobhikes]

A deterministic computer can make decisions. Why can not a deterministic human?

It depends on what you mean as to making decisions. If you decision is a result of all your inputs and can only be the one result from all those inputs is it really a decision. It is an action based on inputs.

A decision would be taking all the inputs, predicting future outcomes deciding which one you like best, the easiest, the fastest or the most challenging solution and then taking the one you like best and not the one you are caused to take.

 

[Willamena]

In the many religious debates here, it's often assumed, especially by the side arguing for religious ideas, that free will is real.

I think it's more observed than assumed. The "nay" side would have to assume it in order to argue it.

But it's not really been debated whether this is the actual case or not, so I'll start a thread on it.

So, does free will exist? If so, how does it work, and what is the evidence? If it's not real, what is an alternative?

As volition, free will does exist. It has been defined in many ways, as the "capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." Combined with the concept of individualism, it is integrally tied to such concepts as autonomy (self responsibility), rights and liberties such as dignity and security of person, and liberty (self ownership).
Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"I act freely when the desire on which I act is one that I desire to be effective." (Harry Frankfurt) That "I enable the effect that I desire" is how free will "works." The evidence is whole civilizations of people that enable effects that they desired.

The alternative is automatons.

 

[MD]

A deterministic computer can make decisions. Why can not a deterministic human?

Because some aspects of our brains are non deterministic.

 

[Willamena]

My position on the other hand is that randomness in behaviour is, unlike what free will is often said to be, not a foundation for personal responsibility, but that some degree of determinism can be.

Irrationality, not free will, is the word for randomness in behavior.

 

[nilsz]

A decision would be taking all the inputs, predicting future outcomes deciding which one you like best, the easiest, the fastest or the most challenging solution and then taking the one you like best and not the one you are caused to take.

Those are not exclusive.

Because some aspects of our brains are non deterministic.

They may very well not be. But could not a hypothetical human that is deterministic make decisions at least as well as one that is not?

 

[Pegg]

In the many religious debates here, it's often assumed, especially by the side arguing for religious ideas, that free will is real. But it's not really been debated whether this is the actual case or not, so I'll start a thread on it.

So, does free will exist? If so, how does it work, and what is the evidence? If it's not real, what is an alternative?

free will is the ability to choose.

So yes it does exist, and it is expressed through conscious decision making.

Animals do not have freewill to the extent that humans have it. Animals are programmed to behave and live a certain way. They are conscious, but not conscious of choice.

Humans on the other hand do not have their life mapped out for them. They daily make conscious choices on what to do with their life, how to behave, and how to live.

 

[bobhikes]

Those are not exclusive.



They may very well not be. But could not a hypothetical human that is deterministic make decisions at least as well as one that is not?

Nothing in the real world is exclusive, but the question was if the outcome only depends on the inputs is it a decision or an action. Understanding that the inputs can only be caused by previous actions.

Nothing is truly random and nothing is not caused. This is determinism is it not? How can you make a decision under those rules? Truth is with determinism intelligence is just an illusion. You actions are directed by previous causes such as the movement of the earth around the sun.

 

[nilsz]

Because your mind operates within a more-or-less deterministic system.

If you are informed that someone is in need of help, you are ideally prompted to assist. The information that was given to you caused you to take action. How could non-deterministic behaviour improve such decision-making?

 

[Sees]

Because your mind operates within a more-or-less deterministic system.

If you are informed that someone is in need of help, you are ideally prompted to assist. The information that was given to you caused you to take action. How could non-deterministic behaviour improve such decision-making?

That last sentence doesn't make sense for me. What other kind of true decision making is there?

 

[Willamena]

Free will exists because we are not our brains.

 

[nilsz]

That last sentence doesn't make sense for me. What other kind of true decision making is there?

One that can theoretically be reproduced through deterministic computation.