Why some believers and nonbelievers don't see eye to eye on free will

[Mister Emu]

Do you mean to say that a god creates an "I" (a soul?), and the "I" creates his own will, free from instruction of the god?

Pretty much. Though, I believe God has given us instructions, but we are not compelled to follow them. That is God has said "Here is what I would like", not "Here is what you are inescapably commanded to do".

My question is: how does the "I" do anything if it has no will? You say the "I" constructs its own will, how does it do that without "the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions" (definition of "will" from dictionary.com"). Is the "I" mindless, sort of a random number generator designed by this god?

I was not using in the manner, I apologise for the confusion I created.

I was using it more in the sense of desires and preferences: "It is my will that you do this".

Yes, unless the response is random.

Or merely irrational.

 

[PolyHedral]

Or merely irrational.

Irrational things are caused by some reasoning, merely incorrect reasoning. The only thing that has no cause whatsoever behind it is randomness.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Pretty much. Though, I believe God has given us instructions, but we are not compelled to follow them. That is God has said "Here is what I would like", not "Here is what you are inescapably commanded to do".

I was not using in the manner, I apologise for the confusion I created.

I was using it more in the sense of desires and preferences: "It is my will that you do this".

Or merely irrational.

Thank you.

So if I understand you correctly the god designs the soul, and the soul has no desires or preferences. Does the soul have any tendencies? By tendency, I mean "a natural or prevailing disposition to move, proceed, or act in some direction or toward some point, end, or result" (dictionary.com).

The god tells the soul his instructions, but the soul is able to choose whether or not to follow the instructions. How does the soul make his first choice if he has no preferences? How does he choose to do one thing rather than another thing if he doesn't prefer anything over anything? Why would the soul want (prefer) to make a choice at all instead of not making a choice?

 

[CarlinKnew]

I wonder if any theist can fully describe their beliefs on free will when questioned.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Still looking for some theist input.

 

[Skwim]

I wonder if any theist can fully describe their beliefs on free will when questioned.

From what I've seen, not coherently.

 

[Eliot Wild]

I wonder if any theist can fully describe their beliefs on free will when questioned.

I'm not actually a theist, but I do play one sometimes on TV. Seriously, I am an agnostic who leans toward theism. So, even though I may not "count", technically speaking, I do have a theist-based argument for freewill.

I believe that determinism and freewill are models that must be integrated to get a clear, full view of how things actually work. I certainly recognize that classic determinist, cause-and-effect principles operate within our universe.

However, I also believe that mankind represents a break in the chain, so to speak. I believe that the human animal is a freethinking, freeacting, willful, causal force acting in the universe. I believe, perhaps in error, I will admit, that I am capable of producing effects that have no other cause than my creative will.

The universe may force on me certain inputs and processes, it may limit the data I can utilize as building blocks and it may preselect the processes necessary for me to turn that raw data into out-going products, but I am capable of selecting and willing a unique and original idea, concept and/or model that the universe has never seen or experienced.

I don't know, I'm still working on it. I'm flailing about ignorantly for conclusive proof of my beloved freewill, but this is my best argument. Take it easy on me with your challenges and refutations.

Oh, I almost forgot, how does God's omniscience fit into this hypothesis? God knows all that's knowable, but the future that hinges on my freewilled actions is unknowable because it has yet to transpire. I don't believe this confounds God's all-knowing quality. Just as God doesn't know the happy hour prices on Saturn, as there are none, He also doesn't know a future that has yet to occur. Perhaps He is the universe's best guesser . . . I certainly wouldn't want to play Texas Holdem against Him, but he doesn't know with absolute certainity what has yet to transpire.

Of course, this theory was constructed after many Earth-bound happy hour contemplations. And in that regard, many theists probably wouldn't arrive at the same conclusions.



.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I believe that the human animal is a freethinking, freeacting, willful, causal force acting in the universe.

Can you explain what you mean by freethinking, exactly? Free from what? Most (all?) things that exist can be causal forces so I have no argument with that.

I believe, perhaps in error, I will admit, that I am capable of producing effects that have no other cause than my creative will.

By "effects", do you mean: your actions?

The universe may force on me certain inputs and processes, it may limit the data I can utilize as building blocks and it may preselect the processes necessary for me to turn that raw data into out-going products, but I am capable of selecting and willing a unique and original idea, concept and/or model that the universe has never seen or experienced.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that the brain inputs data and undergoes "preselected" (by genetics?) processes to interpret, analyze, and respond to the data. I agree with that. You then say that you are capable of willing a unique idea. I agree that the brain is capable of synthesization; I don't see how that implies free will.

I don't know, I'm still working on it. I'm flailing about ignorantly for conclusive proof of my beloved freewill, but this is my best argument. Take it easy on me with your challenges and refutations.

My only goal is to understand the "free will" mindset.

Oh, I almost forgot, how does God's omniscience fit into this hypothesis?

I don't really want to discuss that in this thread. It may be an interesting topic but I think the plate is already full in this thread.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Can you explain what you mean by freethinking, exactly? Free from what? Most (all?) things that exist can be causal forces so I have no argument with that.

Well, your fist question drives home the flawed nature of my theory. I believe that human creativity is a causal force in and of itself, outside the compulsion of pre-established cause. But as some others have previously pointed out, we don't really know ultimately how the brain works and from where comes the creative product.

By "effects", do you mean: your actions?

Actually, I am thinking more of the product of human creativity.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that the brain inputs data and undergoes "preselected" (by genetics?) processes to interpret, analyze, and respond to the data. I agree with that. You then say that you are capable of willing a unique idea. I agree that the brain is capable of synthesization; I don't see how that implies free will.

These processes could be genetics, as you have stated, or they could be conditioned response.

My only goal is to understand the "free will" mindset.

Cool. I get that. I simply believe that if we find freewill implausibe, then we make irrelevent many human models and constructs that rely on it, such as criminal codes and democratic processes. I am floundering to prove "practical" freewill so I have a reason to vote in the next election rather than assume it is predetermined by a causal universe running smoothley beyond my control. (This is supposed to be somewhat facetious, by the way).

I don't really want to discuss that in this thread. It may be an interesting topic but I think the plate is already full in this thread

Actually, that was my way of allowing for an omniscient being. I was trying to approach the topic from a theist perspective. In other words, how could freewill be possible if God knows exactly what the future holds. I don't believe he does. Therefore, I don't feel compelled to engage in validations on that level.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Well, your fist question drives home the flawed nature of my theory. I believe that human creativity is a causal force in and of itself, outside the compulsion of pre-established cause.

Can you go into more detail? Are you saying that creative thoughts randomly appear with no cause?

But as some others have previously pointed out, we don't really know ultimately how the brain works and from where comes the creative product.

Well, I would say creativity is simply the result of a brain synthesizing pieces of stored data.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Can you go into more detail? Are you saying that creative thoughts randomly appear with no cause?

No. I suppose all thoughts are effects. And I further suppose that some thoughts, perhaps most, can manifest as unwilled effects that stem from predetermined causes. Conditioned response would neatly fall into this catagory, I guess.

However, I believe there are other thoughts that are willed. These thoughts are products of a will that is freethinking, able to selectively choose raw material and processes with which to create, able to learn from mistakes and to select by personal preference.

As I said, I'm still working through this.

Well, I would say creativity is simply the result of a brain synthesizing pieces of stored data

Most likely. That sounds pretty good to me. However, given the practicality of operating under an assumption of freewill, even though the evidence against it is quite compelling, I believe if it exists it might be identified in this synthesis process.

Granted, it might be an illusion, but I seem to be able to will myself to sift and select data and processes to create something wholely unique and original. Perhaps I am just putting too much epistemologic weight on this original product that is unique to the universe. But I don't think it would exist without my freethinking, self-aware will. The chain reaction of cause and effect that led up to the point of creation did not predetermine that particular thought, because it had to be willed by a sythesis I control. Or something like that.



..

 

[CarlinKnew]

No. I suppose all thoughts are effects. And I further suppose that some thoughts, perhaps most, can manifest as unwilled effects that stem from predetermined causes. Conditioned response would neatly fall into this catagory, I guess.

However, I believe there are other thoughts that are willed.

I just want to be as clear as possible so I can understand. Can you explain what you mean by a thought that is "willed" or "unwilled"? In my view, a thought is simply an act or result of thinking.

These thoughts are products of a will that is freethinking, able to selectively choose raw material and processes with which to create, able to learn from mistakes and to select by personal preference.

And you believe learning and personal preference are not results of conditioning? I ask because you classify conditioned responses as "unwilled".

As I said, I'm still working through this.

I commend you for that. I don't think any free will advocate has worked through it.

 

[Eliot Wild]

I just want to be as clear as possible so I can understand. Can you explain what you mean by a thought that is "willed" or "unwilled"? In my view, a thought is simply an act or result of thinking.

A willed thought would be one that is selected from an infinite number of sources and constructed from as likely many processes. The infinite number of processes I'm not so sure about. But we certainly have an infinite number of variables with which to work in "willing" some thoughts. I believe the creative product might be an example of this.

I have control over my output. I have control over selection of data and selection of processes, or so it seems. A thought is certainly an act or result of thinking. But don't you have some form of limited "willed" control over your thoughts, at least some of them?

And you believe learning and personal preference are not results of conditioning? I ask because you classify conditioned responses as "unwilled".

I don't believe all thoughts HAVE to be the result of conditoning.

I commend you for that. I don't think any free will advocate has worked through it.

I certainly don't believe I have at this point. Again, I understand how difficult it is to disprove or even circumvent classical cause-and-effect determinism. It certainly appears every single event and act that occurs in our universe is the result of a cause that was pre-established by a preceding cause that was pre-established and was likewise preceded by a former cause and so on and so on.

However, I believe the human mind might represent a break in classical determinism. It so keenly appears to me that freewill is a practical model on which to gage our behavior, and it also is an absolutely necessary model on which we base many of our human social systems, such as criminal law codes and democratic forms of government, it seems practical as well for me to try to validate it. At least that was my initial thought, which I believe I am free to reject or act on.

As an irrereverent agnostic jerk I am certainly not choosing sides yet. I have found no conclusive proof of Freewill, at least no proofs that have manifested in purlely academic debates and/or discussions like this one. However, like some other postulates which we assume are true because we've never observed them to be untrue, the very fact that freewill is a more practical model to assume than determinism gives me reason to attempt to reason it out.

I daresay nobody, not even the staunchest determinist, has met any relative success by acting under the assumed contraints of a purely determinist model. Nobody, in all practicality and everyday application, walks around thinking they have no influence over their actions and all choices result as predetermined effects beyond their control. That simply isn't a practical way to behave and live.

However, in this particular case, I was responding to allegations that no theists had ever made a reasonably coherent argument in favor of freewill. I certainly don't think I have proven freewill, by any stretch of the imagination, but I believe I can and have made some compelling points that are cogent and coherent based on a theist-style model, one that attempts to prove freewill without rejecting or challenging the proposition of the divine.

There are a few things that I find bothersome about classical determinism, and I have yet to compile enough material to author a book on the topic, but they go something like this:

1. We lack insufficient knowledge of how the brain ultimately works and whence comes all its products to verifiably say that there is no freethinking, freeacting Will influencing our outputs, at least I think so. But I'm no psychologist or expert on human brain activity. We are stuck with data the universe provides us and the processes that genetics and other natural causes have forced on us, but the human mind seems to be capable of learning, rejecting and selecting, and producing wholely unique thoughts. I find the uniqueness and originality of our products to be somewhat compelling evidence, though not conclusive proof, of freewill.

2. The practicality of assuming a freewill model. I know of no one who conducts themselves as if they have no control over their outputs and actions. This by itself seems to provide reason to better understand this area of espistemology.

3. Infinite variables. The fact that there are an infinite number of variables from which I can choose to construct and systhisize my thoughts seems to validate freewill. Again, this is not meant to be proof, in any way. I just find these particular elements to be bothersome and nagging.

4. The fact that some of my thoughts go through a seemingly controlled and willed process of synthesis rather than manifesting as reactions/responses. Boo!!! Suprise me, and yes, I will react with limited control. Ask me to write a poem ode to any number between one and infinity, and I will be able to assert control over my output.

Again, this is nothing conclusive, I realize that. However, I hope it is somewhat coherent with at least a few valid points.

 

[CarlinKnew]

A willed thought would be one that is selected from an infinite number of sources and constructed from as likely many processes.

What are these infinite sources from which thoughts are selected? In my view a thought (which is a function of the brain) is an act or result of processing data that is stored in the brain.

What is an unwilled thought?

The infinite number of processes I'm not so sure about. But we certainly have an infinite number of variables with which to work in "willing" some thoughts. I believe the creative product might be an example of this.

I have control over my output. I have control over selection of data and selection of processes, or so it seems. A thought is certainly an act or result of thinking. But don't you have some form of limited "willed" control over your thoughts, at least some of them?

My brain has conscious and subconscious thoughts. In both cases, my brain is doing the thinking, and my brain is subject to the same laws of physics as everything else. At least, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

I don't believe all thoughts HAVE to be the result of conditoning.

To clarify, you classified conditioned responses as "unwilled". Then you said an example of a willed thought is one based on learning and preferences. I ask: are the acts of learning and developing preferences not examples of conditioning?

...That simply isn't a practical way to behave and live...

In this thread I don't want to get into the implications of whether or not we have free will. I want to understand your understanding of free will and why you believe we have it. I know this seems to be your main reason:

...the human mind seems to be capable of learning, rejecting and selecting, and producing wholely unique thoughts.

But why do you believe those processes are free from cause and effect? Hopefully your answers to the questions I asked above will shed some light.

 

[Eliot Wild]

What are these infinite sources from which thoughts are selected?

Data. Variables. Material the universe provides that we learn and store in our personal data bases. I can choose to include in a poem or other creative work any number between one and infinity. Mathmatics is my best example of an infinite number of variables and sources from which I can construct thoughts. I can write a poem ode to the number 2,345,987,345,987,654,009,345,765,901. And then afterward, sit back down and construct a poem ode to the next number following it in succession, then follow that with a poem ode to the next number in succession, and so on and so on.

In my view a thought (which is a function of the brain) is an act or result of processing data that is stored in the brain.

I understand that. And you may be correct. However, I believe because we lack sufficient knowledge of how the brain ultimately works, I personally am not so sure that you are correct. I believe creative thoughts, and perhaps even some others that can't be defined as such, might be products of a freeacting, self-aware will manipulating inputs to form outputs that are not predetermined.

What is an unwilled thought?

An unwilled thought would be something like conditioned response. If you suddenly startle me, I will react with a conditioned or even genetically-influenced response. When I react to physical needs, I am engaging sometimes, perhaps most of the time, in "unwilled" thoughts. If hungry, I may not be able to get the notion of a sloppy cheeseburger out of my head.

These thoughts that manifest as response to stimuli are "unwilled", at least it seems to me. Again, however, I am no expert on how the brain works.

My brain has conscious and subconscious thoughts. In both cases, my brain is doing the thinking, and my brain is subject to the same laws of physics as everything else. At least, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

I have never said it wasn't. I don't understand your point. Just because the laws of physics plays a part in preselecting the data and processes you are forced to work with, I don't feel that is sufficient proof to demand determinism. I believe there are other forces as work, specifically a freewilled, freeacting, self-aware will that can arrange, re-arrange, manipulate, select, reject and create to its own preference a unique/original thought.

To clarify, you classified conditioned responses as "unwilled". Then you said an example of a willed thought is one based on learning and preferences. I ask: are the acts of learning and developing preferences not examples of conditioning?

They can be. I don't think anyone has conclusively proven to me that they MUST be.

In this thread I don't want to get into the implications of whether or not we have free will. I want to understand your understanding of free will and why you believe we have it. I know this seems to be your main reason:


But why do you believe those processes are free from cause and effect? Hopefully your answers to the questions I asked above will shed some light.

I think this is where we are missing each other. And perhaps it is also the lack of a really good, fixed definition of freewill.

I don't believe that those processes are free from cause and effect. I don't believe I've ever said that. But I believe we might have a freethinking, freeacting self-awareness that operates solely under our own control outside of predetermined cause that wills particular thoughts, or at least is capable of influencing thoughts.

Besides, what practical application comes from operating under the assumption that our choices are realistically beyond our control? It seems to me that it is only practical for me to operate as if freewill is the reality. I realize my arguments certainly can't be held up as proof of freewill, but I don't like operating under some sort of disconnect. If it is more practical for me to act as if I have freewill, then I certainly want to understand why that is so.

Please forgive me, but no more questions, please. I don't think I can really cover this any more clearly than I have already. My arguments are certainly riddled with holes and questions, I understand.

As I said, I am not prepared to try to offer conclusive proof one way or the other. I was simply responding to an allegation that no theist had ever made a rational argument in favor of freewill. While I may be ultimately incorrect, I don't think it is irrational to try to find evidence for freewill since operating under the assumption that it exists certainly seems practical to me.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Please forgive me, but no more questions, please. I don't think I can really cover this any more clearly than I have already. My arguments are certainly riddled with holes and questions, I understand.

It certainly isn't clear to me but thanks anyway.

 

[True Faith]

Here are two perspectives on free will, an atheist's and a theist's. For the sake of argument, they both assume that a god exists, the god is responsible for what he causes to happen, and the god creates a person named Jim.

Atheist's perspective:
1. The god designs Jim's brain/soul/will.
2. The god designs Jim's environment.
3. Jim's behavior is the result of his brain/soul/will interacting with the environment.
Conclusion: The god is responsible for Jim's behavior.

Theist's perspective:
1. The god designs Jim's brain/soul/will.
2. The god designs Jim's environment.
3. Jim's behavior is the result of his brain/soul/will interacting with the environment.
4. Magic? *
Conclusion: The god is not responsible for Jim's behavior.

* Help me comprehend this reasoning!I'd like to understand the theist's point of view.

Doesn't atheist disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods?
The big difference between atheist & theist is:
atheist doesn't believe in God's religions but he follows His own beliefs/theories, theist/believers trust, surrender and believe 100% in God, his scriptures and his messengers.

 

[Skwim]

Doesn't atheist disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods?

Yes, but in this exercise the atheist is accepting god as a hypothetical. He's going along with the idea, not actually believing it.

The big difference between atheist & theist is:
atheist doesn't believe in God's religions but he follows His own beliefs/theories, theist/believers trust, surrender and believe 100% in God, his scriptures and his messengers.

It's even more radical than this. Not only doesn't the atheist believe in "God's religions," he doesn't believe there's any god of any religion.

 

[Benoni]

Man does not have a freewill towards salvation.

 

[Skwim]

Man does not have a freewill towards salvation.

Or toward anything else. But that's a whole other story.