How do you define Free Will?

[Jesse2]

Determinism vs. Free Will is an old philosophical debate. I am hoping to find any fresh perspective or insight on this issue. I believe that an adequate definition of free will means simply that we have the ability to choose at any given moment. I also believe that each choice is made by a combination of both genetic and environmental factors. No choice can be made absent these factors. I also believe that this explanation negates the need for any type of 'soul' that isn't traceable to neural activity.

What is randomness?

We call the roll of the dice random simply because we are not yet able to scientifically and accurately predict the outcome of a dice roll. We therefore often define the lack of such a predictability as 'random'.

Is there an order behind all chaos?

 

[jasonmccoy]

Take a look at Daniel Wegner's book The Illusion of Conscious Will

 

[Jesse2]

Can you tell me some of what Wegner says?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If there is no free will, it is a convincing illusion..

As I have suggested in the past, everyone who believes in determinism, should proceed to the nearest 10 story building and jump from the top.

Then those of us remaining, will discuss this subject again..

 

[Jesse2]

Well, if free will is defined as meaning simply that we have choices, I'm not certain that we need a determinism at all. If you define free will as meaning that there is something in you besides genetics and environment that contributes to your choices, I would then like to know what that thing is.

 

[Yahweh]

Free will is a term used to describe the conscious ability of someone to make descisions at their own accord. Its completely absurd to believe consciousness and free will is an illusion or to believe in fate or devine will because if that were the case, it would conflict with the Law of Causality (which is the principle of or relationship between cause and effect). Fate and Devine Will are metaphysical, I dont believe in them. Free Will is physical (an aspect of self-awareness), I believe in it.

 

[Jesse2]

Free will is a term used to describe the conscious ability of someone to make descisions at their own accord. Its completely absurd to believe consciousness and free will is an illusion or to believe in fate or devine will because if that were the case, it would conflict with the Law of Causality (which is the principle of or relationship between cause and effect). Fate and Devine Will are metaphysical, I dont believe in them. Free Will is physical (an aspect of self-awareness), I believe in it.

Such spooks as fate or divine will are unnecessary and I agree with your definition. Are choices separable from genetic and environmental factors? If so, how?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Jesse2

I believe that an adequate definition of free will means simply that we have the ability to choose at any given moment.

Would you say that we have the ability to choose what we think at any given moment?

 

[Jesse2]

I don't know. I'm still trying to figure this out, which is why I am asking the question. At the moment, I think I believe that my choices are predetermined by genetic and environmental factors. I don't think that free will is an illusion. I believe that simply defined it means that I have choices. I am not aware of all the things that go into my choice making.

 

[Yahweh]

Such spooks as fate or divine will are unnecessary and I agree with your definition. Are choices separable from genetic and environmental factors? If so, how?

I am unaware of any DNA that is responsible for a person to be able to make choices. (Edit to add) Of course mommy and daddy's genetic material plays a big part in their offspring's particular tastes (especially personality), using that kind of reasoning, you can assume genetics play a part in one's habit of making choices. The ability to make descisions exists because humans are conscious. Consciouness is self-awareness and recognition of the surrounding environment. Humans are able to gather information from the surrounding environment and make decisions from them. "Its a sunny day, I'll go on a walk" or "Theres is a tornado outside, I'd like to go on a walk but I think that would put my physical at risk, I'll refrain from taking that walk" (of course, you realize the cognitive process goes faster than this, it just an example).

 

[Jesse2]

"Its a sunny day, I'll go on a walk" or "Theres is a tornado outside, I'd like to go on a walk but I think that would put my physical at risk, I'll refrain from taking that walk" (of course, you realize the cognitive process goes faster than this, it just an example).

These are learned behaviors. True?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Jesse2

At the moment, I think I believe that my choices are predetermined by genetic and environmental factors. I don't think that free will is an illusion.

I would suggest that you must choose one or the other.

 

[reprise]

Hehe. At the moment, the sequential thread titles read :

'How do you define Free Will?'

'Eating with chopsticks'.

 

[evildave]

Randomness is only lack of sufficient information.

There is near infinite information, and all known means of measuring much of the finer points of this information actually changes it.

Even if you could collect "total" information, you can't possess the processing power to use it. Especially not in "real-time".

Free will is what we have when we make decisions based on incomplete information.

We can choose badly or brilliantly, and anywhere in between.

All we can normally hope for is adequately.

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

The Darwinian Stance!

Take a look at Daniel Wegner's book The Illusion of Conscious Will

Soderqvist1: If consciousness and free will is an illusion, genes for lesser brain must have a huge competition advantage over genes for bigger brain! But here we are with big brains, and for the same reason; consciousness and free will as illusion doesn't fit the Darwinian Description! If stimulus can impinge upon minds, but minds cannot respond to stimulus, this description violates Newton's third law of motion, which states that; there is a reaction to every action!

Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene Chapter 4 - The gene machine
The genes are the master programmers, and they are programming for their lives. They are judged according to the success of their programs in copying with all the hazards that life throws at their survival machines, and the judge is the ruthless judge of the court of survival. Whatever the philosophical problems raised by consciousness, for the purpose of this story it can be thought of as the culmination of an evolutionary trend towards the emancipation of survival machines as executive decision-takers from their ultimate masters, the genes. Not only are brains in charge of the day-to-day running of survival machine affairs; they have also acquired the ability to predict the future and act accordingly. They even have the power to rebel against the dictates of their genes, for instance in refusing to have as many children as they are able to. But in this respect man is a very special case, as we shall see. http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Books/selfish.htm

Soderqvist1: Thus the bigger the brain, or hardware is, the more freedom it has, over its genetic program, software!

Matt Ridley reviews Freedom Evolves by Daniel C. Dennett
"Either our actions are determined, in which case there is nothing we can do about them, or our actions are random, in which case there is nothing we can do about them."

Daniel Dennett to the rescue. The ebullient, pugnacious and ever pithy sage of Boston has written books on free will, consciousness and Darwinism. He now returns to free will with a remarkably persuasive new idea derived from Darwinism: that freedom of the will is something that grows, that evolves. The greater the sophistication of an organism, the greater its knowledge of the world and of itself, so the greater its ability to take charge of its own destiny. A rock has no freedom to choose; a bacterium has very little; a bird has some; a conscious primate has much more; a conscious primate inheriting a rich lode of cultural knowledge has the most of all.

Determinism - the idea that a cause automatically produces an effect - is not, says Dennett, the same as inevitability. This is a surprising assertion, which he spends several chapters justifying, and I think he succeeds.
http://www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/art...den09.xml&sSheet=/arts/2003/02/09/bomain.html

Freedom Evolves by Daniel Clement Dennett
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...1189359/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-1088406-5119037

Soderqvist1: I have 7 books by Dennett; namely, The Mind's I with Hofstadter, The Intentional Stance, Consciousness Explained, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Kind of Minds, Brainchildren, and Freedom Evolves! I have also all Richard Dawkins books, including his last one, namely, The Devils Chaplain. I have also, The Volitional Brain, Towards a Neuroscience of Free Will, Edited by Benjamin Libet, Anthony Freeman and Keith Sutherland; this book is listed in the bibliography of Daniel Dennett's "Freedom Evolves! http://www.imprint.co.uk/books/volitional_brain.html

 

[Yahweh]

These are learned behaviors. True?

Not entirely, you just have to be able to use common sense. (Of course, common sense is sometimes learned through trial and error... "Why is that stove burner glowing red, is it hot, I should put my hand on it just to make sure" )

 

[The Mad Linguist]

The way I see it: our choices are determined by the sum of our genes, our neural architecture, our personality, our experiences, plus (possibly) a certain quantity of quantum randomness. Does this mean that our choices are not determined by us?

No! Because we ARE the sum of our genes, our neural architecture, our personality, our experiences, plus (possibly) a certain quantity of quantum randomness. Take all that away and you've taken away the entire person.

So that which determines my choices is identical with that which constitutes "me".

 

[pillory]

FREE WILL IS BEST DEFIENED AS " DO WHAT YOU GOT TO DO" just kidding"do you what you want to do"
do what you can you

dum,just foerget the whole free will

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I can never get the free will folks to explain how it works. Somehow, I make a decision. Something(s) determined that decision, unless I made a random choice. Whatever that something is, it determined the decision. The decision was determined. Where's the free will?

~~ Paul

 

[Jesse2]

"Its a sunny day, I'll go on a walk" or "Theres is a tornado outside, I'd like to go on a walk but I think that would put my physical at risk, I'll refrain from taking that walk" (of course, you realize the cognitive process goes faster than this, it just an example).

These are learned behaviors. True?

Not entirely, you just have to be able to use common sense. (Of course, common sense is sometimes learned through trial and error... "Why is that stove burner glowing red, is it hot, I should put my hand on it just to make sure" )

I have learned that I don't like to take a walk regardless of whether or not it is sunny out. If I were a storm chaser, I may have learned that I wish to go out and take pictures of the tornado rather than stay at home.

I argue that these behaviors are learned and therefore traced to what I clumsily refer to as environmental factors. Or perhaps I was born not to like walks or to chase storms (genetic cause). This is probably less likely than the behaviors being learned.

I also argue that 'common sense' is learned. For example, the "wild child" in France roughly a few centuries ago enjoyed running out in the snow, naked. The Polar Bear club of modern day enjoys swimming in icy waters. Most of us would agree that it is common sense to wear heavy clothing in cold weather and not to go swimming in icy waters at all.