How do you define Free Will?

[slimshady2357]

Yahweh said:
Wait, I'm trying to get someone to define free will! It's not predeterminism and it's not randomness. What is it? What exactly is free, and what is it free from?

~~ Paul

Paul, you're on to something, but you won't like the answer.

And btw, you are asking one of the fundamental questions that Franko used to ask of atheists here who believe in free will.

How does that make you feel?

Adam

 

[Dancing David]

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

The reason that I do believe in free will is that there are circumstances where we can loose it.

Obbsession: repetitive thought that cycle through the mind or in the case of depression return to thoughts of failure and death.

Compulsion: the need to act or suffer an anxiety attacks, which is worse than death.

Having been in the grip of obsession, compulsion and depression, I know what loosing free will is like.

Free will the ability to chose our resp[onse to external and internal stimuli. I believe that free will exists but that not all people at all times have it.

 

[Yahweh]

Choices are made by individuals. Genetics and environment are the two factors in our choices. What else is there?

Well, I bet a persons current emotional state could make a difference.

Or an altered mental state. Drunk Yahweh can be just as responsible and make all the same decisions that Sober Yahweh does, but Drunk Yahweh might not listen to his good reasoning side, thats why Drunk Yahweh is still responsible for his actions. (I rarely drink anymore, its just an example...)

 

[Jesse2]

Even their inputs are unpredictable. The gap between ignorance and brilliance is our free will.

Thanks, evildave. This makes sense to me and sounds like something I would agree with. We don't have to do away with free will or call it an 'illusion'.

 

[Jesse2]

In the absence of free will, how could you even define morals. We already give people the benefit of the doubt when they are presumed to be insane.. i.e. " They had no control over what they were doing . . No free will ... " So they are not morally responsible ..

If no one had free will, no one would be morally responsible, and there would be no morals.

It isn't clear to me if you assume there is at least the illusion of free will..

Free will is not absent, illusory or even redefined. Our choices are inextricable from elements in our genetic makeup or from what we have learned from our environment. The law is an imperfect means by which to 'correct' individuals who are some sort of minor or major threat to society or perhaps even themselves.

Of what purpose is moral judgement outside of the law? Perhaps as a tool for social inclusion/exclusion.

 

[Jesse2]

Well, I bet a persons current emotional state could make a difference.

Or an altered mental state. Drunk Yahweh can be just as responsible and make all the same decisions that Sober Yahweh does, but Drunk Yahweh might not listen to his good reasoning side, thats why Drunk Yahweh is still responsible for his actions. (I rarely drink anymore, its just an example...)

Emotional states such as intoxication come about through a relationship with your environment. Simplified, you drank the booze. As for either average or unusual emotional states, cannot these be traced to what you are born with? Which causes escape from "What you are born with/what you learn from or relate with in your environment"

In other words, the perception that your choice is untied to causes is quite similiar to the perception that the dice roll is random. We know that the dice roll is not truely random - it is simply humanly unpredictable. I believe evildave already touched on the notion of unpredictability.

 

[jasonmccoy]

Can you tell me some of what Wegner says?

He suggests that if A: someone thinks something and B: subsequently acts in a manner even remotely consistent with that mental image, then C: our tendency to find "cause and effect" will likely bring us to the conclusion that we somehow willed the action. (ie. I was thinking about food several minutes ago and just now I grabbed a handful.)

However, Wegner is quick to point out that for many, when A: the thought previously engaged in does not precede B: an action within a certain period of time or when the action is very inconsistent with the previous mental images, then C: the actor may in fact deny that he/she consciously willed or had any control. (ie. the disconnection people often experience between thoughts and actions while intoxicated or perhaps the tendency for humans to despite mental pep talks to the contrary (I WILL NOT MOVE THIS PLANCETTE) find upon examination (feedback from muscle tension monitors) that our finger/arms are in fact moving a plastic device across the Oujia board!!!

Wegner also uses examples from split brain research, neurological disease, and several of his own ingenious experiments to highlight how the brain creates the illusion of conscious will!! I found the inserts on "Clever Hans" and "Facillitated Communication" particularly supportive to his
contention.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Free will is not absent, illusory or even redefined. Our choices are inextricable from elements in our genetic makeup or from what we have learned from our environment. The law is an imperfect means by which to 'correct' individuals who are some sort of minor or major threat to society or perhaps even themselves.

Of what purpose is moral judgement outside of the law? Perhaps as a tool for social inclusion/exclusion.

When I speak of ' free will ', choices are what I have in mind.

I alluded to this in my first post in this thread..

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..

 

[Dymanic]

Diogenes, I found that not only was I unable to perform the experiment you suggested, but I was unable to force myself to consider it for even a moment.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Slim said:

And btw, you are asking one of the fundamental questions that Franko used to ask of atheists here who believe in free will.

How does that make you feel?

It makes me want a definition of free will! Everyone keeps talking about it, but no one defines it. Maybe you're all really talking about free willy.

~~ Paul

 

[Jesse2]

Slim said:
It makes me want a definition of free will! Everyone keeps talking about it, but no one defines it. Maybe you're all really talking about free willy.~~ Paul

I like the dictionary definition:

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.

Like most things, free will is something that has a meaning based on context. For instance, If someone has your arms and legs physically restrained without a gag, you have the free will to yell but not the free will to leave the room.

In a general philosophical context, I'm not sure what free will means. I think people who defend the philosophical concept of free will often are defending it on the basis of belief in a 'soul' and/or the belief that a free will is necessary in order to pass moral judgement on others.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Diogenes, I found that not only was I unable to perform the experiment you suggested, but I was unable to force myself to consider it for even a moment.

Then it was obviously ' determined ', that you would not follow my suggestion. It couldn't possibly be about any choice that you made..

 

[Jesse2]

Then it was obviously ' determined ', that you would not follow my suggestion. It couldn't possibly be about any choice that you made..

Of course it was a choice that was determined. I'm sure that the survival instinct played a part in his determined choice. I should emphasize that there are many choices that cannot be explained in simple terms. That does not rule out causality.

 

[Yahweh]

I like the dictionary definition:

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.

Like most things, free will is something that has a meaning based on context. For instance, If someone has your arms and legs physically restrained without a gag, you have the free will to yell but not the free will to leave the room.

Common misconception. If you took this idea and literalized it, then by technicality, all things that can be conceived by humans would exist (its easy to see how that is false).

Free will is a cognitive aspect. There is a such thing as "being held against your will", but although you are restrained you are still able to make decisions, but unable to act on them. Free will is debated as a cognitive process, your physical restraint arguement is not based on cognitive processes.

In a general philosophical context, I'm not sure what free will means. I think people who defend the philosophical concept of free will often are defending it on the basis of belief in a 'soul' and/or the belief that a free will is necessary in order to pass moral judgement on others.

I dont think that is true. I dont see human consciousness (or the aspect of human consciousness called "free will") to be anything magical or supernatural.

(Lets learn a little about Philosophy, the stuff I'm about to say can be found in any book on Ethics)
About the passing the moral judgement on others, morality is subjective (meaning morals are conceived in the mind rather than in the external world). "To have free will" means "to be responsible for your own actions" (remember, free will is a single term to describe many aspects involving human behavior). Many philosophers agree that free will is closely related to moral responsibility.

Free will is defined very much on "doing stuff". Free will is largely involved with the fact that a person is generally presented with more than one choice. In a previous post, I mentioned "the ability to do otherwise" which is one of the reasons which suggests free will.

Free will is also the ability to choose or choose not to do something. People choose on the basis of their desires, not all choices and require moral judgement.

Some people argue that people are can be motivated by a controlling desire, and therefore not able to will freely (an example might be sexual desire). This is untrue, a person chooses how they handle and/or satistfy the desire, the desire doenst shut off their brain and make the person do its biddings. This is why sex offenders are responsible for there actions (yes, the "I had no control over over myself" approach has been tried plenty of times...).

Other people try to say that an external but natural force (such as an implant) can manipulate a person's free will. Its very obvious to see where the flaw in that arguement is, although the person with the implant may have made rational and deliberate choices, they were not made at his free will.

 

[Jesse2]

If you took this idea and literalized it, then by technicality, all things that can be conceived by humans would exist (its easy to see how that is false).

I don't understand what you mean.

Free will is a cognitive aspect. There is a such thing as "being held against your will", but although you are restrained you are still able to make decisions, but unable to act on them. Free will is debated as a cognitive process, your physical restraint arguement is not based on cognitive processes.

Very well. Let us refer to the free will that is based purely on cognitive processes from hereon.

Some people argue that people are can be motivated by a controlling desire, and therefore not able to will freely (an example might be sexual desire). This is untrue, a person chooses how they handle and/or satistfy the desire, the desire doenst shut off their brain and make the person do its biddings. This is why sex offenders are responsible for there actions (yes, the "I had no control over over myself" approach has been tried plenty of times...)..

I have to agree with you on this one. Simply put, if people are not trained to overcome their criminal impulses, something needs to happen (an affect from their environment) to 'correct' that individual.

But there's still this slippery thing about causes. Is there any decision that lacks causal factors? Furthermore, is there any portion of that decision which is free from causal factors?

 

[Yahweh]

Slim said:
It makes me want a definition of free will! Everyone keeps talking about it, but no one defines it. Maybe you're all really talking about free willy.

~~ Paul

Consciouness is "self-awareness". Free will is an aspect of consciousness which says humans do things because they want to.

Some people argue that there is no such thing as free will because humans are not responsible for their actions. They think somehow humans run around mindlessly and are incapable of doing things at their own accord... can you see how that is totally absurd.

(Does that help clarify free will at all?)

 

[Dymanic]

Free will either does or does not exist. This might be qualified by saying that human behavior occurs along a volitional continum; certainly there are at least some behaviors over which an individual has little or no control. But how much control is possible, and over what behaviors, is something that must be determined based on evidence alone; we cannot ascribe to a particular behavior an expectation of a certain level of control because that is what is required to maintain the integrity of our system of moral values; it is our system of moral values which must conform to our understanding of human behavior. Should we discover that human behavior is completely deterministic, the problem this causes for our system of morals must be solved by adjustments to that system, and not by attempts to alter the facts. That would itself be a moral outrage, in my opinion (one that could easily be overlooked of course, if it could be shown that the perpetrators couldn't help themselves. Hmmm...)

 

[drowden]

Free Will is real in the same sense that "sudden events" are real.



Dan Rowden

 

[Soapy Sam]

"Free will is what you think you have when your boundary conditions are beyond your comprehension."

"The stupider or more ignorant you are, the greater your capacity for unconstrained action."

"A moron has all the free will in the world, a genius is constrained by the facts."


-Just a small sample of Soapy Sam's Trite Sayings and Metaphysical Assertions list.
For the full list, write including a self-addressed plain postcard to-
A Philosopher,
Any address,
anywhere.

requesting a random response.

 

[Cinorjer]

The concept of free will must be reconciled with the universal law of cause and effect through time. The thinking goes, that everything happening in the universe now is the result of what happened just before this, and in turn that was determined by what was happening before that, all the way back to the beginning of the universe. Lacking consciousness, the atoms and molecules that make up the universe can not be said to have free will. You must have the "will" before you can assign that property. The universe operates only by action and reaction, leading to more action and reaction, but always in predictible directions. By this thinking, the fact that you're sitting there looking at a computer screen was predestined from the birth of the universe.

So free will is a matter of choice, and that requires a brain capable of making a choice. Of thinking, in other words. So, can our actions be predicted, if we could perform the impossible task of knowing enough about all the factors that enter the equation? In that case, free will is an illusion, but the distinction between this illusion and the reality of our lives is meaningless. It seems, to all extents and purposes, as if we have free will, and we'll never be able to tell the difference.

I would say our free will is a product of our ability to consider the consequences of our actions and direct our movement in the way we want. An atom hit by another atom cannot choose the direction it travels. The sun cannot look into the future, see where it's going to collide with another star, and change its motion.

Geeze, thinking about this sort of thing this time of night makes my head hurt. I think I going to exercise some free will and go watch TV for a while. Or maybe not.