Does Free Will Exist?

[jonmichael818]

Free will exists and is a combination of chance and deterministic processes. Pseudorandomness may substitute for chance. If your idea of free will cannot be composed of chance and deterministic processes, then it does not exist.

Even in true randomness you cannot have free will, because it is exactly that "random." No free will involved.

Are you a compatibilist?

 

[jonmichael818]

I kinda think if we have a cause, we can choose via freewill which of the variety of effects this cause will have on our behavior.

It is true that we can choose "which of the variety of effects this cause will have on our behavior." By saying, "via free will" you are assuming free will exists, and therefore is not proof of free will. Any choice can be explained by cause and effect, so unless you can get around cause and effect, there is no free will.

Is this your personal opinion? Or is this an established theory. If the latter, can you provide some proof to back this up?

All of neuroscience tells us this. Moreover all of science depends on cause and effect. Consider this:

Causality describes the relationship between causes and effects, is fundamental to all natural science, especially physics, and has an analog in logic. It is also studied from the perspectives of philosophy, computer science, and statistics.-Wikipedia

Can you give an example where cause and effect does not take place(aside from quantum fluctuations and radioactive decay)?

 

[chris4243]

Even in true randomness you cannot have free will, because it is exactly that "random." No free will involved.

Are you a compatibilist?

Hence why I said a combination of deterministic and non-deterministic processes. The non-deterministic processes ensure that you're free from cause and effect; the deterministic processes allow the will to be yours. Furthermore, the effect is amplified by having feedback loops in the brain, so that the internal thoughts get that much more prominence than external ones.

Whether you consider the above to be "free will" or not is up to you, but what is described above exists.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

---First of all there is no evidence that tachyons exist. ---
(clipped)
---So either God is omniscient and free will does not exist, or God is not omniscient and free will does exist.---

I did see something interesting on a public show. Some kind of special test and the video showed an element appeared out of no where and appeared on the test. No where could be evidence.

it's "God is omniscient and free will does not exist". If nowhere exist then neither is right nor wrong. The Easterns have interesting thoughts on duality.

I like the idea of being in two places at once.

 

[jonmichael818]

Hence why I said a combination of deterministic and non-deterministic processes. The non-deterministic processes ensure that you're free from cause and effect; the deterministic processes allow the will to be yours. Furthermore, the effect is amplified by having feedback loops in the brain, so that the internal thoughts get that much more prominence than external ones.

Whether you consider the above to be "free will" or not is up to you, but what is described above exists.

How can two processes that do not give you free will, suddenly give you free will when combined?

Even if you were somehow correct, there is no evidence that I know of that supports this idea.

As to whether or not this is free will being up to the individual is not a very good argument. Anyone could define free will anyway they choose in that case, and debating the issue is useless.

FREE WILL- freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.-Merriam Webster.com

 

[chris4243]

How can two processes that do not give you free will, suddenly give you free will when combined?

It's right there in my definition of free will.

As for proof: Processes can be either deterministic, non-deterministic, or a combination. Free will is considered to exist. Therefore, free will is either a deterministic process, non-deterministic process, or a combination of both.

If you decide you want to define free will to mean "a logical contradiction", that is up to you but don't expect anyone else to take you seriously.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's right there in my definition of free will.

As for proof: Processes can be either deterministic, non-deterministic, or a combination. Free will is considered to exist. Therefore, free will is either a deterministic process, non-deterministic process, or a combination of both.

If you decide you want to define free will to mean "a logical contradiction", that is up to you but don't expect anyone else to take you seriously.

The converse could, arguably, be said of you: you can redefine 'free will' so much that it's no longer a paradoxical concept, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously

 

[Ken-1122]

Jonmichael818 (quote)
“Any choice can be explained by cause and effect, so unless you can get around cause and effect, there is no free will……Can you give an example where cause and effect does not take place(aside from quantum fluctuations and radioactive decay)?"

(reply) Okay! How about today!
This morning I got up to go to work. I looked in my closet and had a choice of around 50 different pants and shirts to choose from but I put on a pair of black pants and a blue shirt. Why? I don’t know; at the time I was think about what I was gonna do at work; so I just grabbed something and put it on.
I then went to the kitchen to fix my lunch, and while doing that I saw some apples and bananas on the counter; I chose to eat a particular banana that was starting to turn black because I like them that way.
I then grabbed the keys to my Honda because I thought it was gonna rain but when I went outside I saw the weather looked good so I went back into the house and got the keys to the Cadillac because the radio works in that car but not the Honda so I can listen to the radio on my way to work; I don’t like getting rain on my Caddy.

Now that is just the first ½ hr of my day and I already made several free will choices; the clothes I wore, eating a banana for breakfast instead of an apple, and the car I chose to drive to work.
Now explain to me how I was forced or directed to make those choices and not something else.

Ken

 

[HAPMinistries]

Free will is not what determines a decision or a next cause. Prior causes and effects produce the next cause. Any decision that is made is made as a direct result of your genetic makeup and environmental upbringing

Incorrect
The cause of thirst brings on a free will decision of beverage, or choice to remain thirsty. The choices are both cold beverage, to something toxic, from alcohol, from uppers to downers, and again, a free will decision to do whatever we choose.

And as far as upbringing and genetic makeup, my dad likes pepsi, my mom likes water, and I like coke.

You may have a fun hypothesis that is viable by a appeal to authority fallacy, but in action, it is debunked.

*No offense, this is just my personal observation. I assume you will disagree.

Right, which means you do not know. So how can you make a statement of certainty when you do not know?

You can say 2+2 must equal 3 or 5, but 4 is the correct answer.
Your 2 choices in answers are wrong.

How in the world can an omniscient god not understand something? This is a complete non sequitur.

Because the decision made, though God would know the end result, God would not understand the reasoning.

 

[jonmichael818]

It's right there in my definition of free will.

As for proof: Processes can be either deterministic, non-deterministic, or a combination. Free will is considered to exist.

Ya considered by believers in free will, which is not proof.

Therefore, free will is either a deterministic process, non-deterministic process, or a combination of both.

Again, determinism does not give you free will, random events do not give you free will. You cannot have an event be both deterministic and random simultaneously, thus how can free will arise from either of these processes?

If you decide you want to define free will to mean "a logical contradiction", that is up to you but don't expect anyone else to take you seriously.

I do not decide to define free will as anything, the definition of free will was around long before either you or I were born. The question is why do you decide to change the definition of free will? Perhaps it is because you want it to exist?

As far as people taking me seriously, I think you will find it the other way around. Once you have researched the philosophical arguments and the physics involved you will see that my argument is widely accepted as a view on free will.

Look it up.

 

[jonmichael818]

Okay! How about today!
This morning I got up to go to work. I looked in my closet and had a choice of around 50 different pants and shirts to choose from but I put on a pair of black pants and a blue shirt. Why? I don’t know; at the time I was think about what I was gonna do at work; so I just grabbed something and put it on.

As for you not knowing why you would choose one of the other I say this, you do not have to be consciously aware that a decision was made, it was made nonetheless. That is how the brain works. The brain does many things that we are not consciously aware of.
If you just grabed and put it on, then no decision was made except that you needed to be clothed for work because if you went to work naked you would not last very long there.

I then went to the kitchen to fix my lunch, and while doing that I saw some apples and bananas on the counter; I chose to eat a particular banana that was starting to turn black because I like them that way.

You answered it yourself, you choose the blackened banana because you liked it that way. Why do you like it that way? It could be many different reasons but here are a couple. Your genetic makeup prefers bananas like that, or it was an aquired taste.

I then grabbed the keys to my Honda because I thought it was gonna rain but when I went outside I saw the weather looked good so I went back into the house and got the keys to the Cadillac because the radio works in that car but not the Honda so I can listen to the radio on my way to work; I don’t like getting rain on my Caddy.

You drove the Caddy because it was not raining and the radio works in it. Why? Because you do not like your Caddy getting rain on it. Why? I speculate it is the nicer of the cars and you like to keep it in good clean shape. Why? Because you like to look good in it or you spent lots of money on it, and so on and so on. There is always a reason, and those reasons can always be ultimately linked to either "nature or nurture."

If it had rained you would have driven your Honda. You have no control over the weather, so basically the weather decided for you.

 

[jonmichael818]

Incorrect
The cause of thirst brings on a free will decision of beverage, or choice to remain thirsty. The choices are both cold beverage, to something toxic, from alcohol, from uppers to downers, and again, a free will decision to do whatever we choose.

To drink or not to drink and what you should drink can be linked to many factors. You want to drink because you need it to survive, You want to survive because it is part of our evolutionary makeup.
You do not want to drink because you are on some kind of diet. You are on a diet because you want to loose weight. You want to loose weight because you want to look good or because of health issues. You want to look good because of social reasons, or you have health issues because of your genes or your environment. And so on and so on and so on....

And as far as upbringing and genetic makeup, my dad likes pepsi, my mom likes water, and I like coke.

Upbringing does not necessarilly mean just your parents influences. My argument is based in the "Nature vs Nurture" understanding of our reality.

-Wikipedia/Nature vs Nurture

You may have a fun hypothesis that is viable by a appeal to authority fallacy, but in action, it is debunked.

Unlikely.
Please take a look at this 5 min video so you can better understand where I am coming from.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM[/youtube]

You can say 2+2 must equal 3 or 5, but 4 is the correct answer.
Your 2 choices in answers are wrong.

Because the decision made, though God would know the end result, God would not understand the reasoning.

Can you give me an example of how an omniscient being could not be able to understand something?
Because I am at a complete loss of how this can be.

 

[Gracchus]

You always do what you want to do. If you have to choose between two or more things that you want to do you choose what you want most. You always do. YOU HAVE TO!

 

[HAPMinistries]

To drink or not to drink and what you should drink can be linked to many factors. You want to drink because you need it to survive, You want to survive because it is part of our evolutionary makeup.
You do not want to drink because you are on some kind of diet. You are on a diet because you want to loose weight. You want to loose weight because you want to look good or because of health issues. You want to look good because of social reasons, or you have health issues because of your genes or your environment. And so on and so on and so on....

The protests that are currently going on began with a man in the middle east setting himself on fire and killing himself, because he could not succeed. Kurt Cobain used a shotgun for dental floss because he did NOT want to succeed. These were individual choices of free will that are so far outside the lines of any 'makeup' that is built to survive that I can not help but bring it to your attention.

Please take a look at this 5 min video so you can better understand where I am coming from.

Here is why the video 'test' is completely flawed. The decisions 'was' already predetermined. It was either the left button, or the right button. So no matter what question was asked, the answer was already left button or right button. Without knowing the questions or his answers, I can say, all left, and be in the 30-70% accuracy to predicting his test. That is just bunk.

Was pushing neither button an option? How about both? No, you gave a yes or no test, that was it.

Can you give me an example of how an omniscient being could not be able to understand something?
Because I am at a complete loss of how this can be.

Just like the test, you want a yes or no answer. The answer is neither.
Is knowing=understanding?
This is why I called it a straw man earlier. The title, 'omniscient', is too simple. You make a simple answer out of a incredibly complex question, then debunk omniscience or non-omnicsience. This never truly addresses 'God', it only addresses 'omniscience'.

As best as I can explain it, God could know Judas Iscariot was going to betray him, but God did not created Judas Iscariot to betray him. Judas Iscariot chose to betray Jesus by his own free will. This was against God's will, but not outside of God's knowledge.

 

[chris4243]

Ya considered by believers in free will, which is not proof.

Definitions are arbitrary, so may be anything as defined. My definition is more useful than yours, because mine isn't just another synonym for "contradiction". Mine is as true and more useful than yours, ergo I'd expect people would use my definition over yours.

I do not decide to define free will as anything, the definition of free will was around long before either you or I were born. The question is why do you decide to change the definition of free will? Perhaps it is because you want it to exist?

free will

 
–noun 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.

That's consistent with my definition.

free will — n 1. a. the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined b. Compare determinism the doctrine that such human freedom of choice is not illusory c. ( as modifier ): a free-will decision 2. the ability to make a choice without coercion: he left of his own free will: I did not influence him

As far as people taking me seriously, I think you will find it the other way around. Once you have researched the philosophical arguments and the physics involved you will see that my argument is widely accepted as a view on free will.

What free will? By your definition it doesn't exist. Why exactly do we need another synonym for "contradiction"?

 

[Ken-1122]

When I said:”then went to the kitchen to fix my lunch, and while doing that I saw some apples and bananas on the counter; I chose to eat a particular banana that was starting to turn black because I like them that way."

Jonmichael818 replied (quote)” You answered it yourself, you choose the blackened banana because you liked it that way.”

(reply) Exactly! And that choice was via free will!
Next I said:”I then grabbed the keys to my Honda because I thought it was gonna rain but when I went outside I saw the weather looked good so I went back into the house and got the keys to the Cadillac because the radio works in that car but not the Honda so I can listen to the radio on my way to work; I don’t like getting rain on my Caddy.”

He replied (quote)” You drove the Caddy because it was not raining and the radio works in it…… If it had rained you would have driven your Honda. You have no control over the weather, so basically the weather decided for you.”

(reply) No! the weather didn’t decide for me, I decided because of the weather. I could have just as easily decided I didn’t feel like going back into the house to exchange keys and driven my Honda to work. That was a free will decision I made; nobody forced me.

Ken

 

[sandwiches]

Here is why the video 'test' is completely flawed. The decisions 'was' already predetermined. It was either the left button, or the right button. So no matter what question was asked, the answer was already left button or right button. Without knowing the questions or his answers, I can say, all left, and be in the 30-70% accuracy to predicting his test. That is just bunk.

If you think that being constrained in your answers is the same as being "predetermined" per your owns, then you obviously do not understand the matter at hand. Or you're being deliberately obtuse, which is more likely. In fact, I can bet that no matter what amount of choices had been given, you'd still claim the answers were "predetermined," as you erroneously called them.

 

[HAPMinistries]

If you think that being constrained in your answers is the same as being "predetermined" per your owns, then you obviously do not understand the matter at hand. Or you're being deliberately obtuse, which is more likely. In fact, I can bet that no matter what amount of choices had been given, you'd still claim the answers were "predetermined," as you erroneously called them.

Let me put it like this, if I was trying to prove that nothing could exist outside of a box, and I did all my experiments in a box, how is that reliable data? The answer was pre-determined, everything is kept in a box, so there is no other option but to conclude everything exists in a box.

That said, how can you understand free will by forcing yourself to answer every question, and only having 2 options. You want to test free will, give people a test with unlimited options, the ability to give multiple answers, or, the ability to not answer at all. If you are going to question free will, take it on. Do not limit and pre-determine a mind, then conclude thoughts are pre-determined.

 

[sandwiches]

Let me put it like this, if I was trying to prove that nothing could exist outside of a box, and I did all my experiments in a box, how is that reliable data? The answer was pre-determined, everything is kept in a box, so there is no other option but to conclude everything exists in a box.

Fantastic. Then we can safely ignore this paragraph as that is not what this experiment was trying to show.

That said, how can you understand free will by forcing yourself to answer every question, and only having 2 options. You want to test free will, give people a test with unlimited options, the ability to give multiple answers, or, the ability to not answer at all. If you are going to question free will, take it on. Do not limit and pre-determine a mind, then conclude thoughts are pre-determined.

Are you saying that people were coerced into answering one way or another?

 

[jonmichael818]

The protests that are currently going on began with a man in the middle east setting himself on fire and killing himself, because he could not succeed. Kurt Cobain used a shotgun for dental floss because he did NOT want to succeed. These were individual choices of free will that are so far outside the lines of any 'makeup' that is built to survive that I can not help but bring it to your attention.

Of course suicide is an option! My intent was to give just one possible option. It would be close to impossible to include all possible variables in my explanation.

Yes people committ acts that are detrimental to survival, but this does not exclude cause and effect. The reason Kurt Cobain killed himself could be that he was depressed. Why? He has a genetic predisposition, or his environmental circumstances.
The suicide fundamentalists often are so entrenched in their belief system that they actually believe it is a good thing. Why? He grew up in a particular part of the world that teaches him that, and he had no control over where he would be born. He could have choosen not to kill himself, but that would have been due to external/environmental stimuli. Again all have reasons and all are hostage to cause and effect.

Here is why the video 'test' is completely flawed. The decisions 'was' already predetermined. It was either the left button, or the right button. So no matter what question was asked, the answer was already left button or right button. Without knowing the questions or his answers, I can say, all left, and be in the 30-70% accuracy to predicting his test. That is just bunk.

Was pushing neither button an option? How about both? No, you gave a yes or no test, that was it.

The test was a simple test to demonstrate that we have the ability to see how the brain reacts when presented with choices. Once we know which parts of the brain react and the manner in which they react, we can accuratly predict what the choice will be before the individual knows.
By not having more options to the test does not invalidate the test, it just means that if there were more options we would have to measure the brain activity with more precision.

Just like the test, you want a yes or no answer. The answer is neither.
Is knowing=understanding?
This is why I called it a straw man earlier. The title, 'omniscient', is too simple. You make a simple answer out of a incredibly complex question, then debunk omniscience or non-omnicsience. This never truly addresses 'God', it only addresses 'omniscience'.

This is not that difficult a question, either god is omniscient or he is not, period.

If I asked you if the sky was blue or red (as it appears to the average human eye) and you said neither, does that make any sense?

You are just dancing around the answer.

As best as I can explain it, God could know Judas Iscariot was going to betray him, but God did not created Judas Iscariot to betray him. Judas Iscariot chose to betray Jesus by his own free will. This was against God's will, but not outside of God's knowledge.

First off I don't believe that story to be an actual event in the first place. Secondly, whether it was of Judas's own free will is a matter of debate. However, for the sake of argument I will use your example.

Whether or not it was gods will is irrelevant with regards to the question of gods omniscience.

My question was to give an example of how an omniscient being could not understand something?