Free Will physical or non-physical?

[Soothfish]

Is free will a metaphysical magical force that exists mostly independently from the body (while acting upon it in a limited way) or is it purely the product of chemical and physical forces in the universe?

We'll start with that. Eventually we'll have to question why some people make good choices and other people make bad ones.

 

[Chany]

Is free will a metaphysical magical force that exists mostly independently from the body (while acting upon it in a limited way) or is it purely the product of chemical and physical forces in the universe?

We'll start with that. Eventually we'll have to question why some people make good choices and other people make bad ones.

Define "free will". There are two popular definitions I can think of.

 

[Lopez 15721]

I'd say it generally depends on what you mean by "free will," however, more importantly is what you mean by "metaphysical." Metaphysics is hard to pin point given all the different branches of philosophy that are considered "metaphysical" and especially given the historical context of the word. Since the 17th century, though, "metaphysics" is usually meant to explain the nature of "being." It is meant to explain how we understand things like existence, objects and their properties, the notion of cause and effect, just to name a few. Free will is also one such metaphysical issue.

Although I would say the issue of free will and all it entails is more metaphysical than it is physical, physicality may contribute too. Thus the question "is free will metaphysical or physical?" is a false dilemma.

Free will is more metaphysical, either which way you define it, as it deals with causality, moral accountability, decision making which is related to the brain and mind, etc. The aspect of the physical that could be related to free will would concern that of decision making. Brain scans reveal that brain activity takes place up to 10 seconds before we actually make a decision, unconsciously making our decisions well before we consciously do. That brain activity I would say is purely physical and in fact relevant to the issue of free will.

Such a find implies determinism, too. It implies the truth of determinism moreover. That's the heart of the issue of free will: Is determinism compatible with any sense of free will?

 

[Chany]

I'd say it generally depends on what you mean by "free will," however, more importantly is what you mean by "metaphysical." Metaphysics is hard to pin point given all the different branches of philosophy that are considered "metaphysical" and especially given the historical context of the word. Since the 17th century, though, "metaphysics" is usually meant to explain the nature of "being." It is meant to explain how we understand things like existence, objects and their properties, the notion of cause and effect, just to name a few. Free will is also one such metaphysical issue.

Although I would say the issue of free will and all it entails is more metaphysical than it is physical, physicality may contribute too. Thus the question "is free will metaphysical or physical?" is a false dilemma.

Free will is more metaphysical, either which way you define it, as it deals with causality, moral accountability, decision making which is related to the brain and mind, etc. The aspect of the physical that could be related to free will would concern that of decision making. Brain scans reveal that brain activity takes place up to 10 seconds before we actually make a decision, unconsciously making our decisions well before we consciously do. That brain activity I would say is purely physical and in fact relevant to the issue of free will.

Such a find implies determinism, too. It implies the truth of determinism moreover. That's the heart of the issue of free will: Is determinism compatible with any sense of free will?

It's not compatible with any sense that matters, no.

The only definition of free will compatible with determinism is that of unrestrained will: that is, no impediments restrict the wants and desires. The body is no restrained, the brain is not suffering disease, no one is looming over the individual with threat of extreme punishment and coercing the individual, etc.

However, animals have this. It does not generate moral responsibility and causal origin for the agent. It simply means the agent has wants and desires that it can fulfill unimpeded.

 

[durangodawood]

Is free will a metaphysical magical force that exists mostly independently from the body (while acting upon it in a limited way) or is it purely the product of chemical and physical forces in the universe?

My best guess is that the human will/mind is "built" of strictly physical components.

But its a fantastically complex form allowing for genuine novelty un-tethered to the behavior of any particular chemical or even cellular components.

 

[jayem]

All human behavior is a product of brain circuitry. The brain is a physical organ, which operates according to the laws of chemistry and physics. So all human behavior is ultimately a function of natural physiologic processes.

This means that there is no absolute free will. If the neuronal circuits of brain could be in exactly the same state at 2 different times, then exactly the same behavior will result. However, the brain's circuity is always changing. Neural pathways are constantly being created, recreated, and modified by sensory input. The odds that our brains will be in precisely the same state at 2 different times is vanishingly small. Thus, we can choose to act differently, because our neural circuits are always different. This gives us the impression of free will, but it is relative free will. We don't have free will in the absolute sense.

 

[abacabb3]

Without the existence of the soul, which cannot be demonstrated, free will is an illusion. It is merely a set of calculations that are predetermined by brain chemistry and such.

It seems funny to me that free will is the biggest deal to a particular subset of Christians, though it requires faith to even think that free will is real.

 

[durangodawood]

Without the existence of the soul, which cannot be demonstrated, free will is an illusion. It is merely a set of calculations that are predetermined by brain chemistry and such.

It seems funny to me that free will is the biggest deal to a particular subset of Christians, though it requires faith to even think that free will is real.

Some genuine free will is my current best guess. Thats not faith.

 

[Soothfish]

Define "free will". There are two popular definitions I can think of.

The whole point of this thread is to define it. sheesh

 

[Loudmouth]

Without the existence of the soul, which cannot be demonstrated, free will is an illusion. It is merely a set of calculations that are predetermined by brain chemistry and such.

It seems funny to me that free will is the biggest deal to a particular subset of Christians, though it requires faith to even think that free will is real.

Pre-destination is a big deal to another sect of christianity, that being Calvinism, and that same sect also believes we have a soul.

Beyond that, we don't have the free will to wildly violate the natural laws of the universe. We can't decide that we will suddenly start floating in mid-air, contrary to the laws of gravity. The way I look at it, we don't have the free will to decide which way a roller coaster is going to go next, but we still enjoy the ride. We might as well enjoy the life experiences that we get instead of lamenting a universe that doesn't exist.

 

[Chany]

Is free will a metaphysical magical force that exists mostly independently from the body (while acting upon it in a limited way) or is it purely the product of chemical and physical forces in the universe?

We'll start with that. Eventually we'll have to question why some people make good choices and other people make bad ones.

How does this and the thread title imply you want to define free will? It implies that you want to achieve what the origin of free will is: physical or non-physical. I need to know how you're defining free will in order to answer whether it must have a metaphysical origin or not. How can you descibe the origins of something if you don't even know what it is.

For example, I say: "I have a pet bat. Tell me, was it ever alive?" You say: "Well, is it a winged mammal, a piece of crafted wood, or something else?" I then say: "That's the entire point!" This conversation doesn't make much sense.

 

[Lopez 15721]

It's not compatible with any sense that matters, no.

The only definition of free will compatible with determinism is that of unrestrained will: that is, no impediments restrict the wants and desires. The body is no restrained, the brain is not suffering disease, no one is looming over the individual with threat of extreme punishment and coercing the individual, etc.

However, animals have this. It does not generate moral responsibility and causal origin for the agent. It simply means the agent has wants and desires that it can fulfill unimpeded.

Most would say that defining free will in relation to determinism is the only sense of which the word matters. I'd agree in that the only sense of free will that is compatible with determinism is the type you mentioned, but you leave out a signature part. In order to have those desires and wants one must first have the mental ability to understand the desires. That means that we need to comprehend our actions and our reasons for acting, as well as the fact that our actions have consequences and what those consequences mean. If one lacks that mental ability or is hindered somehow, he lacks freedom of the will. That is what differentiates us from animals is that our mental ability is more sophisticated. That is what entails a sense of moral accountability within a deterministic universe.

Even then the truth of determinism seems undeniable. That either renders free will completely false, or free will is compatible with determinism.

 

[Soothfish]

We might as well enjoy the life experiences that we get instead of lamenting a universe that doesn't exist.

I have a major problem with certain existential questions. The result is that life is anything BUT enjoyable. Hence the impetus for this thread.

 

[Soothfish]

How does this and the thread title imply you want to define free will? It implies that you want to achieve what the origin of free will is: physical or non-physical. I need to know how you're defining free will in order to answer whether it must have a metaphysical origin or not. How can you descibe the origins of something if you don't even know what it is.

For example, I say: "I have a pet bat. Tell me, was it ever alive?" You say: "Well, is it a winged mammal, a piece of crafted wood, or something else?" I then say: "That's the entire point!" This conversation doesn't make much sense.

I have no idea how to define free will. Those two words sounds like nonsense to me. However, Christians constantly bring it up whenever the topic of Good vs Evil is mentioned. So we need to look back at the origin and causality of all things to make heads or tails of this.

 

[Soothfish]

That is what differentiates us from animals is that our mental ability is more sophisticated.

That is what entails a sense of moral accountability within a deterministic universe.

Even then the truth of determinism seems undeniable. That either renders free will completely false, or free will is compatible with determinism.

Many humans on Earth are dumber than other primates. The political realm is clear evidence of this. So it's possible that the terms "free will" only make sense when an individual fully understands everything that the willful decisions will influence. Maybe only a dozen or so people on Earth have TRUE free will.

I don't buy the argument that all humans are born with a divine capacity for free will. It doesn't seem possible when most humans are too stupid to understand anything beyond eating, drinking, sex, and brute force.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have a major problem with certain existential questions. The result is that life is anything BUT enjoyable. Hence the impetus for this thread.

Then find a way to make it enjoyable for you and your fellow passengers. You only get one trip on the Merry-Go-Round.

 

[Chany]

Many humans on Earth are dumber than other primates. The political realm is clear evidence of this. So it's possible that the terms "free will" only make sense when an individual fully understands everything that the willful decisions will influence. Maybe only a dozen or so people on Earth have TRUE free will.

I don't buy the argument that all humans are born with a divine capacity for free will. It doesn't seem possible when most humans are too stupid to understand anything beyond eating, drinking, sex, and brute force.

Your description of humanity is insulting and honestly has nothing to do with free will, in any concievable sense of the word.

Some humans are, but most humans are not. In addition, ignorance and stupidity are not synonyms. An honestly ignorant person is not stupid; they simply lack knowledge.

 

[Chany]

Then find a way to make it enjoyable for you and your fellow passengers. You only get one trip on the Merry-Go-Round.

Could we use a roller coaster analogy? Merry-Go-Rounds are boring.

 

[Loudmouth]

Could we use a roller coaster analogy? Merry-Go-Rounds are boring.

The Merry-Go-Round doesn't have a height requirement. Just trying to be more inclusive.

 

[Chany]

Most would say that defining free will in relation to determinism is the only sense of which the word matters. I'd agree in that the only sense of free will that is compatible with determinism is the type you mentioned, but you leave out a signature part. In order to have those desires and wants one must first have the mental ability to understand the desires. That means that we need to comprehend our actions and our reasons for acting, as well as the fact that our actions have consequences and what those consequences mean. If one lacks that mental ability or is hindered somehow, he lacks freedom of the will. That is what differentiates us from animals is that our mental ability is more sophisticated. That is what entails a sense of moral accountability within a deterministic universe.

Even then the truth of determinism seems undeniable. That either renders free will completely false, or free will is compatible with determinism.

How does one need to understand desires in order to have them? I don't need to understand the biology and neuroscience behind thirst to know I am thirsty and aim unimpeded to fufill that desire. How is that not free?

I agree that our reasoning capabilities enable us to understand our actions, their consequences, and morality. I also agree we need to socially hold others responsible for actions and hold ourselves responsible. However, this is for nothing more than a utilitarian function morally and a reinforcement/punishing force psychologically. In reality, no one is morally responsible beyond the responsibility we place upon them for moral reasons.

The murderer is not truly responsible for his action. He has merely been dealt a bad hand in life: a mix of genetics, past and present environment, and mental states created by those genetics and past and present enviornments, that ultimately led him to murder. Our punishment should only aim to reeducate and rewire the murderer to a more proper conduct and to protect society from a force for harm. It cannot be to punish him for revenge or retribution.