Do we have free will?

[Wiccan_Child]

It makes sense, but I think what you've said is just an assertion that human life is purely physical, which is pretty much tantamount to a mere assertion that there's no free will. I already agree that with purely physical things, input changes output, whether we're talking about baking a cake, or doing a math equation. I can agree that information will cause physical change in the brain, but that's not evidence that there is any change in the decision-making process. You haven't made a connection to the "I" which exercises will. And I don't think you can because we currently don't know where "I" resides. (I believe it resides spiritually in the soul, you believe it resides physically in the brain.)

Agreed.

If you tell me I'm going to say "pancakes", the full extent of the physical change in my brain may only be that I'm aware that a person is telling me I'm going to say "pancakes". And that change only amounts to a potential factor in the decision-making process; it doesn't determine the outcome. Here's how you can see why that's true: if I had determined to say a certain thing before you told me what I was going to say, I could say what I had determined to say regardless of the new information I received. There is no information which could change my action unless I will it, because I could have willed it beforehand, before the input was received, agreed? Even if you bribed me with money or threatened me with violence to say "pancakes", I could not say "pancakes" unless I willed it to be so. Hypothetically, if you threatened me, I could even choose to die for the sake of not saying "pancakes". (Although I had to laugh at the thought of that. )

Hah, martyrdom at its best .

I wasn't arguing why the 'physical-only, no free will' idea is right, only that it's plausible.

And, imagine if the wooden adding machine was conscious. I don't think there's any reason to suppose it would perceive or "feel" that it had will the way we humans feel that we have will. It would know when input pressed one of its rockers that the rocker went left or right, and it would know that that was an involuntary action.

Humans do perform some involuntary actions similar to the machine rockers, for example, food digestion. We do it without consciously deciding to do it. A specific physical input = a specific physical output. And I've never heard of anyone who had deluded themselves into thinking that their digestive system operated by the action of their will. So I'm mentioning that for the sake of contrast. Consider how different the involuntary actions like digestion are from our voluntary bodily actions.

So my point is, if we can perceive a difference between willed bodily actions, and un-willed bodily actions, then willed bodily actions must exist, otherwise there'd be no difference to perceive. Put another way, if we couldn't make decisions, there'd be no decisions to make. And if there were no decisions to make, I don't see how or why we could fool ourselves into perceiving that we were making them.

I disagree. Just because there are two different types of actions, 'willed' and 'unwilled', doesn't mean that one really is willed. As it happens, the unconscious movements aren't controlled by the brain directly; nervous reflexes, peristalsis, etc, are controlled elsewhere. Breathing, blinking, speaking, running, etc, are controlled by the brain. So, perhaps we feel those actions are 'willed' because they stem from the same place our consciousnesses do: the brain.
That doesn't mean we actually have free will, though.

 

[Washington]

In that case why should I entertain your thoughts about anything?

Your problem here is in giving meaning to the idea of "should." "Should" implies option, which in our deterministic world is a non-entity. You will entertain my thoughts or not depending on what the operative antecedent events dictate. You cannot do otherwise.

You were bound by natural events to think what you think, and to type what you typed. Your intellectual contribution is as meaningful as a belch or a fart. I'm putting you on ignore.

(Just kidding about the ignore part. )

Actually, you're quite right. My contribution is only as meaningful as the perception of others allows it to be.

 

[Taure]

That's no answer. How does ignorance create an impression of will?

Exactly as I stated. For example, imagine the conscious adding machine. If it is conscious then it has a will. If it was aware of its coding and every single process which went into addition, it would think this will to be unfree. If it was just a mind that could add without knowing the processes behind the act, then it will perceive its will as free. It will consider itself basic, rather than made up of many complex parts inter-related, and think that this basic "it" is what is deciding the answers to the addition questions, not that the "it" can be broken down into a more complex causal chain which explains its answers more explicitly, without any reference to "just knowing".

Mind you, this is all taking part in the debate I hold to be mostly nonsensical in all directions anyway.

 

[bibleblevr]

And the choice to use or not is an act of will.



Regardless of whatever reasons may factor into my choice, I still have to make a choice.

What we seem to be running into is the diference between will, choice, or decision Vs. the meaning of Free-will. So what is the difference in your opinion?

No one disagrees that we choose, that we have a will, or that we make decisions. I will be interested to see your definition especially since I agree with TAURE that Free-will is a contradiction and can not be logically and reasonable defined.

 

[Washington]

What we seem to be running into is the diference between will, choice, or decision Vs. the meaning of Free-will. So what is the difference in your opinion?

No one disagrees that we choose, that we have a will, or that we make decisions. I will be interested to see your definition especially since I agree with TAURE that Free-will is a contradiction and can not be logically and reasonable defined.

Perhaps not in your prayer group, but how about here on Christian Forums, in the Philosophy forum, in this very thread? Or is this simply a matter of willful ignorance?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No one disagrees that we choose, that we have a will, or that we make decisions.

Err... not quite. This whole thread is about that very question.

 

[Taure]

I would say that its the nature of decisions which is under discussion. That decisions are made is an empirical fact. I just made the decision to type this post. The debate is over what factors lead to that decision, and what this means for the nature of the decision.

 

[bibleblevr]

Perhaps not in your prayer group, but how about here on Christian Forums, in the Philosophy forum, in this very thread? Or is this simply a matter of willful ignorance?

Choice:
an act or instance of choosing; selection:

Decision:
the act or process of deciding; determination, as of a question or doubt, by making a judgment

Will:
the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions

These definitions are from dictionary.com

If you have ever bought a candy bar, then you have made a selection between multiple candy bars (Check off "Choice") You have determined and judged that candy bar to be the one you are going to get ( There's "decision") And assuming you did not make the purchase accidentally, then it was a deliberate action of your mind. ( Will )

If choice or decision were not possible, then how does that adding machine work that was in one of the former pages? it selects a number at the end of the process, and determines through the geometry of the pieces, were the marble will go.

 

[bibleblevr]

I would say that its the nature of decisions which is under discussion. That decisions are made is an empirical fact. I just made the decision to type this post. The debate is over what factors lead to that decision, and what this means for the nature of the decision.

Exactly

 

[quatona]

I agree with Washington here. You seem to be over-analysing the semantics of the phrase, despite the fact that the concept is a valid one. It may be a poor choice of words, but that's just the phrase we use.

So why the heck don´t you describe the concept you have in mind?
When asked to give your definition you said you liked it to be open.
Now, when people use their own definitions and concepts you reply there might be another definition and concept that´s not covered by their analysis.
So give us the concept of "freewill" you would like to see discussed and that you feel is valid. I might agree with you, but until you do that I fail to see how I can possibly discuss it.

Your position is quite clear, but I don't see much in the way of substantiation. It's all very well and good to say people just don't understand the term like you do,

Ok, but weren´t you the one explicitly inviting us to discuss the term in the way we understand it - by refusing to elaborate on the concept you think we should discuss?

 

[quatona]

Err... not quite. This whole thread is about that very question.

Then I must have misunderstood you OP.
I am not disputing that we conceptualize ourselves as having options, encounter ourselves as having wills, making choices and decisions - the question (as I understood it, that is) and in regards to which disagreement might kick in is "Are these wills, choices and decisions "free", and when we say "free": free from what exactly?"

I guess the actual problem is: Do we think there is a difference in meaning between "doing something" and "choosing/deciding to do something"? I don´t think there is.
I just thought of something - in your worldview, is the wording "I thought of something" sufficient, or do you put value in the emphasis "I just chose to think of something"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So why the heck don´t you describe the concept you have in mind?
When asked to give your definition you said you liked it to be open.
Now, when people use their own definitions and concepts you reply there might be another definition and concept that´s not covered by their analysis.

On the contrary, he wasn't discussing a particular understanding of free will, he was semantically dissecting the phrase 'free will' to conclude that it's meaningless. My response was that he was overthinking things, because it's obviously not meaningless: (almost) all of us mean something when we think of 'free will', and it's a safe bet we're all thinking of the same thing. It's like discussing the etymology of the word 'Creationism', instead of discussing the varieties of Creationism.

So give us the concept of "freewill" you would like to see discussed and that you feel is valid. I might agree with you, but until you do that I fail to see how I can possibly discuss it.

Ok, but weren´t you the one explicitly inviting us to discuss the term in the way we understand it - by refusing to elaborate on the concept you think we should discuss?

I was trying to explain that his tone was... patronising. I wasn't criticising him for having his own understanding of the phrase, but rather his dismissive attitude to all other understandings.

If you define 'free will' to be cow milk, then that's your (undoubtedly facetious) prerogative. But, in all seriousness, I should think we all understand what the phrase means in more or less the same way, and the difference is worth discussing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I would say that its the nature of decisions which is under discussion. That decisions are made is an empirical fact. I just made the decision to type this post. The debate is over what factors lead to that decision, and what this means for the nature of the decision.

Which is again semantics. Actions occur, but whether they were decided is unknown.

 

[Chesterton]

I wasn't arguing why the 'physical-only, no free will' idea is right, only that it's plausible.

I understand.

I disagree. Just because there are two different types of actions, 'willed' and 'unwilled', doesn't mean that one really is willed.

I guess you didn't mean to word that the way you did. Sounds like "just because there are 'red' and 'blue', doesn't mean that there is 'red'".

As it happens, the unconscious movements aren't controlled by the brain directly; nervous reflexes, peristalsis, etc, are controlled elsewhere. Breathing, blinking, speaking, running, etc, are controlled by the brain. So, perhaps we feel those actions are 'willed' because they stem from the same place our consciousnesses do: the brain. That doesn't mean we actually have free will, though.

It's irrelevant exactly where in the body the unconscious or conscious movements originate. The question is "do they entirely originate from physical causes"? I think the question of free will is really the question "do we have a soul?" or, "is there anything beyond physical nature that can influence us?"

 

[Chesterton]

Your problem here is in giving meaning to the idea of "should." "Should" implies option, which in our deterministic world is a non-entity. You will entertain my thoughts or not depending on what the operative antecedent events dictate. You cannot do otherwise.

Bald assertion.

Actually, you're quite right. My contribution is only as meaningful as the perception of others allows it to be.

Anyone who would regard a completely natural event as inherently meaningful would be a fool.

 

[quatona]

On the contrary, he wasn't discussing a particular understanding of free will, he was semantically dissecting the phrase 'free will' to conclude that it's meaningless.

While I am not in the position to decide whether this was the case or not, I would like to point out that this is a good thing to do as long as no meaningful concept is presented for discussion, as opposed to the mere phrase.

My response was that he was overthinking things, because it's obviously not meaningless: (almost) all of us mean something when we think of 'free will', and it's a safe bet we're all thinking of the same thing.

Of course everyone who uses the term as part of their worldview can naturally be assumed to attach meaning to it. However, I fail to see how it´s a safe bet or even only a reasonable assumption that they all attach the same meaning to it.
I have come across many different meanings of "freewill" that people have used, and I´m sure I haven´t heard them all yet.
If you want a certain meaning to be discussed, give us this meaning first.

It's like discussing the etymology of the word 'Creationism', instead of discussing the varieties of Creationism.

It seems to me that pointing out the problems of the etymology of the word "creationism" is a good approach to show why discussing all "varieties of Creationism" at the same time is not a good idea.

I was trying to explain that his tone was... patronising.

Personally, I didn´t perceive him as being patronising. I felt his article was a pretty sincere dissection of certain problems surrounding common usages of the phrase "free will", and I found it pretty unemotional.

I wasn't criticising him for having his own understanding of the phrase, but rather his dismissive attitude to all other understandings.

Ok, now I understand what you meant to criticize. I am not sure he was dismissive to all other understandings, but if he was, I would certainly agree with your criticism.
However, I still would like to learn which understanding of "freewill" you´d prefer to discuss over his.

If you define 'free will' to be cow milk, then that's your (undoubtedly facetious) prerogative.

Yes, sure it was facetious - I was exaggerating in order to demonstrate a valid point: There´s not much use in discussing different concepts at the same time just because people use the same term for them.

But, in all seriousness, I should think we all understand what the phrase means in more or less the same way, and the difference is worth discussing.

Since you are so sure about us having sufficient common ground in the way we all use this term (and since I am not at all sure we have), would you be willing to do me the favour of telling me what this common ground is?
Believe me, this is a sincere request. It would help me greatly if you´d do me the favour. Even if it turned out that what you assume to be common ground is actually not common ground between you and me, I still could manage to get an idea on what ground you´d like to discuss (and fro purposes of a meaningful discussion I would be willing to remain on this ground even though I might not call it "freewill").
IOW: I would be willing to igore semantics altogether once I get an idea what concept you would like to discuss.
Whilst in your OP you have just thrown out a term.

 

[Chesterton]

Exactly as I stated. For example, imagine the conscious adding machine. If it is conscious then it has a will. If it was aware of its coding and every single process which went into addition, it would think this will to be unfree.

I don't know that it follows, that if it is conscious it has a will.

If it was just a mind that could add without knowing the processes behind the act, then it will perceive its will as free.

But it is not doing the adding, the adding is being done via it. (By a willful being, mind you. I mean some intelligence has to decide to drop the balls in.)

It will consider itself basic, rather than made up of many complex parts inter-related, and think that this basic "it" is what is deciding the answers to the addition questions, not that the "it" can be broken down into a more complex causal chain which explains its answers more explicitly, without any reference to "just knowing".

But why do you suppose it would incorrectly think it's doing the deciding when it's not? That's what I'm getting at.

 

[quatona]

Which is again semantics.

You almost make it sound like semantics are somewhat unimportant or inferior.
Whilst I think that semantic clarification is a necessary prerequisite for a meaningful discusission (IOW semantics are not a purpose for their own sake, but for the sake of a meaningful discussion).

Actions occur, but whether they were decided is unknown.

What would you consider the criterium for an action to be decided?
What would you consider a sufficient reason to call an action "undecided"?

 

[Chesterton]

What we seem to be running into is the diference between will, choice, or decision Vs. the meaning of Free-will. So what is the difference in your opinion?

As I said I see no difference between will and free-will. An un-free will could not be said to be will. And capability doesn't matter. Almost everyone has a "will to live", and everyone will die. Think of the verb form of "will" - "would". Will is what you "would" do, regardless of whether you can do it, e.g., The Man Who Would Be King.

 

[Chesterton]

no [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]s u dont

See, now what possible physical forces could possibly make a being go to the trouble of signing up on an internet forum just to do that?