Free Will: Yea or Nay?

[Audacious]

Do we actually choose our decisions, or are they chosen for us? Is our "rational" thought shaped merely by genetics, biochemistry, personal experience and other aspects of neurology, or are we capable of coming up with thoughts "for ourselves"? What the heck does that even mean?

What gives us our capacity for rational thought? Does Becky make good decisions because of her neurology and personal experiences and exposure to ideas, or do these things only contribute to some kind of overall capacity for reason?

I'm honestly somewhere in the middle here. On one hand, I think that our brains are, essentially, organic computers -- they're biochemical reactions within a neurological structure which reacts to outside stimuli and data. On the other hand, we obviously possess some kind of ability to come to conclusions based upon that data that is not merely some kind of impulsive reaction; yes, our brain's processes are inherently reactions of some kind, but that doesn't mean that they're immediate or that our higher-order thinking is formed for us.

Neurologically speaking, free will or lack thereof is an unproven hypothesis at best, so for now we're just going to have to settle with somewhat educated philosophical speculation.

 

[Golden Yak]

Do we actually choose our decisions, or are they chosen for us? Is our "rational" thought shaped merely by genetics, biochemistry, personal experience and other aspects of neurology, or are we capable of coming up with thoughts "for ourselves"? What the heck does that even mean?

Good point. I'm of the opinion that thoughts coming from genetics, biochemistry, personal experience and other aspects of neurology is 'coming up with thoughts for ourselves' - those are all important elements of you.

I also tend to think that free will does exist as an element of the mind (which is generated by the brain) and that it exists within limits but is still free. If you have a choice of three things, you can freely choose from the three, but not a fourth thing. Free will is constrained to the reality where there are three choices, not four.

There are some (I see it from theists mostly) who seem to argue that if free will is in any constrained by reality then we don't really have it - phrases along the lines of 'if we're just molecules fizzing then no free will' are often mentioned. This 'problem' is avoided if God exists, somehow (usually strikes me as hand-waving).

Which is nonsense - whether God exists or not, you can't will yourself to levitate into the air or knock the moon out of the sky. Free will is necessarily constrained by reality. Part of reality is that our minds are influenced by the afore mentioned genetics, biochemistry, personal experience and other aspects of neurology.

 

[Tree of Life]

What difference do you suppose it makes?

 

[durangodawood]

We are highly conditioned.

But we also have some free will, I think.

 

[Willtor]

I'm inclined to agree with Golden Yak, to a limited extent. The issue of our brains being computers (limited by the Turing Limit or not), I think is irrelevant. I mean, they're basically computers (limited by the Turing Limit or not). Not the point.

As Golden Yak observes, a person can't choose to knock the moon out of the sky. That isn't an option available to anyone at this time. However, there is a sense in which one is free to choose from the available alternatives. This is practical.

I don't state it strongly, though. If, given the available alternatives, the choice is made deterministically, there is a technical sense in which we are constrained to one choice. It isn't clear that it's any more free in that sense if the choice is made according to a probability distribution. One is still constrained to select the alternative as the dice dictate.

But, again, it isn't practical to think at that level.

 

[Star Adept]

What difference do you suppose it makes?

I agree with this. If you think your consciousness and decisions are beyond the calculations of your brain, then revel in your freedom. If not, it's not like you're brain-dead; If you came to the realization that they were actually just biology, wouldn't you have used that biology to come to that realization? So, revel in your freedom either way.

 

[Davian]

Do we actually choose our decisions, or are they chosen for us? Is our "rational" thought shaped merely by genetics, biochemistry, personal experience and other aspects of neurology, or are we capable of coming up with thoughts "for ourselves"? What the heck does that even mean?

What gives us our capacity for rational thought? Does Becky make good decisions because of her neurology and personal experiences and exposure to ideas, or do these things only contribute to some kind of overall capacity for reason?

I'm honestly somewhere in the middle here. On one hand, I think that our brains are, essentially, organic computers -- they're biochemical reactions within a neurological structure which reacts to outside stimuli and data. On the other hand, we obviously possess some kind of ability to come to conclusions based upon that data that is not merely some kind of impulsive reaction; yes, our brain's processes are inherently reactions of some kind, but that doesn't mean that they're immediate or that our higher-order thinking is formed for us.

Neurologically speaking, free will or lack thereof is an unproven hypothesis at best, so for now we're just going to have to settle with somewhat educated philosophical speculation.

I recently read Daniel Dennett's review of the Sam Harris book Free Will.

Reflections on FREE WILL : A Review by Daniel C. Dennett : Sam Harris

I side with Dennett on this (not having read Harris' book outside of this review) based on his philosophy of mind that incorporates neuroscience. I won't try to summarize the article, but will pull one line out, from about 3/4 the way down:

"People feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions, and interpreted uncharitably, their view can be made to appear absurd; taken the best way, however, they can be right; and this is the only reason why there seems to be a problem of free will worth talking about."

 

[Chany]

I say nay, using the definition of free will that I have the actual choice to do otherwise.

The question matters as it relates to moral responsibility. If I was determined to do what I did and could not have done otherwise, how am I accountable?

 

[WoundedDeep]

I say nay, using the definition of free will that I have the actual choice to do otherwise.

The question matters as it relates to moral responsibility. If I was determined to do what I did and could not have done otherwise, how am I accountable?

Your statement is self contradictory. How did you even determine to do what you did if you did not first choose to do it (among all options available) with free will? Your idea of "could not have done otherwise" exists only in your imagination, I'm afraid.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Try reading Ephesians 2, and form a conclusion in the light of this Scripture passage.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Do we actually choose our decisions, or are they chosen for us? Is our "rational" thought shaped merely by genetics, biochemistry, personal experience and other aspects of neurology, or are we capable of coming up with thoughts "for ourselves"? What the heck does that even mean?

What gives us our capacity for rational thought? Does Becky make good decisions because of her neurology and personal experiences and exposure to ideas, or do these things only contribute to some kind of overall capacity for reason?

Saying that we make our decisions based on directions from neurology, hormones, workings of the brain is nothing short of absurdity. Our thoughts can be influenced, but in no way can anything force us to do things we did not independently decide on. Neither does influence of our thoughts by other factors (be it internal or external) relieve us of our individual responsibilities to account for our decisions.

Decisions are made by the will of the mind, a wholly independent and functioning aspect of our human conscious. The will is not overpowered by anything, no matter how strong the influence might be, unless we submit our will to that thing's influence. This is what makes homo sapiens different from all observable things constructed of matter which function not by will but by patterns and laws of nature.

Having an influence does not mean something is the directive element in making decisions. Neurology and experiences may influence our thought patterns, but they do NOT override the our will, with which we make decisions.

 

[Inkfingers]

Freewill: Yea or Nay?

Nay.

In all things, Cause and Effect rules.

That includes our thoughts, our feelings, our appetites, our desires and our choices.

 

[Davian]

Try reading Ephesians 2, and form a conclusion in the light of this Scripture passage.

Why?

 

[Davian]

Saying that we make our decisions based on directions from neurology, hormones, workings of the brain is nothing short of absurdity. Our thoughts can be influenced, but in no way can anything force us to do things we did not independently decide on. Neither does influence of our thoughts by other factors (be it internal or external) relieve us of our individual responsibilities to account for our decisions.

Decisions are made by the will of the mind, a wholly independent and functioning aspect of our human conscious. The will is not overpowered by anything, no matter how strong the influence might be, unless we submit our will to that thing's influence. This is what makes homo sapiens different from all observable things constructed of matter which function not by will but by patterns and laws of nature.

Having an influence does not mean something is the directive element in making decisions. Neurology and experiences may influence our thought patterns, but they do NOT override the our will, with which we make decisions.

Do you have some science to substantiate this, or just opinion?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Do you have some science to substantiate this, or just opinion?

Psychology talks about it all the time.

 

[Star Adept]

Saying that we make our decisions based on directions from neurology, hormones, workings of the brain is nothing short of absurdity. Our thoughts can be influenced, but in no way can anything force us to do things we did not independently decide on. Neither does influence of our thoughts by other factors (be it internal or external) relieve us of our individual responsibilities to account for our decisions.

Decisions are made by the will of the mind, a wholly independent and functioning aspect of our human conscious. The will is not overpowered by anything, no matter how strong the influence might be, unless we submit our will to that thing's influence. This is what makes homo sapiens different from all observable things constructed of matter which function not by will but by patterns and laws of nature.

Having an influence does not mean something is the directive element in making decisions. Neurology and experiences may influence our thought patterns, but they do NOT override the our will, with which we make decisions.

What would you say, a schizophrenic who is disconnected from the concept of his will to do much about it? Or a dementia patient who is all that a schizophrenic is but with even less will to control their body?

 

[Davian]

Psychology talks about it all the time.

Do you have some science to substantiate this, or just opinion?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Do you have some science to substantiate this, or just opinion?

Why not you read up about what psychology says about will, or willpower? Or am I supposed to spoon-feed you?

 

[Star Adept]

Nay.

In all things, Cause and Effect rules.

That includes our thoughts, our feelings, our appetites, our desires and our choices.

What about free will as a cause?

 

[Davian]

Why not you read up about what psychology says about will, or willpower? Or am I supposed to spoon-feed you?

Are you having trouble understanding the question? Do you have some science to substantiate that opinion of yours, or is it just opinion?