Free Will: Yea or Nay?

[WoundedDeep]

If that were the case, why can my wife drink two glasses of wine, when, after half a glass, I must go lie down and sleep it off? Are you saying I should be able to will myself free of those effects?

Willpower is different among different people, is that a surprise?

I am not arguing for the non-existence of free will. However, free will that you cannot exercise is effectively non-existence, which is what you are describing, are you not?

Science concludes that humans use a small portion of the entire human brain and do not exercise most parts of the human brain throughout their lives, is that conclusive evidence to you that those unused parts of the brain do not exist?

Must you throw insults at those you disagree with?

The fact that you keep repeating your question even though I have answered it more than once is also a subtle form of insult to me. I clearly stated psychological science as substantiating the existence of willpower, you did not acknowledge it nor refute it but instead blabbed the same demand to me to substantiate my statements with science. That is obvious trolling, therefore I am stating what I observed from your conduct, nothing more nothing less.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't think that argument could be made. After all, even if our brains were wired up identically, we could still get different inputs from the environment. Our brains are not identical -- I'm just saying, even if they were...

Not trying to be a smart aleck, but there are no wires in our brains. I need a better metaphor before I could comment. We are not computers, but we do share the same atomic structures, and we do in general share the same life experiences - pain, pleasure, joy, despair, love, hate, etc.

No, one really can't argue that. A determinist can accept that someone might change their ideas.

Do you actually choose to change those beliefs like you might choose a soda at a vending machine?

There's a fellow in the NCR forum who frequently changes his faith icon. Within a year I think he's been a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist and a deist. And he's not joking around because he's usually made posts about his reasons. I don't imagine most of us do that but some people do.

Can you actually choose to be convinced by an argument? I cannot comprehend how this can be. I can't think about a religion and decide one day that, suddenly, I believe it. I must be convinced within my core to belief something.

God help you if you can't choose to be convinced by an argument.

 

[Chesterton]

I do not dispute that it happens - I have experienced such things myself.

But, is it 'free will' as in a conscious decision? Can you, right now, decide that every god to date is simply a product of human imagination?

Why do you and Chany specify "flip of a switch" and "right now"? Seriously, I may be missing what you're getting at. No, I couldn't decide that right now, but after hearing a good enough argument I'm sure I could.

 

[Star Adept]

Science concludes that humans use a small portion of the entire human brain and do not exercise most parts of the human brain throughout their lives, is that conclusive evidence to you that those unused parts of the brain do not exist?

That's a bad comparison. In order to have free will, you have to exercise it. Otherwise, you're just going on brain input with no conscious decision. Ergo if you are not exercising it, you don't have it. If you do not have something personal and intrinsic, for you, it does not exist. If other people are exercising their free will, they have it, it exists for them. But if you are not, it does not exist for you. You would be analogous to a calculator who cannot do anything unless its buttons are pressed, but someone who is exercising their free will would be the human pressing your buttons.

The fact that you keep repeating your question even though I have answered it more than once is also a subtle form of insult to me. I clearly stated psychological science as substantiating the existence of willpower, you did not acknowledge it nor refute it but instead blabbed the same demand to me to substantiate my statements with science. That is obvious trolling, therefore I am stating what I observed from your conduct, nothing more nothing less.

Let's keep this on topic.
WoundedDeep, I'm pretty sure he understands that your opinion is "I have my opinion based on psychological science has shown" but you can't just send him towards the massive field of psychological science to understand why you have formed that opinion. It would require him to learn all of psychological science because you aren't narrowing anything down. Give him a place to start, at least.

Devian: You could do a better job saying something like "which scientist do I look up, what sect of psychology, what scientific journal?" You were fair in your statement the first time, but repeating the same sentence multiple times knowing she doesn't understand the sentence, you are just trolling.

 

[Chany]

Why do you and Chany specify "flip of a switch" and "right now"? Seriously, I may be missing what you're getting at. No, I couldn't decide that right now, but after hearing a good enough argument I'm sure I could.

If belief is a choice, why would you need an argument to change belief?

 

[juvenissun]

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 like to know an example which shows I don't have free will.

 

[Chesterton]

If belief is a choice, why would you need an argument to change belief?

I don't understand the question.

 

[Chany]

I don't understand the question.

You say that belief is a choice, right?

If you say that, why would you need an argument to change your mind? Imagine a topic you are on the fence about, one where you do not whether the statement is true or false. Could you honestly choose to, with the same conviction, pick a truth value and believe in it with the same strength you believe the computer in front of you exists?

I don't think you possibly can. Something beyond a choice needs to make you convinced. That is why you need an argument (or evidence) in order to justify belief.

 

[Davian]

Willpower is different among different people, is that a surprise?

"Free" will that is subject to restriction, depending on the person? How is that "free"?

Science concludes that humans use a small portion of the entire human brain and do not exercise most parts of the human brain throughout their lives, is that conclusive evidence to you that those unused parts of the brain do not exist?

How does that relate to what I said?

The fact that you keep repeating your question even though I have answered it more than once is also a subtle form of insult to me.

You were asked for scientific citations to substantiate your opinion; whatever your answers were, they did not contain any such citations. You are faulting me for repeating the request?

I clearly stated psychological science as substantiating the existence of willpower,

Different goalposts. And, stating it is not substantiating it.

you did not acknowledge it nor refute it but instead blabbed the same demand to me to substantiate my statements with science.

Indeed. I see no reason to accept your opinions at face value.

That is obvious trolling, therefore I am stating what I observed from your conduct, nothing more nothing less.

I do not see how pointing out your failure to provide scientific citations to substantiate your opinions when you have been asked to do just that should warrant insults.

 

[Davian]

Why do you and Chany specify "flip of a switch" and "right now"? Seriously, I may be missing what you're getting at. No, I couldn't decide that right now, but after hearing a good enough argument I'm sure I could.

Same here. However, if "free will" does not mean that we have the ability to make choices free of convincing augments (or the like), how is it 'free'?

 

[Davian]

...

Devian: You could do a better job saying something like "which scientist do I look up, what sect of psychology, what scientific journal?" You were fair in your statement the first time, but repeating the same sentence multiple times knowing she doesn't understand the sentence, you are just trolling.

On a facebook page, perhaps, but this is (supposedly) a philosophy forum, not an opinions forum.

 

[cuja1]

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 believe that thoughts come from God and demons. Good thoughts = God. Bad thoughts = demons. All we are capable of is saying we like or dislike those thoughts and our likes and dislikes cannot be controlled, they are based on past experiences, genetics, and God. Our actions are controlled by our likes, dislikes, genetics, and past experiences. None of which we have control over.

In short, I do not believe in free will.

 

[juvenissun]

I believe that thoughts come from God and demons. Good thoughts = God. Bad thoughts = demons. All we are capable of is saying we like or dislike those thoughts and our likes and dislikes cannot be controlled, they are based on past experiences, genetics, and God. Our actions are controlled by our likes, dislikes, genetics, and past experiences. None of which we have control over.

In short, I do not believe in free will.

I like sweets. This is my personality and it is hard to change. I am not free.
But, I can choose ice cream or cookie or pie. Why don't I have "some" free wills?

 

[Chesterton]

You say that belief is a choice, right?

If you say that, why would you need an argument to change your mind? Imagine a topic you are on the fence about, one where you do not whether the statement is true or false. Could you honestly choose to, with the same conviction, pick a truth value and believe in it with the same strength you believe the computer in front of you exists?

I don't think you possibly can. Something beyond a choice needs to make you convinced. That is why you need an argument (or evidence) in order to justify belief.

It sounds like you're describing a courtroom trial. Truth values are determined all the time based on argument and evidence. You're supposed to start with no belief whatsoever, and hopefully choose a position based on information (input).

Same here. However, if "free will" does not mean that we have the ability to make choices free of convincing augments (or the like), how is it 'free'?

I'd say it's generally not a good idea to exercise it, but of course we have the ability to make choices free of convincing arguments. O. J. Simpson got away with murder.

 

[Willtor]

Not trying to be a smart aleck, but there are no wires in our brains. I need a better metaphor before I could comment. We are not computers, but we do share the same atomic structures, and we do in general share the same life experiences - pain, pleasure, joy, despair, love, hate, etc.

...

They kind of do. They aren't metal wires, but our synapses are basically wires between neurons.

If the ratios of the energies needed to make neurons fire are rational numbers, in fact, then brains are of equal computational power to computers.

 

[cuja1]

I like sweets. This is my personality and it is hard to change. I am not free.
But, I can choose ice cream or cookie or pie. Why don't I have "some" free wills?

Because God gave you the ability to like sweets and He gave you your preferences.

 

[WoundedDeep]

That's a bad comparison. In order to have free will, you have to exercise it. Otherwise, you're just going on brain input with no conscious decision. Ergo if you are not exercising it, you don't have it. If you do not have something personal and intrinsic, for you, it does not exist. If other people are exercising their free will, they have it, it exists for them. But if you are not, it does not exist for you. You would be analogous to a calculator who cannot do anything unless its buttons are pressed, but someone who is exercising their free will would be the human pressing your buttons.

It is a valid comparison. The brain in itself is a complex structure of our body in which most of it is not fully understood or explored. Just because we cannot exercise the full brain does not mean certain brain functions we do not or cannot use during our lifetime do not exist in the brain. I used this simple example to refute the nonsensical idea that just because you cannot exercise something, it is automatically not there. The brain example shows otherwise.

Let's keep this on topic.
WoundedDeep, I'm pretty sure he understands that your opinion is "I have my opinion based on psychological science has shown" but you can't just send him towards the massive field of psychological science to understand why you have formed that opinion. It would require him to learn all of psychological science because you aren't narrowing anything down. Give him a place to start, at least.

Devian: You could do a better job saying something like "which scientist do I look up, what sect of psychology, what scientific journal?" You were fair in your statement the first time, but repeating the same sentence multiple times knowing she doesn't understand the sentence, you are just trolling.

I was annoyed, and validly so, because I know his intentions. And I do know what he means when he babbled the same statement to me, he simply refuses to acknowledge psychological science as substantiation. You can have a look at the original responses and you will see this clearly. Besides, I am talking to a person who apparently is married, who in terms of age is wiser than I am, and who should have the mental capability to find out for himself whether psychological science supports the notion of free will. Say he is interested in finding out about this, does he have no internet or no access to libraries with literature on psychology? Yet, I am obliged somehow to provide every single piece of evidence down to the very last word I utter.

I have debated with this person on other threads before, and he uses the same "trolling" style to demand me to substantiate my statements down to the letter and used other ways to create nothing but annoyance and subtle insults. This is not engaging in intelligent discussion, it is a stubborn intention to create frustration and active denial or disregard for whatever the other person is saying. Moreover, such attitude racks of arrogance and is a clear indication that the person in question has no real interest in knowing the truth or gaining in knowledge. No matter what evidence I will provide, he will use the same babble because it does not agree with his own biased and narrow view of reality. I refuse to engage in discussion with such, for a good reason.

 

[Chesterton]

They kind of do. They aren't metal wires, but our synapses are basically wires between neurons.

If the ratios of the energies needed to make neurons fire are rational numbers, in fact, then brains are of equal computational power to computers.

Then why don't our brains do what they're wired to do? "Ah, but they do", you may say. Then I ask, "what are they wired to do"? I say they are wired to exercise will and make decisions.

 

[Davian]

...

I'd say it's generally not a good idea to exercise it, but of course we have the ability to make choices free of convincing arguments. O. J. Simpson got away with murder.

Can you change your mind about O.J. right now, in the absence of a convincing argument?

 

[Davian]

...


I was annoyed, and validly so, because I know his intentions. And I do know what he means when he babbled the same statement to me, he simply refuses to acknowledge psychological science as substantiation.

No, what I did not accept as substantiation was your hand waving at "psychology" and being told to "get it yourself".

You can have a look at the original responses and you will see this clearly.

Indeed. See #23.

Besides, I am talking to a person who apparently is married, who in terms of age is wiser than I am, and who should have the mental capability to find out for himself whether psychological science supports the notion of free will. Say he is interested in finding out about this, does he have no internet or no access to libraries with literature on psychology?

Perhaps I have already done this, and have a good idea of what information is available on this subject.

Yet, I am obliged somehow to provide every single piece of evidence down to the very last word I utter.

I asked no such thing. I only asked that you provide a citation to substantiate your opinion. Do try for some intellectual honesty.

I have debated with this person on other threads before, and he uses the same "trolling" style to demand me to substantiate my statements down to the letter

No, but I would ask that you at least make an attempt at it.

and used other ways to create nothing but annoyance and subtle insults. This is not engaging in intelligent discussion, it is a stubborn intention to create frustration and active denial or disregard for whatever the other person is saying. Moreover, such attitude racks of arrogance and is a clear indication that the person in question has no real interest in knowing the truth or gaining in knowledge. No matter what evidence I will provide,

Which is none, so far.

he will use the same babble because it does not agree with his own biased and narrow view of reality.

Please, tell me more about how I think.

I refuse to engage in discussion with such, for a good reason.

Then your opinions will be dismissed as such.