Free Will: Yea or Nay?

[juvenissun]

God doesn't tell you to pick pie or ice cream. He gives you desires and those desires determine what you chose. You are not capable of giving yourself desires. How much free will do we have? I don't know. To me, it seems that we don't have any at all.

At least I have a free will to choose pie, instead of a cake, for my breakfast. Do you agree?

If many small decisions could be made in a similar way, don't we have some, or more than some, free wills?

 

[cuja1]

At least I have a free will to choose pie, instead of a cake, for my breakfast. Do you agree?

If many small decisions could be made in a similar way, don't we have some, or more than some, free wills?

I disagree. You are choosing pie instead of cake because that is what you want and you can't control what you want. You could choose cake instead even if you didn't really want cake, but something would have had to happen that would have made you decide to eat cake rather than pie even though you really wanted the pie. In this case your will wasn't free because you didn't really choose the cake but some situation came about that caused you to decide on cake instead of pie. If that situation wouldn't have happened you would have went with the pie since that is what you really wanted.

For example, you really want the pie, but I tell you, I bet you can't eat cake instead. Oh really? you say, now your all ready to prove me wrong and you go ahead and eat that cake even though you wanted pie. Did you make the choice? I say no. The choice was made by your desire to prove me wrong. If the situation hadn't changed what you wanted from eating pie to proving me wrong, you would have eaten the pie instead. It's all about what you desire. That is what is making the choices and you have no control over what you desire.

 

[Davian]

I agree with that, because I don't see how it could be natural. I just don't think it's useful to say that will isn't free because it can't do everything it might possibly want to do, like walk on water or something. In that sense, nothing in the universe would be free because everything is constrained by physics.

Then everything is constrained, bible stories notwithstanding.

Well that's my interpretation. Taking for granted that the experiment is a good one (which it probably isn't), you've got two outputs: one from the subject, and one from the subject's brain? What's your interpretation?

Even if the experiment has its criticisms, what it shows - that mind is product of the brain - it has yet to be falsified. In every observation, what happens in the mind follows events in the brain.

Which I guess would mean the brain aids in the process of mind. Sounds a bit odd, but I'm fine with that analogy. Bear in mind that "digestion" is not a thing you can see, and neither would be a soul.

"Some years ago, there was a lovely philosopher of science and journalist in Italy named Giulio Giorello, and he did an interview with me. And I don’t know if he wrote it or not, but the headline in Corriere della Sera when it was published was "Sì, abbiamo un'anima. Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot – "Yes, we have a soul, but it’s made of lots of tiny robots." And I thought, exactly. That’s the view. Yes, we have a soul, but in what sense? In the sense that our brains, unlike the brains even of dogs and cats and chimpanzees and dolphins, our brains have functional structures that give our brains powers that no other brains have - powers of look-ahead, primarily. We can understand our position in the world, we can see the future, we can understand where we came from. We know that we’re here. No buffalo knows it’s a buffalo, but we jolly well know that we’re members of Homo sapiens, and it’s the knowledge that we have and the can-do, our capacity to think ahead and to reflect and to evaluate and to evaluate our evaluations, and evaluate the grounds for our evaluations.

It’s this expandable capacity to represent reasons that we have that gives us a soul. But what’s it made of? It’s made of neurons. It’s made of lots of tiny robots. And we can actually explain the structure and operation of that kind of soul, whereas an eternal, immortal, immaterial soul is just a metaphysical rug under which you sweep your embarrassment for not having any explanation.”

― Daniel C. Dennett

 

[juvenissun]

I disagree. You are choosing pie instead of cake because that is what you want and you can't control what you want. You could choose cake instead even if you didn't really want cake, but something would have had to happen that would have made you decide to eat cake rather than pie even though you really wanted the pie. In this case your will wasn't free because you didn't really choose the cake but some situation came about that caused you to decide on cake instead of pie. If that situation wouldn't have happened you would have went with the pie since that is what you really wanted.

For example, you really want the pie, but I tell you, I bet you can't eat cake instead. Oh really? you say, now your all ready to prove me wrong and you go ahead and eat that cake even though you wanted pie. Did you make the choice? I say no. The choice was made by your desire to prove me wrong. If the situation hadn't changed what you wanted from eating pie to proving me wrong, you would have eaten the pie instead. It's all about what you desire. That is what is making the choices and you have no control over what you desire.

If I choose to do one thing with a purpose means that I don't have a free will to choose that one thing to do, then it commits a basic logic error: A --> -A.

Why would this discussion still be meaningful?

 

[cuja1]

If I choose to do one thing with a purpose means that I don't have a free will to choose that one thing to do, then it commits a basic logic error: A --> -A.

Why would this discussion still be meaningful?

I don't understand, can you clarify this?

 

[cuja1]

If I choose to do one thing with a purpose means that I don't have a free will to choose that one thing to do, then it commits a basic logic error: A --> -A.

Why would this discussion still be meaningful?

Do you see how in the example I gave you that you would have chosen pie if I hadn't challenged you to eat cake? My challenge is what determined your action.

 

[thepromiseofgrace]

Do you see how in the example I gave you that you would have chosen pie if I hadn't challenged you to eat cake? My challenge is what determined your action.

God gives you choices not just a lie it or lump it scenario.

if you say there is only one choice therefore you have no choice that is merely showing a lack of choice not a lack of judgement.

you can chose to be with God for eternity or not to be with God for eternity.

so by your logic that shows God does give us free will.

If God chose to make us believe by your example that would prove we do not have free will.

 

[Chesterton]

Then everything is constrained, bible stories notwithstanding.

I agree it's an either/or proposition. If everything is constrained then free will is impossible. If there is free will then there must be something more to reality than physics. And even if it can't be proven, we all certainly feel as if there were an "I" inside us which has will and makes choices.

Even if the experiment has its criticisms, what it shows - that mind is product of the brain - it has yet to be falsified. In every observation, what happens in the mind follows events in the brain.

Did you read the whole Wiki page? Also, define the mind. And where is it?

"Some years ago, there was a lovely philosopher of science and journalist in Italy named Giulio Giorello, and he did an interview with me. And I don’t know if he wrote it or not, but the headline in Corriere della Sera when it was published was "Sì, abbiamo un'anima. Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot – "Yes, we have a soul, but it’s made of lots of tiny robots." And I thought, exactly. That’s the view. Yes, we have a soul, but in what sense? In the sense that our brains, unlike the brains even of dogs and cats and chimpanzees and dolphins, our brains have functional structures that give our brains powers that no other brains have - powers of look-ahead, primarily. We can understand our position in the world, we can see the future, we can understand where we came from. We know that we’re here. No buffalo knows it’s a buffalo, but we jolly well know that we’re members of Homo sapiens, and it’s the knowledge that we have and the can-do, our capacity to think ahead and to reflect and to evaluate and to evaluate our evaluations, and evaluate the grounds for our evaluations.

It’s this expandable capacity to represent reasons that we have that gives us a soul. But what’s it made of? It’s made of neurons. It’s made of lots of tiny robots. And we can actually explain the structure and operation of that kind of soul, whereas an eternal, immortal, immaterial soul is just a metaphysical rug under which you sweep your embarrassment for not having any explanation.”

― Daniel C. Dennett

Souls and free will are different questions since as far as I can tell Calvinism says we have souls but do not have will. Anyway, he mysteriously says human brains have "powers" that other animal brains don't have. I'd like a thorough scientific explanation of what he means by "powers" before I can comment. How do we understand our position in the world, how does he know we understand it, and how does he know buffalo don't? As far as the neurons, he's simply saying the soul is the brain, which is another bald assertion that there is no soul. I think his muddled assertion above is a rug under which he can sweep his embarrassment for not being able to explain free will.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you see how in the example I gave you that you would have chosen pie if I hadn't challenged you to eat cake? My challenge is what determined your action.

I know. My response to your challenge IS my choice. For example, if I don't like you, I will not respond to your challenge. We make choices to deal with hundreds of responses in our daily life. Most of them, are out of our own free will.

Even you set up a trap and I jump into it unknowingly, it is STILL my free will choice.

 

[cuja1]

I know. My response to your challenge IS my choice. For example, if I don't like you, I will not respond to your challenge. We make choices to deal with hundreds of responses in our daily life. Most of them, are out of our own free will.

Even you set up a trap and I jump into it unknowingly, it is STILL my free will choice.

Yes but it's more complicated than that. Maybe you don't like me because I'm an idiot or you don't like the way I phrased the question but something cause you to make that choice.

If you push a ball, it rolls. The ball doesn't roll without something causing it.

 

[Davian]

I agree it's an either/or proposition. If everything is constrained then free will is impossible. If there is free will then there must be something more to reality than physics. And even if it can't be proven, we all certainly feel as if there were an "I" inside us which has will and makes choices.

It certainly does. If this experience is a construction of the brain, how would you know, through introspection?

Did you read the whole Wiki page? Also, define the mind. And where is it?

When I say 'mind', I would clarify that to 'phenomenal self' as described by Thomas Metzinger. The 'self' is not somewhere, it is not a thing, but a process, created by the brain as needed when our bodies are "awake". This 'self' disappears when you are not 'conscious'.

Souls and free will are different questions since as far as I can tell Calvinism says we have souls but do not have will.

What authority does Calvinism have on the subject of neuroscience?

Anyway, he mysteriously says human brains have "powers" that other animal brains don't have. I'd like a thorough scientific explanation of what he means by "powers" before I can comment.

I don't see how this relates to the topic, and I do not necessarily agree with him on this topic.

How do we understand our position in the world, how does he know we understand it, and how does he know buffalo don't? As far as the neurons, he's simply saying the soul is the brain, which is another bald assertion that there is no soul.

He's saying that it is the brain that gives us a soul, as he defines it. It is the "eternal, immortal, immaterial soul" that he is saying is a no-show. Feel free to demonstrate him wrong.

I think his muddled assertion above is a rug under which he can sweep his embarrassment for not being able to explain free will.

I'm sure he will agree it is a struggle just to define it, and be clear what version you are speaking of. As per wiki "He says that there are types of free will that are incompatible with modern science, but he says those kinds of free will are not worth wanting. Other types of "free will" are pivotal to people's sense of responsibility and purpose (see also "believing in free will"), and many of these types are actually compatible with modern science."

 

[Chesterton]

It certainly does. If this experience is a construction of the brain, how would you know, through introspection?

I could try an experiment. If my brain tells me I really feel like eating pizza, I could intentionally eat a hamburger instead. That should really put those bossy neurons in their place.

When I say 'mind', I would clarify that to 'phenomenal self' as described by Thomas Metzinger. The 'self' is not somewhere, it is not a thing, but a process, created by the brain as needed when our bodies are "awake". This 'self' disappears when you are not 'conscious'.

You may or may not remember, but I criticized you before for making blunt, simplistic responses whenever you encounter words like "God" and "soul". "What is a soul?" Honestly, I'm tempted to do the same when I encounter words such as "powers", "phenomenonal" and "emergent". From my experience, they usually mean the scientist or philosopher using those words has no idea what they're talking about.

What authority does Calvinism have on the subject of neuroscience?

I have no idea; Calvin was a phenomenon.

I don't see how this relates to the topic, and I do not necessarily agree with him on this topic.

Since he's not really saying anything concrete, it's wise to withhold agreement for now.

He's saying that it is the brain that gives us a soul, as he defines it. It is the "eternal, immortal, immaterial soul" that he is saying is a no-show. Feel free to demonstrate him wrong.

He's defining the soul as neurons. I define neurons as neurons. He says neurons are "tiny robots". They are not tiny robots. Robots are human artifacts designed and manufactured by intelligent human wills, and they do what they're programmed to do. They don't exercise will. Find another metaphor.

I'm sure he will agree it is a struggle just to define it, and be clear what version you are speaking of. As per wiki "He says that there are types of free will that are incompatible with modern science, but he says those kinds of free will are not worth wanting. Other types of "free will" are pivotal to people's sense of responsibility and purpose (see also "believing in free will"), and many of these types are actually compatible with modern science."

I honestly can't make sense of that quote. Usually "incompatible with modern science" means "I don't believe in it". But then he says there are different types of it, apparently some he thinks good and some he thinks bad. I don't get it. If you know what he's saying, please explain.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes but it's more complicated than that. Maybe you don't like me because I'm an idiot or you don't like the way I phrased the question but something cause you to make that choice.

If you push a ball, it rolls. The ball doesn't roll without something causing it.

A person's personality is shaped by many uncontrollable factors through time. That is true. But for many small things, one with any personality is able to make some choices on his own. The choice is certainly biased. But it is a FREE choice. I don't believe God will control the time I like to go to the restroom in my office building, unless His has an intention to let me meet some special person in there.

 

[cuja1]

A person's personality is shaped by many uncontrollable factors through time. That is true. But for many small things, one with any personality is able to make some choices on his own. The choice is certainly biased. But it is a FREE choice. I don't believe God will control the time I like to go to the restroom in my office building, unless His has an intention to let me meet some special person in there.

I think we are in agreement for the most part

 

[striger]

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, sciencebasedmedicine.org/neuroscience-and-destiny/"]free will or lack thereof is an unproven hypothesis at best[/URL], so for now we're just going to have to settle with somewhat educated philosophical speculation.

I never knew one, with unlimited will, who could put his hand on his heart, and say, 'I believed in Jesus without the assistance of the Holy Spirit'.

 

[juvenissun]

I think we are in agreement for the most part

But, still, if we have low level of free will, then we might also have some higher level free will. It is simply hard to tell which one has or has not.

 

[Davian]

I could try an experiment. If my brain tells me I really feel like eating pizza, I could intentionally eat a hamburger instead. That should really put those bossy neurons in their place.

lol. I do not see my brain as an adversary because - I am my brain, even if I am not consciously aware of all the decisions it (I? we?) may be making. The semantics get tricky.

You may or may not remember, but I criticized you before for making blunt, simplistic responses whenever you encounter words like "God" and "soul". "What is a soul?"

How can we discuss terms without first reaching consensus on what we mean by those terms?

Honestly, I'm tempted to do the same when I encounter words such as "powers", "phenomenonal" and "emergent". From my experience, they usually mean the scientist or philosopher using those words has no idea what they're talking about.

Hence the link to my older thread embedded in that paragraph.

I have no idea; Calvin was a phenomenon.



Since he's not really saying anything concrete, it's wise to withhold agreement for now.



He's defining the soul as neurons. I define neurons as neurons. He says neurons are "tiny robots". They are not tiny robots. Robots are human artifacts designed and manufactured by intelligent human wills, and they do what they're programmed to do. They don't exercise will. Find another metaphor.

The programming analogy works; it is just that the programming is a result of millions of years of evolution. See the video below- he is not saying that the neurones exercise will.

I honestly can't make sense of that quote. Usually "incompatible with modern science" means "I don't believe in it". But then he says there are different types of it, apparently some he thinks good and some he thinks bad. I don't get it. If you know what he's saying, please explain.

As I understand it, our will is constrained in a manner that still allows for us to be held accountable for our actions, and does not require anything outside of our current understanding of physics/chemistry/biology.

I would hate to try to condense hundred of hours of reading, video, and podcasts into a forum post, but you can listen to him explain it here:

(go to 24 min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cSgVgrC-6Y#t=2296

 

[cuja1]

But, still, if we have low level of free will, then we might also have some higher level free will. It is simply hard to tell which one has or has not.

could be. I'm still not convinced that we even have a little, but I think I'm convinced that we're better off believing we do.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I say nay. You have no "true" freewill. Everything you think you thought on your own is influenced by something you've learned or heard at some point. Our experiences shape the way we engage the world in future situations. You may think your thoughts are your own but if you were born in any other place or time, you'd be a totally different person.

 

[nightflight]

could be. I'm still not convinced that we even have a little, but I think I'm convinced that we're better off believing we do.

True.