Free Will: Yea or Nay?

[lesliedellow]

That is a naive conclusion. The laws of nature explains the material world, but our decisions (at least moral decisions) are tied not only to material consequences, but spiritual consequences. Laws of nature cannot determine for us what we should do when there is a spiritual consequence since it cannot be applied to the spiritual realm.

Laws of nature do not say anything about what should happen, but they do predict, with 100% accuracy, what happens in this world.

He does not need to decree, He had foreknowledge what Judas would do under those circumstances. Why is this hard to understand?

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 HIM, BEING DELIVERED BY THE DETERMINATE COUNSEL and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:" (Acts 2.22)

 

[WoundedDeep]

Laws of nature do not say anything about what should happen, but they do predict, with 100% accuracy, what happens in this world.

If laws of nature determine our decisions as you propose, then logically, they also determine what should happen. Here you contradict yourself by saying that they don't?

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 HIM, BEING DELIVERED BY THE DETERMINATE COUNSEL and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:" (Acts 2.22)

Where in that verse did it say God determined Judas to betray Jesus? It does not say so, it says Jesus being delivered to the Cross is determined by God. That is a world of difference.

 

[Chany]

If laws of nature determine our decisions as you propose, then logically, they also determine what should happen. Here you contradict yourself by saying that they don't?

Define "should". If by "should", you mean "What ought to happen as dictated by the laws of nature", then it would, but I don't think it was the sense in which it was used. By "should", it was meant "what ought to happen given morality."

 

[Davian]

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.

Indeed. The question arises, from a philosophical and neurological perspective, does your conscious mind/awareness/phenomenal self make the decision, and the brain follow, or is it the other way around? Neuroscience suggests that it is the latter.

Neuroscience of free will - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[cuja1]

That's right. The "problem" I find with posters who are asserting that Man has "free will" is that they insist that there is absolutely no limitation upon that free will...and, also, that to deny this must mean believing we have NO decision-making ability at all.

If it were possible to get them to address the issue in real terms, not as though it's a black and white matter (complete freedom from all environmental forces that affect our judgment vs Man having been created as a robot), we might move these debates forward.

that's a good way to look at it (that there is an in between) But where is that in between?

 

[cuja1]

That's right. The "problem" I find with posters who are asserting that Man has "free will" is that they insist that there is absolutely no limitation upon that free will...and, also, that to deny this must mean believing we have NO decision-making ability at all.

If it were possible to get them to address the issue in real terms, not as though it's a black and white matter (complete freedom from all environmental forces that affect our judgment vs Man having been created as a robot), we might move these debates forward.

My current view is that the only ability we have is to agree that we like or dislike something. We are conscious of what goes on (unlike robots) but we actually can't make our own choices.

 

[cuja1]

That's right. The "problem" I find with posters who are asserting that Man has "free will" is that they insist that there is absolutely no limitation upon that free will...and, also, that to deny this must mean believing we have NO decision-making ability at all.

If it were possible to get them to address the issue in real terms, not as though it's a black and white matter (complete freedom from all environmental forces that affect our judgment vs Man having been created as a robot), we might move these debates forward.

Where do we draw the line, or do we draw the line at all? It seems like the best philosophers in the world still can't decide. Some scientific minds say we have it and others say we don't.

 

[Chesterton]

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

Okay I think I see what you mean by the "right now". No, I don't think I could do that, but it's because in the past I have willed myself to try and not do irrational things in the future.

When I was taught as a child that 2+2=4, I examined it, agreed with the definitions, saw that the proposition was true, and determined that I would pretty much close my mind to ever changing my opinion on that matter in the future. (Well it didn't go exactly like that, but you see what I'm saying?)

 

[Chesterton]

That may be. As I say, for any practical purposes, I don't see a reason not to behave and reason as though people have free will. However, there are clear bounds on that freedom, and the bounds become more restrictive if our brains are not more computationally powerful than modern computers (that is, if the difference is one of degree, as opposed to a difference of type).

That's right. The "problem" I find with posters who are asserting that Man has "free will" is that they insist that there is absolutely no limitation upon that free will...and, also, that to deny this must mean believing we have NO decision-making ability at all.

If it were possible to get them to address the issue in real terms, not as though it's a black and white matter (complete freedom from all environmental forces that affect our judgment vs Man having been created as a robot), we might move these debates forward.

Can we please get rid of this error? For purposes of these types of discussions, no one i know of asserts that will, or free will, is tantamount to omnipotence. Of course there are physical limitations.

 

[Davian]

No, that is not what you said. You called psychology as something "arguably not a science", therefore I assumed you dismissed psychology all together

A incorrect assumption on your part.

since you demand "scientific substantiation". Why then would I give any substantiation from a source you outrightly reject from the beginning, I am not a fool.

I did not outright reject it, or do so at the beginning, did I?

How about seeing #28.? There, you clearly rejected psychology all together as being "arguably not a science".

Ah, the equivocation game.

No, "Arguably" is not "rejected all together". It is an opportunity to provide an argument that it is science, or at least the citation that you were going to, if ever, post here was science.

And you expect me to believe that just because of mere statements? If you wish, show me how psychology proves the non-existence for free will.
I will gladly read what you provide and will not react to you with the same rhetoric you gave to me. Please, prove your statement with scientific substantiation, even if its psychological science.

Trying to shift the burden of evidence now? What happened to substantiating that opinion of yours?

Lol... You asked me to provide a "scientific citation" when you dismissed psychology completely as a science.

Where did I say "completely"?

Pardon me then if I fail to understand exactly what you were asking for.

What you just asked of me, in that attempt to shift the burden of evidence. "Please, prove your statement with scientific substantiation, even if its psychological science."

So do you accept psychological sources as "scientific citation" or no?

I will accept sources that are scientific in nature. Opinion pieces and editorials
are of little use.

Do try to make your statements more intellectually honest.

An attempt at what? People, however young, learn from experience. I have made enough attempts at providing evidence to people like you on other threads to receive nothing more than smirk insults or active dismissal.

I do not recall you ever providing evidence your claims in our previous exchanges.

I will not attempt to expose myself to such rudeness again.

Then you should state that at the onset.

Yeah, because you have rejected it right from the start, even before I could provide any links, with the rhetoric "arguably not a science".

Who is preventing you from posting those links?

Nah, I don't read minds, but I have pretty good intuition on people.

You failed with me, however.

And I have to dismiss yours too on the accounts of trolling.

Requesting that you substantiate your opinion is not "trolling".

 

[Davian]

That is not true. Not every choice we make is subject to the laws of nature,
...

How do you know this?

 

[Chesterton]

Indeed. The question arises, from a philosophical and neurological perspective, does your conscious mind/awareness/phenomenal self make the decision, and the brain follow, or is it the other way around? Neuroscience suggests that it is the latter.

Neuroscience of free will - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So neuroscience recognizes a separate self, a soul? Good for it. Although the experiment and his interpretation are heavily criticized, I sorta like it. Some physicists affirm that within spacetime, effects can follow causes, and I'm fine with just observing a distinction between brain and mind.

 

[Davian]

Can we please get rid of this error? For purposes of these types of discussions, no one i know of asserts that will, or free will, is tantamount to omnipotence. Of course there are physical limitations.

I do get the impression that there are those that wish for 'free will' to mean that our will/consciousness/self is not completely subject to natural laws.

Daniel Dennett on free will:
(for those of us that wish to avoid Mr. Shermer, skip to 15m00s)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrCZYDm5D8M&t=15m0s

 

[cuja1]

If we believe God speaks to us through our thoughts, can't we concur that some of our choices come from thoughts that God has given us, of which we have no control? Or do we not believe that God communicates to us through our thoughts?

 

[poolerboy0077]

So neuroscience recognizes a separate self, a soul? Good for it.

Where did you get that from? Certainly not the Wiki article.

 

[Davian]

So neuroscience recognizes a separate self, a soul? Good for it.

A soul? not as the religionist might define it.

Although the experiment and his interpretation are heavily criticized, I sorta like it. Some physicists affirm that within spacetime, effects can follow causes, and I'm fine with just observing a distinction between brain and mind.

A distinction, like that between the stomach and digestion.

 

[Chesterton]

I do get the impression that there are those that wish for 'free will' to mean that our will/consciousness/self is not completely subject to natural laws.

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.

Where did you get that from? Certainly not the Wiki article.

A soul? not as the religionist might define it.

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?

A distinction, like that between the stomach and digestion.

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.

 

[cuja1]

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.





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?



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.

I just wanted to give an illustration about what people mean when they say we don't have free will:

I know a man who became a Christian. He has become one of the most dedicated people in the church I've ever seen. But before that he lived most of his life as a drunk who never went to church and never cared about God. It wasn't until he got cancer that he finally turned his life over to God. Would he ever have turned his life over to God if he hadn't come down with cancer?

His decision to follow Jesus was based on this one event. This was the cause, and it would appear that until this event occurred, he was incapable of choosing to follow Jesus. The same can be said of Saul on the road to Damascus and numerous other conversions.

 

[Chesterton]

I just wanted to give an illustration about what people mean when they say we don't have free will:

I know a man who became a Christian. He has become one of the most dedicated people in the church I've ever seen. But before that he lived most of his life as a drunk who never went to church and never cared about God. It wasn't until he got cancer that he finally turned his life over to God. Would he ever have turned his life over to God if he hadn't come down with cancer?

His decision to follow Jesus was based on this one event. This was the cause, and it would appear that until this event occurred, he was incapable of choosing to follow Jesus. The same can be said of Saul on the road to Damascus and numerous other conversions.

What about Christopher Hitchens?

I don't deny that will can be influenced, maybe even overridden by God in rare circumstances. That wouldn't mean that free will doesn't exist.

 

[cuja1]

What about Christopher Hitchens?

I don't deny that will can be influenced, maybe even overridden by God in rare circumstances. That wouldn't mean that free will doesn't exist.

I just looked up Christopher Hitchens, and that's what I don't understand. There are 2 people in the same situation, 1 person "choses" salvation and the other doesn't.