How is free will possible?

[holo]

I guess this belongs in the philosophy forum, but that's closed. But it's relevant to ethics because the idea of free will is a prerequisite for even talking about ethical and moral issues.

Anyway, I'm wondering how a truly free will can even be possible? The reason I doubt it is because absolutely everything, even the tiniest signal between two synapses in your brain, happens for a reason. The only way to alter the outcome of something is to alter the conditions. In other words, if you rewind time for, say, 10 minutes, without changing anything, the exact same thing would happen a million times in a row, whether it's a coin toss or a thought. At what point, and how, does this proposed free will enter the equation?

Note: don't confuse making choices with having free will. We obviously make choices all the time. The question is if the choice could in fact really have been different, given all the things that lead up to that choice. As far as I can tell, the only way for your brain to have made a different choice, is if your brain was different to begin with.

 

[eleos1954]

I guess this belongs in the philosophy forum, but that's closed. But it's relevant to ethics because the idea of free will is a prerequisite for even talking about ethical and moral issues.

Anyway, I'm wondering how a truly free will can even be possible? The reason I doubt it is because absolutely everything, even the tiniest signal between two synapses in your brain, happens for a reason. The only way to alter the outcome of something is to alter the conditions. In other words, if you rewind time for, say, 10 minutes, without changing anything, the exact same thing would happen a million times in a row, whether it's a coin toss or a thought. At what point, and how, does this proposed free will enter the equation?

Note: don't confuse making choices with having free will. We obviously make choices all the time. The question is if the choice could in fact really have been different, given all the things that lead up to that choice. As far as I can tell, the only way for your brain to have made a different choice, is if your brain was different to begin with.

We have both

freewill
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

choice
an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

 

[holo]

freewill
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

But how? Name one thing you can choose truly freely - that is, without being influenced by anything at all to make that choice.

 

[Dave L]

I guess this belongs in the philosophy forum, but that's closed. But it's relevant to ethics because the idea of free will is a prerequisite for even talking about ethical and moral issues.

Anyway, I'm wondering how a truly free will can even be possible? The reason I doubt it is because absolutely everything, even the tiniest signal between two synapses in your brain, happens for a reason. The only way to alter the outcome of something is to alter the conditions. In other words, if you rewind time for, say, 10 minutes, without changing anything, the exact same thing would happen a million times in a row, whether it's a coin toss or a thought. At what point, and how, does this proposed free will enter the equation?

Note: don't confuse making choices with having free will. We obviously make choices all the time. The question is if the choice could in fact really have been different, given all the things that lead up to that choice. As far as I can tell, the only way for your brain to have made a different choice, is if your brain was different to begin with.

I believe when God created us, he created the life we would live too. And this included the reasons we would freely chose to act on.

 

[HTacianas]

I guess this belongs in the philosophy forum, but that's closed. But it's relevant to ethics because the idea of free will is a prerequisite for even talking about ethical and moral issues.

Anyway, I'm wondering how a truly free will can even be possible? The reason I doubt it is because absolutely everything, even the tiniest signal between two synapses in your brain, happens for a reason. The only way to alter the outcome of something is to alter the conditions. In other words, if you rewind time for, say, 10 minutes, without changing anything, the exact same thing would happen a million times in a row, whether it's a coin toss or a thought. At what point, and how, does this proposed free will enter the equation?

Note: don't confuse making choices with having free will. We obviously make choices all the time. The question is if the choice could in fact really have been different, given all the things that lead up to that choice. As far as I can tell, the only way for your brain to have made a different choice, is if your brain was different to begin with.

I've had this discussion ad infinitum in the past and the resolution is the coin toss. You're right that merely making a choice doesn't necessarily prove free will, but making a choice based on chance does. If choosing between an apple or an orange I say heads the apple tails the orange, I have used my free will to leave the decision to chance. And the further we go in introducing chance the further we go in demonstrating free will.

Of course it could be argued that choosing by chance is merely a choice in itself , it still moves us farther away from our environment deciding for us.

 

[Ken-1122]

But how? Name one thing you can choose truly freely - that is, without being influenced by anything at all to make that choice.

I had Corn Flakes for breakfast this morning. I could have had Cheerios, but via free will I chose Corn Flakes.

 

[Dave L]

I had Corn Flakes for breakfast this morning. I could have had Cheerios, but via free will I chose Corn Flakes.

Only for the reason God incorporated into your path.

 

[eleos1954]

But how? Name one thing you can choose truly freely - that is, without being influenced by anything at all to make that choice.

the definitions

freewill
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

discretion

the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation.

choice
an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

decision

a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration

freedom/freewill is a trait acquired through intelligence developed over time.

So if you are saying there is no freewill ... then everything that happens is fate or what?

 

[holo]

I've had this discussion ad infinitum in the past and the resolution is the coin toss. You're right that merely making a choice doesn't necessarily prove free will, but making a choice based on chance does. If choosing between an apple or an orange I say heads the apple tails the orange, I have used my free will to leave the decision to chance. And the further we go in introducing chance the further we go in demonstrating free will.

Of course it could be argued that choosing by chance is merely a choice in itself , it still moves us farther away from our environment deciding for us.

Not sure I understand the argument. Chance is pretty much the opposite of free will. When you say "heads is apple", were you free to say that? What is the reason you didn't say "heads is oranges" for example?

BTW, that situation is a good example of how you didn't choose freely, even though it felt like you did. Because we say "apples and oranges", not "oranges and apples". And we say "heads or tails", not "tails or heads." So in this case it seems rather obvious why you assigned heads to apples. It wasn't a really free choice.

 

[HTacianas]

Not sure I understand the argument. Chance is pretty much the opposite of free will. When you say "heads is apple", were you free to say that? What is the reason you didn't say "heads is oranges" for example?

BTW, that situation is a good example of how you didn't choose freely, even though it felt like you did. Because we say "apples and oranges", not "oranges and apples". And we say "heads or tails", not "tails or heads." So in this case it seems rather obvious why you assigned heads to apples. It wasn't a really free choice.

Leave it to chance.

 

[timewerx]

100% Free will is only possible if you are all-knowing (omniscient) and free to decide based on the fact.

Because we cannot see the future for example, we cannot know what present action or choices will achieve the desired outcome or even our goals.

Therefore, if we cannot achieve our goals due to these limitations then, we do not have free will. A goal can be as simple as going to the grocery store to buy cereal. But due to unforeseen events, it was impossible that day so you are unable to buy cereal.

Lack of foresight or knowledge will also limit your ability to achieve a desired result or goal. Achieving financial stability for example.

Thus, any action or decision on your part to give up seeking knowledge, "settle down" or seek folly instead of knowledge or Truth, you are destroying your own ability to make choices that are substantial in the long run or even for eternity.

 

[holo]

So if you are saying there is no freewill ... then everything that happens is fate or what?

I wouldn't say "fate" because that implies that someone chose what will happen. But since absolutely everything happens for a reason, then yes, it couldn't have been other than it is. The only way to change the outcome is to change the preconditions.

 

[holo]

Leave it to chance.

You assigning apples to heads wasn't chance or random.

 

[holo]

I had Corn Flakes for breakfast this morning. I could have had Cheerios, but via free will I chose Corn Flakes.

Why did you choose corn flakes?

 

[HTacianas]

You assigning apples to heads wasn't chance or random.

It was only an example. I could use a coin with no heads and no tails and call it obverse and reverse. Reverse pitchforks, obverse tiny vials of cinnamon scent.

 

[Dave-W]

In other words, if you rewind time for, say, 10 minutes, without changing anything, the exact same thing would happen a million times in a row, whether it's a coin toss or a thought.

Can you prove that - in regards to the "thought?"

 

[durangodawood]

....Note: don't confuse making choices with having free will. We obviously make choices all the time. The question is if the choice could in fact really have been different, given all the things that lead up to that choice. As far as I can tell, the only way for your brain to have made a different choice, is if your brain was different to begin with.

What is a "choice" when there's only one possible outcome?

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

the idea of free will is a prerequisite for even talking about ethical and moral issues.

It's funny that I should be a determinist, like you, yet have such a radically different opinion on that. If upbringing draws a person to a life of crime, then it should still change nothing that a life of crime leads to a punishment. One thing still leads to another. Knowing how you got the way you are has no bearing on whether what you did was right or wrong.

You can say that you have no choice but to follow the chain of effects, but this conversation, itself, is part of that chain of effects, and your thoughts on this conversation are part of that chain. It's easy to confuse the means with the ends. You don't have to understand all of the mechanics under the hood to drive a car. You only need to drive it. In many respects, it would be better to live as an indeterminist, even if holding the understanding of determinism.

There's also a spiritual element to it all, but it doesn't change much. In the end, you are what you are until God changes you.

 

[Uber Genius]

I guess this belongs in the philosophy forum, but that's closed. But it's relevant to ethics because the idea of free will is a prerequisite for even talking about ethical and moral issues.

Anyway, I'm wondering how a truly free will can even be possible? The reason I doubt it is because absolutely everything, even the tiniest signal between two synapses in your brain, happens for a reason. The only way to alter the outcome of something is to alter the conditions. In other words, if you rewind time for, say, 10 minutes, without changing anything, the exact same thing would happen a million times in a row, whether it's a coin toss or a thought. At what point, and how, does this proposed free will enter the equation?

Note: don't confuse making choices with having free will. We obviously make choices all the time. The question is if the choice could in fact really have been different, given all the things that lead up to that choice. As far as I can tell, the only way for your brain to have made a different choice, is if your brain was different to begin with.

Something indeed has gone wrong here. We could ask, "Does your post have any meaning if you were not free to engage your memory, rationality, testimony, senses and introspection to write it freely?" If we are to take your statements as rational, we must assume a large number of free actions have already occured.

But because of the complex nature of free will I propose we discuss it inside a philosophical format. Your post represents what is known as the Consequence Argument:

1. No one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature.
2. No one has power over the fact that the facts of the past and the laws of nature entail every fact of the future (i.e., determinism is true).
3. Therefore, no one has power over the facts of the future.

We need some definitions. Here is the classical argument for determinism:

1. Some agent, at some time, could have acted otherwise than she did.
2. Actions are events.
3. Every event has a cause.
4. If an event is caused, then it is causally determined.
5. If an event is an act that is causally determined, then the agent of the act could not have acted otherwise than in the way that she did.

By examining each premise and proclaiming each either true or false we can determine 3 positions,

1. Libertarianism - agents are actually free
2. Compatibilism - agents are free yet determined
3. Determinism - agents are not free

Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Note: Historically Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Dun Scotus, and most Christian philosophers were libertarians with regard to free will. It seems implicit in every page of the Bible.

Great topic to flesh out. Thanks for the post.

 

[Uber Genius]

But how? Name one thing you can choose truly freely - that is, without being influenced by anything at all to make that choice.

I don't think it is accurate to express libertarian free will as, "Without being influenced by anything at all to make that choice."

Libertarians are influenced by:

1. a lifetime of experiences forming a view on how the external world works
2. environmental limits such as streets (one cannot choice to drive through a lake instead of a bridge.
3. one's list of options will be a function of their world view which is a combination of environment and genetics.
4. no one is claiming emotional desires and psychological conditions don't influence our instantiation of choices
5. Christians would believe that the concept of original sin limits their innate ability to freely choose not to sin for example.