What is free will?

[JohnSerew]

Dear people,

Regardless weather you are Christian or not, this question is for those who believe that we humans have 'free will'.

I have been unable to formulate a clear definition of what 'free will' exactly is for myself without it being a paradox. So what is your definition of 'free will' and also, does that definition of 'free will' implicitly contradict determinism and in what way?

I am really curious about your answers!

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't believe in free will, but I understand it to mean 'being able to have made a different (non-random) choice'. ie: I just picked up a pen. Would it have been possible to choose not to (in a non-random way)?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Free will means that there is a self-controlling power of personhood that allows one to select from more than one possible future course of action. In the deterministic view, there is only ever one possible future course of action.

Objectivist View of Free Will | Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Individualism | The Atlas Society


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JohnSerew]

Free will means that there is a self-controlling power of personhood that allows one to select from more than one possible future course of action. In the deterministic view, there is only ever one possible future course of action.

eudaimonia,

Mark

But I see a problem there. See, as I understand it, Free Will means that can, to use your words, select from more than one possible future course of action. But isn't it true that in essence, we are allowed to 'want' to make that decision? And if we want to make that decision than that means there is a reason, and if there is a reason, in the end it could be predictable and you would say that even though there are more outcomes, you can know in advance what somebody is going to choose?

If you would ask me, I think free will is a paradox. But the world isn't 100% deterministic. I think that for outsiders(the ones not making the decision) it is technically possible to be sure what somebody is going to choose and therefor, the outcome is deterministic. However, for the chooser itself to know the outcome is impossible. If in point 1 in time, we make a desicion for ourselves after which in point 2 in time someone would tell us that they knew we are going to choose, then in point 3 we would be able to change that decision based upon this new knoweledge. In other words, we could never be subjected to the sensation of determinism because our choices are always based on reasons and knowing our own choice is a reason as well. Therefor, we could only say about ourselves that our choice was deterministic after it is made by us. Outsiders can know our choice in advance and thus predict that decision. As soon as you involve a feedbackloop to the individual making the decision, the deterministic world would become instable as long as there is that feedback, because every time you hear about your own choice, you can take another one and the outcome changes etc. etc.

I wonder what you think about this view.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As I see it, free will is what makes you able to choose freely from multiple choices.
I'm not sure if it actually exists or not. It sure seems to exist, but at the same time there are things that seem to contradict it's existence.

Like for example the fact that when put under a scanner, it seems like your brain makes decisions before you are aware of them. Stuff like that makes me question the validity of the concept. I'm not willing (yet?) to go one way or the other. For me, it's an open question.

Having said that, I'ld say that the concept indeed somewhat contradicts determinism. To illustrate in a very simplistic analogy... Gravity is deterministic. A falling object does not have the freedom to fall however it pleases. It will fall according to the deterministic laws of nature. It can't choose to fall slower or faster or in another direction.

I realise it's a poor analogy, but it's an easy one because the deterministic force of gravity is easy to understand.

So in that sense, if there are deterministic laws that rule how our brain makes decisions, then free will can't exist. Because our choices would be determined before hand.

It would mean that if I would alwasy choose the same option given the same circumstances. In a true free will world, I should be able to make different decisions if I encounter the exact same circumstance twice. In a fully deterministic world, those circumstances would determine my decision...

 

[OliverC]

I also conclude that freewill is a paradox. Freewill only exists as an idea to express apparent choice, or the act of making choices and the imagined outcomes.

Freewill exists as long as we see ourselves as seperate from choice and outcome. Also as long as I hold freewill to be something in itself, with a real existence then it continues to appear to be a thing, which it is not as it is really just an idea. I do not believe free will can ever be seperate, nor can I be seperated from creation (i.e. the universal laws)

My decision is that I will act and take responsiblity for my actions, influencing them by thoughts. Thoughts are influenced by beliefs. So by setting up a "good" belief system I have more confience that my thoughts, actions and results will be "good". This in turn helps me to act confidently and avoid the paradox of determination versus freewill.

 

[quatona]

"Free will" - as opposed to what? Unfree will? Free lack of will? Unfree lack of will? Limited will? Constrained will?

Of course, my will is free to will whatever it wills. I´m just not sure about the implications of this.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't believe in free will, but I understand it to mean 'being able to have made a different (non-random) choice'. ie: I just picked up a pen. Would it have been possible to choose not to (in a non-random way)?

This is the definition I've seen most commonly. The bad part about it is that I can't think of any way to figure out if this is how reality works or not. That makes it pretty useless for anything other than endless quibbling based on nothing.

 

[Chany]

"Free will" - as opposed to what? Unfree will? Free lack of will? Unfree lack of will? Limited will? Constrained will?

Of course, my will is free to will whatever it wills. I´m just not sure about the implications of this.

There are really two definitions of free will.

The first is "the will is unrestrained to do what it wants". This is obviously true; I have a will and it is not restricted on the internal level.

However, the more important definition is "the will can choose between different courses of action, such that the agent's will is responsible for the actual course of action."

This second one is debated. I think it is paradoxical and false, and that the will is just a bunch of effects of previous causes.

 

[JohnSerew]

I agree with what you are saying. Of course we have a will and we do what we will, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be known in advance what that choice is going to be. I think that everybody would always make the same decision if the situation is the same. But even though people don't choose, that doesn't mean that we don't have to take action when their decisions are 'bad'. For example, someone who killed someone else can say: It is not my fault, I didn't choose to be in this situation so I cannot be held accountable. Which is of course a false way of reasoning since we still have to deal with him because he is dangerous. I think the only conclusion to take from this is that we have to try to understand why people do the things they do in order to understand them. I think that if we truely understand someone, we won't be mad by their choices because when you really understand someone, you know that you would have done the same.

 

[Paradoxum]

This is the definition I've seen most commonly. The bad part about it is that I can't think of any way to figure out if this is how reality works or not. That makes it pretty useless for anything other than endless quibbling based on nothing.

It's not that hard to figure it out... I'm not sure why you think it's so hard.

Reality doesn't work that way because our brains are made of matter, which is deterministic (or random).

Even if you believe in a soul, that must also be deterministic, since for something not to be random it must act for some reason. If it acts for some reason, then it is determined. The only choices are determinism and randomness... in reality free will isn't possible.

It's pretty obvious when you think about it in more detail... the only reason people disagree is because they don't really think about it, are they are biased in favour of wanting to have free will.

 

[JohnSerew]

It's not that hard to figure it out... I'm not sure why you think it's so hard.

Reality doesn't work that way because our brains are made of matter, which is deterministic (or random).

Even if you believe in a soul, that must also be deterministic, since for something not to be random it must act for some reason. If it acts for some reason, then it is determined. There only choices are determinism and randomness... in reality free will isn't possible.

It's pretty obvious when you think about it in more detail... the only reason people disagree is because they don't really think about it, are they are biased in favour of wanting to have free will.

I totally agree with you, but I am wondering what you think about my point of the 'decider' never beeing able of knowing what he is going to choose while in the process of chosing thus, a determenistic experience isn't possible. Only in hignsight.

Also, don't you think that we are as free as we want to be?

 

[durangodawood]

Yeah. Free will is some latitude for the SELF to make decisions among various possibilities.

 

[Paradoxum]

I totally agree with you, but I am wondering what you think about my point of the 'decider' never beeing able of knowing what he is going to choose while in the process of chosing thus, a determenistic experience isn't possible. Only in hignsight.

Also, don't you think that we are as free as we want to be?

You're point was that if you were told what you would do, you might change your mind?

I think you're probably right. The prediction itself will likely act as a reason determining you to choose differently than the prediction.

I don't really have any problem with my lack of free will. I can still act as if I'm free... and I have to act as if I'm free. What I want, is to be able to live an autonomous life with liberty, according to my choices. That largely depends on the government not being overly restrictive.

 

[quatona]

However, the more important definition is "the will can choose between different courses of action, such that the agent's will is responsible for the actual course of action."

This second one is debated. I think it is paradoxical and false, and that the will is just a bunch of effects of previous causes.

I would agree with you.
My question regarding this definition would be: How does the will do the choosing? And where´s the freedom in that?

On another note, even if the will could choose between different courses of actions and thus could be called "responsible" for the actual course of action: what would be the implication of this? It seems to me that the implication is: because my will is free determining my cause of action, I am freely determining my course of action. I don´t understand how that follows. Rather, I´d say: if my will is free, I am not.

 

[quatona]

One other thing:

The first is "the will is unrestrained to do what it wants". This is obviously true; I have a will and it is not restricted on the internal level.

I´m not sure I understand why you introduce "on the internal level" in the second part of your sentence, and then conclude that the sentence is true even without this qualifier. I do not quite see how external restrictions and determinations are neglectible for the question at hand.

 

[brightlights]

Dear people,

Regardless weather you are Christian or not, this question is for those who believe that we humans have 'free will'.

I have been unable to formulate a clear definition of what 'free will' exactly is for myself without it being a paradox. So what is your definition of 'free will' and also, does that definition of 'free will' implicitly contradict determinism and in what way?

I am really curious about your answers!

Well "will" is just another way of describing a person. So any person is also a "will". The will describes the aspect of the person that pushes them in a certain direction. The will chooses, makes plans, etc...

A free will, or a free person, is simply one who isn't hindered by anything outside of themselves. They are able to do what they want to do.

 

[durangodawood]

...A free will, or a free person, is simply one who isn't hindered by anything outside of themselves. They are able to do what they want to do.

Wow.

Pretty restrictive definition.

Everybody is restricted by conditions of the world around them.

 

[durangodawood]

...philosophically, we have to admit that we ultimately don't have free will.

No we dont.

The very best arguments against free will ultimately boil down to overreaching regarding how much we know about the workings of matter and the mind.

In other words, there no rock solid argument either way. So just choose what suits you best.

As for me, it FEELS like I have free will. I PREFER the idea of free will. There no good reason to assume I dont have free will. So for now, I'll just assume I DO have it..... at least just a little bit of it.

 

[durangodawood]

Hi, durangodawood.

Thanks for the reply. However, I remain unconvinced that we ultimately have free will. The reason I say that we don't is because of this excellent presentation I found on YouTube titled "Sam Harris on 'Free Will'", posted by Skeptic Magazine.

(I would have embedded the video, but I need to accumulate 50 posts in order to do that.)

Hi Virgin.....,

Thanks for the referral. I'm curious and will seek it out.

But did you absorb his argument enough that you could summarize the key objection to free will...?