Does free will exist?

Perception can be induced. For example; it’s a sunny day, you’re lying on your back on a grassy hillside, just watching the clouds. Someone says ‘Do you see the dragon?’ and suddenly you do – previously random light and shade transformed into a stylised image.

Perception is retrospective. An incident in the here and now can cause you to see past events in a new light. The end of The Usual Suspects is a case in point.

The correct quantum mechanical definition of parallel universes is "universes that are separated from each other by a single quantum event." This infers the continuous creation, or spawning, of alternate realities since the Big Bang.

However, to paraphrase Einstein, ‘God does not play dice’ – the universe is based on a consistent set of physical laws which govern its operation. A determinist would thus say there are no random acts, merely ignorance of all the factors which influence a given event. Of course a determinist is thwarted at the sub-atomic level, where merely observing an act can change the outcome.

Despite this you can adopt a ‘black box’ approach to inherently unknowable events – it doesn’t matter how a given result is achieved as long as the input (cause) and output (effect) can be measured and quantified. In Jurassic Park Jeff Goldblum attempts to explain Chaos Theory by dripping water onto Laura Dern’s hand – no two drops behave the same. I would say that if you drip water onto my hand, my hand gets wet – it’s simply a question of perspective.

Based on the above my argument is that the traditional multiverse of alternate realities doesn’t exist. The universe we currently live in is the result of deterministic systems, even if these are unobservable. It is the only possible end result.

Of course this deterministic universe has dire consequences for the concept of ‘free will’. Given that environmental factors have, at least in part, an influence on mental development (the old ‘nature versus nurture’ debate), then human behavior becomes just another unknowable – but quantifiable – system.

As it stands psychiatry is more of an art than science, although we already acknowledge the concept of behavioral imperatives that can influence, even dictate, our actions. There are things that make us laugh, make us cry, make us fall in love at first sight. The greater our understanding of psychopathology, the more fine-tuned these stimuli can become. Given this model of human behavior, ‘random’ acts would ultimately be revealed as a series of learned and/or instinctual responses, working in combination.

And yet…

Self-awareness sets us apart from the universe. ‘I think, therefore I am’ is its own proof of existence. It is not a learned response or instinctive behavioral trait. This isolated intellect, this voice in my head which can express conscious thought, is what makes everyone unique. This self-awareness, the ‘mind’, resides within the physical brain, almost as a lodger. It can end up a prisoner of the flesh due to infirmity or injury, but it can also exert uncommon control over its host (psychosomatic illness, bursts of superhuman strength).

In a very real sense what we believe to be true can fashion our individual reality.

In a very real sense every human is a ‘loose cannon’ in a deterministic universe.
 
Basically Determinists say that the Universe was created with a specific set of laws and given that everything in the Universe operates by those laws then, from the moment the Universe was created, everything that was going to happen was already determined.

I think we have to be careful to differentiate a hypothesis from a fact.

What - if any - evidence do the Determinists have which supports their theory?

Regards,

Peter
 
I like your entry, Reiver. I think it overviews the situation succinctly.

This is my own, convoluted, misunderstandable take on the matter to date:

I just realised that I have actually learned something new, after all, in the interim between lives of this thread.

Yes, Mos is right that the instincts for survival and procreation are inescapable (as noted in another thread, at least one suicide attempter found himself thinking "I want to live" before hitting the river) and don't really fall under our control very much.

But we are capable of wishing to terminate our lives, which is something commonly believed to be unique to us. We do (probably) all know people who don't wish to procreate, others who have relatively little suitable contact with members of the sex that would enable procreation or those who take vows not to.

These would seem to be choices made which are contrary to the most basic of instincts in all living creatures.

So, how do they come about?

If this were a true thesis, I'd make fewer generalisations and support my propositions with data, but I'm not that dedicated and don't want to wade through reams of contradictions searching for the ones that support me, so I'm just riffing here. Please take it as such and see if anything makes sense to you.

We're born with neurons hanging around in our brains which are mostly waiting for connections to be made (check out the BBC Christmas Lectures). This is how we record and recall experiences. The more an experience is repeated, the stronger are the connections made. The less the repetition, the weaker the connections and in some cases they disconnect altogether. We learn when to smile and laugh, when to be angry, and we start to build up a database of likes and dislikes.

By the age of 7, the bulk of our learning has finished. From now on we are establishing our own characters. By the age of 30 it begins to get harder to learn anything new without sustained effort and practice.

And the purpose of all this is to install subroutines in our responses so that we can react quickly when familiar (usually survival- or procreation-based) situations arise. Hence we reflexively respond to alien noises in the night or reflexively react to what we have come to appreciate as a beautiful face. Or word, come to that, since we, as creatures of language have an affinity for a well-turned phrase, as well as ankle.

When the unfamiliar arises, we search through our subroutines and find the nearest match which will tell us how to respond. If such a search comes up empty, then we create a fantasy to accommodate the event or situation. Sometimes the fantasy is effective and a new subroutine is created. This is part of what we call imagination.

Sometimes we have a nice little pattern of subroutines going along prettily and all is right with the world when the unexpected (external) crisis imposes itself and we initiate Pain Mode. A lover jilting us, or having an affair, will do this very neatly with repeatably predictable results. Another subroutine we return to time and again.

And sometimes we notice that this is happening and we don't actually like it anymore. When consciousness takes over the creation of one or more subroutines, we become innured to the pain of, for example, murder (a soldier will rationalise taking a life, but only when he's done it a few times can he comfortably do it again). We can create new connections or disconnect old ones which allow us either to empathise more with or less with the pain of others.

Pre-determining is, accordingly, something we train ourselves to do in order to interact comfortably and automatically with other members of our society; to survive in a hostile arena; to find a mate. So what happens when someone from another society comes along? If their cultures are radically different from our own, we have to access our like/dislike subroutines first and then either assimilate these new cultural routines into our own or choose not to. If we choose the latter, we could be accused of racism. If our immediate society is also racist, we can reinforce these subroutines quite nicely, thank you. Otherwise we may take steps to overcome them.

Importantly, though, we can take those steps, with conscious effort, if the need arises or if other influences, either internal or external, prevail.

So, it seems to me that our responses to most things that we are likely to encounter are determined by our surroundings, with a little help from our genes. We accept influences which appeal to us or which make demands on us and may then make conscious efforts to alter our most common (perhaps anti-social) patterns of behaviour and neuron connection. When we "fall in love", we adapt to our partners' patterns. When we are caught robbing banks, we adapt to the Law's.

I'm not sure where this leaves "free will", except back in the box that says "too complicated to be certain, but if it walks like a duck and shoots ducks like a duck...."
 
The Parson rushes in "where angels fear to tread" and says "Yes." Free will exists, but it is also all foreordained/predestined. Logical nonsense, but not all truth is logical.

"Logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end."

Being one of my favorite Star Trek quotes from Spock, I kind of forced the association here with your statement, Parson. I hope you don't mind. I also don't know how I missed this thread so I would like to chime in with my opinion, as I have no facts to offer that would not just be someone else hearsay.

Parson, you and I might have a rarer than most outlook on freewill because we believe it is the most important gift (or one of) given us by our creator. I think the most valuable aspect of being human is that it makes us different than every other living creature on this planet. Animals might have a basic freewill they enjoy, but humans have a higher and moral freewill. Whether our decisions are pre-known by the Creator of this universe is perhaps a discussion for another thread, but I will say I believe in Him and I have come to understand that He does not always use that ability at all times. Do you read the last page of every book, every time?
OK, back to subject from our point of view, and that's just it. From my point of view, I had a choice to make whether I was going to comment on this thread because I have an interest in this subject, or pass on it. My decision was weighed with the fact this is going to have a spiritual shadow for me and not all people are...comfortable with that, and I liken myself the peace-maker, not the war-monger.
Freewill, I will conclude, makes us who we are. Decision after decision patterns us a lifetime of choices, through carefully thought out plans to spontaneous trips that are cherished for a lifetime. To me, having someone upstairs is a comfort factor, knowing any situation in my life that might arise that I am uncertain about, that it will be OK, that I'll get through it. Beyond that, this is my adventure, and freewill is wonderful from my perspective, from putting trust in a (now) known God, to which flavor ice cream sounds good in my shake. I see now why I love the entire Star Wars saga so much, it shows inherently similar situations for a father and a son, and it shows the different paths they took and the different results of their freewill choice(s).
Is there anything other than freewill that could make ourselves so proud of a decision we've made?
 
Huttman,

I can see that we share a lot of agreement on this topic. I believe that the question of "Does free will exist?" is primarily and ultimately a question of religion/philosophy.

(On the religious side of this question we are dabbling in Calvinism vs. Arminianism.)
 
Huttman,

I can see that we share a lot of agreement on this topic. I believe that the question of "Does free will exist?" is primarily and ultimately a question of religion/philosophy.

That is indeed a happy thought. Thank you for your response, Parson.

(On the religious side of this question we are dabbling in Calvinism vs. Arminianism.)

I had no idea what these two things were, so I looked them up:
http://the-highway.com/compare.html
I only read the top two explanations for the comparison as we are going out soon to see a certain saga's episode one in 3D. I would have to agree with both, and quick reading would suggest they are both right except they disagree with man's 'faith' offering to God as one says it is a gift and the other says is it not. The book says obedience, not sacrifice is more agreeable to God, as as to whether that in itself is a gift....I have thought about what we as sinning humans can 'give as a gift' to God. I have come to the conclusion the only thing of value we can give back that was not originally intended for us (live a good life and get good things out of it/undeserved kindness/walk modestly with your creator) is sorrow. We can feel bad for what has happened to God's (perfect) creation(s). Everything was perfect until the fall. If we dare ask him how he feels, it might give us an insight not taught in church and be an unexpected 'gift' of understanding not many people share. It has been for me a path of closeness to God I never thought possible at one time.
 
It is near bed time here after a busy weekend --- Of course Parsons have no other kind --- so I might not be functioning on all cylinders, but as I read what you've wrote I'm not quite sure you understood what was being said in the article you referenced.

The shorthand version (and understand that there are more nuances than this) is that Calvinism believes that free will is largely an illusion. God makes the first move toward humanity and each move that humanity makes toward God was predestined by God. While Arminianism has human free will as the beginning point of salvation and life.

I know of very few people who would be purely Calvinist or Arminian. In Christian circles my reading would be that most theologians have a slightly hybrid Calvinism. But secular philosophers would be fairly strongly on the side of free will. They do not see the need for a "God" in the equation simply a nearly personified evolution as shown in the "need" to pass on genes to the next generation. This evolution than functions as "godlike."
 
I'm sure they'll either be determined to give Peter that information, or be so confident that its delivery is not preordained that they won't bother.
 
I believe that the question of "Does free will exist?" is primarily and ultimately a question of religion/philosophy.
I'm not sure that can be right. An omnipotent creator must have chosen to give us free will. He also set the bounds in which it can be used - I cannot exercise my free will to sprout wings and fly. In addition, those of us who use it improperly can look forwards to an eternity in the blazing pits. So, a God-given free will is very far from truly free. At best, it is a deliberately engineered test which results in hideous punishments for those of us who fail.

In a godless world view, there is a stark choice. Either our impulses and reactions are governed by unseen laws of the physical universe (in which case we don't truly have free will, even if we think we do) or we are living in a chaotic world which came about, if not by chance, at least for reasons entirely unconnected with humanity (in which case we do have free will, but it doesn't matter two hoots how we use it).

Regards,

Peter
 
Some philosophies contend that the universe is a physical manifestation of consciousness. In its original state, this consciousness is capable of free will, as it has pure and total information, but this capability does not exist in its "descended" state (atoms etc). According to this philosophy, the purpose of evolution is to develop from a state of complete unconsciousness back to the original, and at present we are barely emerging from the first.

By positing consciousness as something that can exist independent of a physical brain, this philosophy allows for the possibility of free will without either a judgemental creator or chaotic laws. What it doesn't answer adequately is why this consciousness would muck about manifesting itself physically in the first place.
 
I'm not sure that can be right. An omnipotent creator must have chosen to give us free will. He also set the bounds in which it can be used - I cannot exercise my free will to sprout wings and fly.

Ah, but you can, Peter. Although those wings might not sprout from your back but your creativity and your eyes watching and copying the natural world. People fly all the time on metal or carbon fiber wings.

In addition, those of us who use it improperly can look forwards to an eternity in the blazing pits. So, a God-given free will is very far from truly free. At best, it is a deliberately engineered test which results in hideous punishments for those of us who fail.

Yet another misguided or just plain lie from the church of old that has been incorporated into literature and religious teachings for centuries now. Life is a gift, for those who abuse it (or others) their life will go out like a light switch. For God to keep someone alive for eternity because they were 'bad' for a few years in that eternity is sadistic and cruel and NOT justice. That is not our creator. The bad things on this planet we are doing to each other. Well, not the members of this forum, of course. We are all very civil and understanding:)
 
Ah, but you can, Peter. Although those wings might not sprout from your back but your creativity and your eyes watching and copying the natural world. People fly all the time on metal or carbon fiber wings.

But that's not the point. The point is that the exercise of divinely given free will is limited by whatever boundaries the Almighty has decided upon. "You can do it X way but not Y way" (as in your example) is a limitation. You will no doubt seek to argue that there are jolly good reasons for this, but it is a limitation nonetheless.


Yet another misguided or just plain lie from the church of old that has been incorporated into literature and religious teachings for centuries now.

Says who? I accept that the modern, mainstream church has become a bit more touchy-feely and a bit less hysterical about cackling demons prodding sinners with toasting forks, but people tend to create the gods they want and I am not aware of any overarching authority which states that everyone else got it wrong and only now are certain elements at the more liberal end getting it right.

Free will simply does not fit any model which has at it's heart an intercessive, omniscient deity. We can only ever do what he has allowed us to do.

Regards,

Peter
 
By positing consciousness as something that can exist independent of a physical brain, this philosophy allows for the possibility of free will without either a judgemental creator or chaotic laws. What it doesn't answer adequately is why this consciousness would muck about manifesting itself physically in the first place.
To me, that sounds like religion-lite - there is an ultimate purpose, but not one that takes the form of an intercessive and punishment-happy creator.

Ursa makes a good joke, but I find it rather comforting to think there is no higher purpose of any sort. I wasn't alive until 1990* and not being alive did me no harm at all. It's difficult to see how being dead is going to be any different.

I don't want to stray from the OP, but even a disinterested higher purpose is suggestive of a framework which is potentially at odds with notions of free will.

My guess is that our free will is less free than we think it to be, largely because we are social creatures who, consciously or otherwise, are heavily influenced by our environment. However, I fall short of a totally mechanical "if X, then Y" approach, because it seems to me that the multitude of factors which could potentially affect any decision, however small, are such that any one of us could feasibly respond in more than one way.

Regards,

Peter

* I might be lying.
 
But that's not the point. The point is that the exercise of divinely given free will is limited by whatever boundaries the Almighty has decided upon. "You can do it X way but not Y way" (as in your example) is a limitation. You will no doubt seek to argue that there are jolly good reasons for this, but it is a limitation nonetheless.

I agree, there are limitations for humans to exist. I for one don't want to be a shape shifter and turn into a bird, but I am happy being human with the possibility of still being able to fly in another way (artificial gravity trousers anyone?). I cannot be angry at God for not allowing me to eat dirt and not get sick when there are so many other wonderful choices. I can not conceive, personally, any restriction that would allow me not to enjoy life more. Free will to make choices exists, but there are consequences to all choices. Beyond that, free will does not exist to counter the physical laws we are bound by, but there are ways around everything. We cannot exist in the vacuum of space, but we can travel through it with proper equipment. I guess that is enough for some, not all.




Says who?

Says me. See more explanation below.

I accept that the modern, mainstream church has become a bit more touchy-feely and a bit less hysterical about cackling demons prodding sinners with toasting forks, but people tend to create the gods they want and I am not aware of any overarching authority which states that everyone else got it wrong and only now are certain elements at the more liberal end getting it right.

That is because the lies of the mainstream church has been revealing it's ugly face over the last few decades, especially. If one does not just take someone else's word for it and really studies the bible, the thought of suffering forever is abhorrent to God. It also does not make sense for the reason I stated that you did not quote from me. There is just no love or mercy in eternal torment.



Free will simply does not fit any model which has at it's heart an intercessive, omniscient deity. We can only ever do what he has allowed us to do.

I do agree, you are right, Peter, free will with limitations. Free will to make choices, but limitations that we are physically bound by. Does that sound right?...says me finally summing it up in a few sentences.
 
Hi Huttman,

I can not conceive, personally, any restriction that would allow me not to enjoy life more.

How about a lack of disease? You will no doubt argue that oppression, starvation, war, inequality etc are all human created conditions, but it's difficult to run that argument for disease.

Free will to make choices exists, but there are consequences to all choices.

And here is the rub. The consequences of "misusing" our free will are out of all proportion to the offence committed. You may not believe in the burning pits (which I still say places you in a small minority even of those who subscribe to the Abrahamic faiths), but you still believe in a difference of treatment which is broadly expressed as eternal life for some and the light going off for everyone else. As a proportion of our eternal lives, our mortal lives are infintessimally small. There is no suggestion in any of the theology with which I am familiar which states that we can go on exercising free will once we have passed (or failed) God's little salvation test.

A laboratory rat who is put in a maze and can go one way for cheese and one way for nothing is not truly exercising free will. They are forcibly put in a situation where all they can do is make a choice between two eventualities. To succumb the rats who "fail" to an eternity of punishment or banishment seems odd, to say the least.

Beyond that, free will does not exist to counter the physical laws we are bound by,

Precisely. And if God created the world, it was presumably him who also determined how the physical laws of his creation would affect us. So, he limits our supposedly "free will", just as we limit the choices of the lab rats.


If one does not just take someone else's word for it and really studies the bible, the thought of suffering forever is abhorrent to God.

I am afraid that depends entirely on which bit of the Bible you choose to study. The Bible is hopelessly riven with contradiction and attempts by intelligent and eminent theologians to square the circle put me in mind of horses and stable doors. They decide on the conclusion before they consider the (largely self-serving) evidence. If you want the Bible to be about fire and brimstone, it is easy to find the passages which support such a reading. The so called "warped" versions of religion practised by terrorists, cultists and so on are every bit as doctrinally sound as the more socially acceptable manifestations practised by thoroughly decent, tolerant folk such as yourself.


There is just no love or mercy in eternal torment.

Nor is there in eternal banishment.

Free will to make choices, but limitations that we are physically bound by. Does that sound right?...says me finally summing it up in a few sentences.

I can certainly understand - and respect - your argument. But for me, you are having it both ways.

Best regards,

Peter
 

Back
Top