Does free will exist?

[Moonbat]

It is a shame that God has snuck his nose into this argument (does God have a nose? Why would it need one? and what would it smell?) anyway.

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.

Wasn't this the initial argument about free will that we were having, that the Rat isn't actually able to make a choice because the 'choice' they make is dependant upon all the experiences that they have had up to that point? I guess that is the determinism side of the argument, and without having two identical (in every way including experience) rats taking identical tests and seeing if they (possibly we will need more than 2) choose different paths we will never know if the choice can be made independantly of prior experience.

To be fair the Rat has several options, from standing where it is, to moving slowly backwards and forwards, to dancing like a mouse, to going left or right at the junction. I think I'm missing part of your argument Peter as I'm almost certain I agree with you on the whole 'does free will exist' argument.

Wasn't the answer we came to, 'we don't know, but it looks like it does'?

 

[Peter Graham]

I think I'm missing part of your argument Peter as I'm almost certain I agree with you on the whole 'does free will exist' argument.

For me, the lab rat analogy only works in a world created by an intercessory deity.

Wasn't the answer we came to, 'we don't know, but it looks like it does'?

That's probably the conclusion if there isn't an intercessory deity. Although I'd go one step further and argue that the evidence as it stands allows us to be fairly confident that we do indeed have free will. If we don't know for sure, but it looks that way, let's take that as a given until or unless the contrary can be proven.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Moonbat]

So what is the evidence that

'allows us to be fairly confident that we do indeed have free will'

Just out of interest.

 

[Peter Graham]

Because it seems to be that way and no one has done any more than suggest that it isn't

We all act as though we do.

We believe it is acceptable to punish people for bad behaviour.

We reward good behaviours.

Our societies are based on responsibility.

All of these may be conditioned by our environment, but most - if not all of us - don't really believe that, any more than we believe that we might be imagining reality. We only say that stuff during dope-fuelled, late night student debates. We steadfastly avoid walking under trains to test the theory. We steadfastly get annoyed with folk who upset us - politicians and journalists being the current bogeymen of vogue - and demand that they take responsibility for the terrible things we've decided they've done. We wouldn't think that way if we genuinely believed that none of us could help anything we did.

We might be wrong, but the fact that we think we aren't is hardwired into pretty much everything we do.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Interference]

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

I'm still working my through the negatives - do you mean that you can conceive of restrictions to being allowed to enjoy life more? Or that "not enjoying life more" is something you aspire to doing and you can't imagine anything that would hold you back from that goal?


Pedantry can be fun

 

[Moonbat]

All good solid reason Peter but unfortunately none of them are proof, in fact some of them are beliefs and that leads us to less solid ground.

I'm sure I could come up with convoluted (and possibly flawed) arguments as to why these statements aren't true, or at least are fallible, but I'm choosing not to.

 

[Parson]

I am not sure we have to throw God into the mix to have this discussion about free will vs. determinism. Unless by "God" you mean "godlike." If I understand the prevailing evolutionary theory correctly you could make a pretty good case for evolution being the deterministic factor.

In that scenario each of us is moving along the path which most likely allows us to pass our genes into the next generation. This makes evolution deterministic and on the macro level at least, no free will.

We have generally been speaking on the micro level, "Do individuals have free will?" instead of asking the question on the macro level; "Does humanity have free will?"

 

[paranoid marvin]

What we do is goverened by our morals, our fears, our beliefs. By the time we are old enough to be capable of making concious decisions, our brains are already too filled with stuff to make any choice we make 'free'.

 

[Huttman]

I'm still working my through the negatives - do you mean that you can conceive of restrictions to being allowed to enjoy life more? Or that "not enjoying life more" is something you aspire to doing and you can't imagine anything that would hold you back from that goal?


Pedantry can be fun

What I meant was, with all the human restrictions we have, I cannot imagine not being able to enjoy life to the fullest anyway. I love life and being alive, my creativity, imagination, and understanding give me untold joy, mid-life crisis looming not withstanding (I am human after all). There is a flip side to that as living in this world under present conditions is not...a paradise situation for even what I perceive it could be. Without going into it too much, I have a hope of this world being without conflict, sickness and death someday; and that gives me an optimistic view of the future.

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.

See above comment for response to that one.

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.

Hmm...Thanks, I have noticed that rather small minority I'm in, too. I have to say, with the harshness of this world's history and current condition, don't you think it possible for a lot of the bible to be taught inaccurately as well? No person ever did anything to deserve to have life in the first place. It's impossible. All that is asked of us is basically the golden rule. For someone to inherit eternal death rather than eternal life, I'm would suspect they would know better but choose not to be nice anyway. In my experience, the harsh judge god sitting there with his checklist waiting to make a mark against you and throwing a few storms your way for a laugh is much more a cynical creation of this cynical world.

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.

If you have an example in mind, please let me know. I do know of advise that goes both ways from Proverbs; It says not to answer a foolish person so as not to become equal to them and the next verse says answer a foolish person so they do not become wise in their own eyes. Contradiction or advise to measure the situation and apply one or the other which ever is fitting?

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.

Reminds me of a news story about bin laden who did that very thing; taking his Koran and using it completely out of context to justify his horrific behavior.

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

But I like cake

What we do is goverened by our morals, our fears, our beliefs. By the time we are old enough to be capable of making concious decisions, our brains are already too filled with stuff to make any choice we make 'free'.

"Hmmm. That is why, unlearn you must, what you have learned" - says the little green guy sitting there eating kettlecorn popcorn with 3D glasses on

 

[Warren_Paul]

What we do is goverened by our morals, our fears, our beliefs. By the time we are old enough to be capable of making concious decisions, our brains are already too filled with stuff to make any choice we make 'free'.

I agree with this. As a culture, free will for many things is taken away from us. We have the ability to choose, but because of the consequences our actions might have, we are forced into making a particular choice in every situation. Hence there never really was a choice at all.

For instance, we could choose to murder someone, but if we did, there is a 99.9% chance we will likely be caught and punished for our crime. Most people, with the exception of the odd one, don't want to face the consequences of their actions, which means they couldn't choose to commit murder... so for them, there was no choice in the first place - it was already decided for them by the law.


Another example:


We can choose what careers to study towards at university, but very few people actually seem to end up working in those careers afterwards, yet you have to work to live, or if you don't work, then the government welfare systems will try to force you into any old job. They wanted to work a particular career, but the choice was taken away from them by economy/businesses/government. They ended up working in a job they had no choice but to take.


And lastly - and please don't jump down my throat for mentioning it, it is just an example.

if we wanted to take a religious view on the matter, specifically Christianity. The bible teaches there is heaven and hell, right? To get into Heaven you have to follow the laws set down by God, otherwise you might end up in hell. But since nobody really wants to go to hell (if they believe in heaven and hell), they have no choice but to follow God's laws. We have the ability to choose, but in the end it is taken away from us by laws.



So my belief is that, psychologically, we have the ability to choose, but because we are told something is wrong to do, we don't make those choices, which means 'free will' is just something we like to believe exists.

 

[Peter Graham]

Hi Huttman,

I have to say, with the harshness of this world's history and current condition, don't you think it possible for a lot of the bible to be taught inaccurately as well?

Yes. Although we have a secondary problem, namely that if the Bible isn't true at any metaphysical level - either because there is no god or because there is a god, but s/he isn't a Christian one - then there is no such thing as inaccurate Bible teaching. We could, of course, teach the Bible like we teach Tess of the D'Urbervilles and we could therefore teach it inaccurately in terms of content and structure, but that's about it.

No person ever did anything to deserve to have life in the first place.

This makes a dangerous assumption that life is a gift. I realise this is the Christian view, but it isn't a given. For most people who live now or have ever lived, life has been average at best and deeply unpleasant at worst.

If you have an example in mind, please let me know

Read Leviticus and the Gospel of Mark next to one another. They simply aren't talking about the same god. Attempts are made to square the circle by pointing at one badly translated NT passage (can't remember the citation, I'm afraid), but the textual inconsistencies are overwhelming. The god of the OT is a misogynistic, violent, jealous, vengeful bully. No reading of the OT can get away from that. The god of the OT would enjoy nothing more than burning people in hell for all eternity, so church leaders who report that to their congregations are acting with impeccable logic.

. I do know of advise that goes both ways from Proverbs; It says not to answer a foolish person so as not to become equal to them and the next verse says answer a foolish person so they do not become wise in their own eyes. Contradiction or advise to measure the situation and apply one or the other which ever is fitting?

Contradiction clear and simple. One can spin it all one likes, but look at what the text actually says. Assuming it was translated correctly*. And assuming that whatever document it was translated from was also translated correctly. And so on through however many versions that have ever existed between now and the originals being written down.

Reminds me of a news story about bin laden who did that very thing; taking his Koran and using it completely out of context to justify his horrific behavior.

He didn't. He just used a different context.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Interference]

I wonder if the Bible couldn't be viewed as a collection of ancient self-help books. I get a distinct feeling from the New Testament that there was a considerable amount of teaching and guidance that didn't make it to the final edit(s).

That the OT God and his NT characterisation are different may derive from the needs of the Chosen People in their relevant eras. Perhaps, after the thousands of years of conflict, war and ethnic cleansing, someone thought it was time for a new mind-set. I think, though have no scholarly examples to explain why I think this, that the current collection of books should probably not be presented, as they are, within the covers of a single book. It has caused confusion. It's a little like asking people to accept that there is something mystical about the alphabet simply because dictionaries and encyclopaediae use it extensively to co-ordinate their explanations of life and understanding.

What has happened, I suspect, is that some books have been compiled together which, for the most part, support each other and require little in the way of detailed explanation for the jist to be imparted. The books which have been left out, but which could have been included and perhaps should be included if we are to have a more rounded understanding of the times, are those most likely to highlight this or that apparent contradiction or confusion.

The Koran appears to be different in one subtle respect: While the Bible is said to be a collection of writings by people who were "Inspired by the Holy Spirit" and collected together by a select committee similarly inspired, the Koran purports to be the Living Word of Allah.

Incidentally, there are different versions of the Bible, including variations in translation, even among Christian communities, but that is more to do with freedom of speech than freedom of will, I suspect.

Religious indoctrination, from whatever source, is guidance towards how to enjoy and experience life more fully and contentedly. But they aren't the only source of this kind of kindly suggestion. Right up to today there are authors who encourage us to turn our bad experiences around, to view them in a new perspective and to take hope from the trials under which we labour.

Psychiatrists and psychologists try to help us analyse our decisions and to identify the ones which underpin our most regular habits, good and bad, and the similarities between stages of psychological analysis, self awareness, alchemical myth and spiritual enlightenment are, I think, astounding. Such contradictions as there are between them seem, to me, to be matters of opinion at best and interpretation at worst.

The common ground that these all seem to occupy is that of encouraging us to exercise our free will, but to do so in the morally, ethically and prudently "right" way. The Bible directs us towards finding the Love of the Creator and applying that Love to every cell in our bodies and the prize is that we will become miracle-workers on Earth and live in Heaven after death. Isn't it interesting that what self-help books there are describe a very similar kind of injunction to locate the centres of our self-worth and, through this, exercise some kind of magical thinking enabling us to become healers and mind-readers. Psychic books tell us that the centre of our being is at the centre of the Universe where all consciousness meets. And Jung spoke just as loudly of the Common Unconscious as a psychological origin for consciousness.

So, all along we are being told how to access freedom of will. Does this suggest we don't have it until we've jumped through the appropriate hoops?

If we accept that most of our waking life is spent in some kind of day-dreaming state, whereby we perform familiar acts with repeatable subsets of actions, that we adopt and entrench habits that allow us to engage with Reality with the minimum of effort, that we rarely have cause to recall a specific event in a normal day and have to make anniversaries out of everything out-of-the-ordinary, then it seems that we show little sign of actually exercising freedom of will.

But if we further accept that we are capable of reaching outside our containment areas of habit, ritual and mundanity as circumstances require or as intent to develop and progress demands, then it becomes clear that we are capable of stretching ourselves beyond our programming to a place where free will becomes more likely.

Perhaps this is the conscious exercising of our consciousness. And perhaps it is a capability and not a given. Perhaps true Freedom of Will is not possible until we have explored the limitations within which our Will currently operates.

I hope this isn't too rambling and incomprehensible, because I think I may actually be on to something here.

Who'd 've thunk it...... ?

 

[Parson]

Not bad for an amateur theologian and philosopher. I would pick some with your view of how the Bible came to be and how it differs from the Koran, but your point about free will is well made and you might indeed be on to something.

(Of course, I'm still going to believe you are wrong. )

 

[Interference]

High praise indeed.

Ty, Parson


I'm right, btw

 

[Huttman]

I'm right, btw

You are, except the going to heaven part, as it's a little more in depth than an all encompassing thing. It's amazing what that (those) book(s) actually have in them once one dives into it. I'd love to share but this open forum might not be the best place because it would be off subject from the thread. Nice post, by the way.

Hi Peter! I just wanted to make one last comment on your reaction to my previous post. The Proverbs I quoted are sound and reasonable advise as we make choices every day in our lives. E.g. what is the best way to go from point A to point B and avoid the heaviest traffic. If I'm wrong, forgive me, but I sense an animosity about the source of the example I gave. Basically, I look at it as choices in everyday life we make, that gives us free will. I can see and respect your view on the thread topic too, and there is soundness to it. I just don't feel confined by it if that were the case so it's really a non-issue for me, personally. I thank you for the past posts as it has given me more thinking material and I'm a thinker-oh how my head spins some times! Thanks again. -Norman

 

[Peter Graham]

If I'm wrong, forgive me, but I sense an animosity about the source of the example I gave.

You mean animosity towards the Bible? Certainly not. I think the NT is by and large an excellent source of morality and the stories in the OT are absolutely fantastic, even if God does come out of them looking like a nasty piece of work.

My concern is with seeing the Bible as anything more than a collection of myths and stories. Very good myths and stories - just like the myths of the Norse gods or the Greek gods - but still only myths and stories. Myths hold a mirror up to us, but it is not necessary to argue that they are factually or historically accurate in order to take the message on board.

To get back on topic, there was a terribly interesting programme about good and evil on Horizon the other night (BBC 4). I think it has particular relevance to the debate on free will. Did anyone see it?

Regards,

Peter

 

[HareBrain]

there was a terribly interesting programme about good and evil on Horizon the other night (BBC 4). I think it has particular relevance to the debate on free will. Did anyone see it?

I assume it's not the same episode (the write-up doesn't mention morality) but Horizon tonight on BBC2 is about how much, or how little, of our actions are conscious.

From Radio Times:

There’s a lovely scene in this Horizon where the director gives each of the brain scientists he interviews a marker pen and a sketch pad. Then he asks each of them to show on paper how much of what the brain does is conscious, and how much unconscious, in their view. They vary: one shades in a tiny square, which he says is the conscious brain’s contribution; another shades off about a tenth of the page. But they all agree that, like an iceberg, the great majority of our brain activity lies below the surface. The sense we are consciously in control is an illusion – and the programme goes on to illustrate this with wonderful experiments involving golf, knitting and chasing toy helicopters.


About this programme

People assume they are in control of their lives, deciding what they want and when they want it - but scientists now claim this is simply an illusion. Experiments reveal that what a person does and what they think can be very different, with the unconscious mind often influencing the decisions they make, from what they eat to who they fall in love with. Horizon reveals to what extent people really do control their own destiny.

 

[Ursa major]

I think we may have been round this particular loop before.

The assumption that seems to be being made is that just because one is unaware of how some (the vast majority?) of one's decisions are made (because they're made by one's subconscious), one hasn't made them. True, one may be said to have not made a conscious decision, but that's just building the expected answer in by manipulating the question.

One, where one is the combination of all one's brain functions (conscious and unconscious), makes all those decisions, for good or ill, understandable or not.

 

[HareBrain]

Yes, but I don't think anyone's ever argued that some outside agency makes the decisions for "one" (apart from as a point of unprovable theology). And you could say the same about a robot, but I don't think anyone would credit it with free will.

Part of the point of my original post was to discuss the possible discrepancy between what drives our behaviour and what we believe drives our behaviour -- in other words, whether we are deluding ourselves as to how we work, surely an important question -- and whether scientific evidence exists to support that. It looks as though the Horizon programme will make some attempt to discuss that.

 

[mosaix]

It looks as though the Horizon programme will make some attempt to discuss that.

Horizon is, unfortunately a mere shadow of its former self. Let's hope this one isn't as dumbed down as some of the ones broadcast recently.