Does free will exist?

[Peter Graham]

Are there things that people do that cannot be explained other than by the existence of free will? (And I'm suggesting that we exclude the "an angel told him or her to do it" argument.)

Yes - anything pointless. If we deny the possibility of free will, we have to ask ourselves what the driver is behind human existence:-

1. It is all part of a divine master plan.

2. We instinctively obey non-divine rules which order the universe and everything in it.

3. We are unable to do anything other than respond in a fixed way to any given situation.

Believers probably go with number 1 every time. Free will is part of divine creation. The fact that religious authorities make it clear that we will be punished if we exercise our free will incorrectly suggests very strongly that free will exercised independently of the godhead must exist.

Number 2 is the hamster in the wheel thing. We are all products of order. The choices we make are pretty much predestined as a means of getting us where we need to go. Problem is, without a divine hand on the tiller, this argument looks thin to say the best. It also cannot explain the popularity of Oasis.

Number 3 (which appears to have sparked most debate in this thread) is, in many ways, virtually indistinguishable from free will. Because there are so very many possible scenarios and because they arise so frequently (arguably with every breath we take and every step we make), to all intents and purposes we appear to be expressing free will, even if we aren't.

But the problem with number 3 is that it relies on us being passive - we react to stimulus and to situations. This doesn't appear to me to be a very good description of human life and interaction, which is so frequently irrational, impulsive and downright chaotic.

In addition, the fact that we can waste our time in so many ways - be that staring at an inspiring view or painting, building a scale model of HMS Victory out of matchsticks, hunting for Roman roads in overgrown fields or even listening to Oasis - all suggest that we are able to shape and determine our own lives, at least to some degree.

Regards,

Peter

 

[HareBrain]

But the problem with number 3 is that it relies on us being passive - we react to stimulus and to situations. This doesn't appear to me to be a very good description of human life and interaction, which is so frequently irrational, impulsive and downright chaotic.

I think we've reached the point where we're repeating our earlier arguments, but I just wanted to respond to this, Peter. If human life is irrational, impulsive and chaotic, wouldn't that be a good argument for the idea that we react passively to stimulus and situations? If we did exercise free will on a regular basis, wouldn't life be rational, planned and orderly?

As for your "wasting time" argument, I don't think most people really believe their hobbies are a waste of time. But if they did see them that way, why would they do them? Again, I think that's an argument against free will -- they waste their time because they're obeying unconscious impulses to do so, like the person who crams more and more chocolates into his mouth even when he's stopped enjoying them.

 

[Peter Graham]

If human life is irrational, impulsive and chaotic, wouldn't that be a good argument for the idea that we react passively to stimulus and situations? If we did exercise free will on a regular basis, wouldn't life be rational, planned and orderly?

Absolutely not. We are bags of raging hormones and whizzing electrical impulses, usually with a very poor idea of how we appear to the outside world. Tiny things send us into frenzies of excitement, rage, frustration, fear or joy - the Today programme, roadworks, party political broadcasts, reality TV shows, recorded telephone answering sytems in utility companies, the misues of the prefix pre, crowing cockerels at 4 a.m etc etc. We behave utterly irrationally and in a way which is entirely at odds with a sober analysis of cause and effect.

As for your "wasting time" argument, I don't think most people really believe their hobbies are a waste of time. But if they did see them that way, why would they do them?

Because they are fun. Or, at least, more fun than doing nothing and easier to achieve than the things which really would be fun. But take my example of looking at a view. In the ordered world view, such things can have no use. Aesthetic appreciation for its own sake is completely pointless. Illogical. But we do it anyway.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Interference]

It also cannot explain the popularity of Oasis.

Oi! Show a little respect, our kid.

 

[HareBrain]

Absolutely not. We are bags of raging hormones and whizzing electrical impulses, usually with a very poor idea of how we appear to the outside world. Tiny things send us into frenzies of excitement, rage, frustration, fear or joy - the Today programme, roadworks, party political broadcasts, reality TV shows, recorded telephone answering sytems in utility companies, the misues of the prefix pre, crowing cockerels at 4 a.m etc etc. We behave utterly irrationally and in a way which is entirely at odds with a sober analysis of cause and effect.

But ... but ... how is behaving according to the dictates of raging hormones and electrical impulses anything other than what I've been arguing? You seem to be making my point for me, only better.

 

[Interference]

It's a cyclic, rebounding argument, HB. Similar arguments (or even in some cases the very same ones) can be used to support several different propositions. Why do our hormones rage? Because God wills it OR because that's science.

 

[Ursa major]

* Resists dubious pun. *


See: I do have free will!

 

[Parson]

Three Cheers the The Bear!!

Hip! Hip! ____________________

Hip! Hip! ____________________

Hip! Hip! _____________________

 

[Interference]

That's not free will, that's will power

(It's a two step programme for teddy bears that go round and round the garden)

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Re: Does "Determinism" or (Fate) exist?

No/Yes.

 

[HareBrain]

Re: Does "Determinism" or (Fate) exist?

Well, I like "Determinism", and I like (Fate). But which is better?

Only one way to find out ...

FIIIIIIIIGHT!!

 

[Ursa major]

Re: Does "Determinism" or (Fate) exist?

Or we might decide, willingly, that we're fated never to determine the answer.

 

[chrispenycate]

Re: Does "Determinism" or (Fate) exist?

Somebody please merge this thread

Darn good idea. Done

 

[Moonbat]

I have been to many fates in my lifetime, or was that fetes?

And no matter how determined I am to determine is there is detemrinism I am always detered from an answer

 

[Peter Graham]

But ... but ... how is behaving according to the dictates of raging hormones and electrical impulses anything other than what I've been arguing? You seem to be making my point for me, only better.

I think the point here is that if we allow that raging hormones et al do affect our behaviour we are already one step on from the rather cold stimulus/response model of decision making. We are moving from the external to the internal - or, as is more likely, to a mix of the two. We are accepting, I think, that two people from very similar backgrounds and with very similar experiences may react in very different ways to the same situation.

Of course, you have never argued that this is not the case. But therein lies the rub. Our internalised selves have a very large part to play. We have to accept that our internal selves develop and change over time and as a result of the things that happen to us. There are, in other words, very few constants. The person I am now (in terms of how I respond to stimuli) is very different from the person I was twenty years ago - age, experiences, trial and error have all played a part.

So, is it conceivable that a scientific model or experiment could be devised which would be able to tell with 100% accuracy precisely what I would do in terms of movement, thought and voice if the phone rings in three minutes? I doubt it.

We change. The world changes. Even if - and it's a big if - every tiny choice we make (consciously or unconsciously) is entirely predictable, the processes and factors involved are so very complex as to be indistinguishable from what we call free will.

But I ask you this. Do you believe that an MP who fiddles his expenses cannot be held accountable for his actions? Or that a fellow who drives home drunk at high speed and kills someone should not be punished?

Best regards,

Peter

 

[Ursa major]

I have been to many fates in my lifetime, or was that fetes?

But does going to them make them into Fêtes accompli?

 

[HareBrain]

But I ask you this. Do you believe that an MP who fiddles his expenses cannot be held accountable for his actions? Or that a fellow who drives home drunk at high speed and kills someone should not be punished?

Very quick answer, since I have to rush out: no to both (ie both should be held accountable). For two reasons. One, I think that holding people responsible for their actions (except in extreme caes of illness etc) is likely the best model by which society can operate at this stage, even if the model is dubious. And two, in both cases the individual has the capacity for free will -- as I've argued all along -- even if they haven't properly exercised it.

 

[Chinook]

... in both cases the individual has the capacity for free will -- as I've argued all along -- even if they haven't properly exercised it.

Sorry Brain, but you'll have to explain this one to me. What's the difference between having "the capacity for free will" and having free will? Is it along the lines of the lazy ones not using their capacity? Isn't choosing not to choose also a choice? *pauses* Hah-ha!

Here's a question for you - What determines the choices that we are faced with each day? Is the "All Knowing" universe deliberately throwing us curve balls, even though it knows whether we will hit or miss?

There's the rub... We had at least a little something to do with what comes at us everyday don't we? At the same time things come into our lives we could never have imagined or dreamed up. It's a mix. Still, I believe it is how we respond that matters.

 

[HareBrain]

Sorry Brain, but you'll have to explain this one to me. What's the difference between having "the capacity for free will" and having free will? Is it along the lines of the lazy ones not using their capacity? Isn't choosing not to choose also a choice? *pauses* Hah-ha!

Sorry, my wording probably wasn't terribly precise. What I meant was the difference between using free will (as in, a decision made as consciously as possible with a minimum of non-conscious influence) and not bothering to do so. But you're perfectly right, whether someone chooses to make a decision as consciously as possible is itself (in my view) subject to the non-conscious influences of genetics/experience etc, which rather invalidates my justification for punishing wrongdoers on that basis. Bah!

Here's a question for you - What determines the choices that we are faced with each day? Is the "All Knowing" universe deliberately throwing us curve balls, even though it knows whether we will hit or miss?

I think that's entirely a question of spiritual cosmology, if I can put it like that, and entirely unprovable. I think it's possible. Some would argue that although the AKU knows what will happen (being outside of Time) it is the actual experience, rather than the knowledge, in which the value lies.

Still, I believe it is how we respond that matters.

The trouble with a subject like this is that you have to define pretty much every word you use. Like "matters"

 

[Peter Graham]

Hi HB,

Chinook makes an interesting point.

To continue with our analogy, equally interesting is the way in which lawyers in criminal cases use your "victim of circumstance" argument routinely in mitigation. It doesn't provide a defence, but it might be the difference between a community punishment and a spell in clink. However, it's generally ignored by Judges (many of whom also made the same argument in their days in practice) on the grounds that it is regarded by most folk as hand-wringing wet liberalism of the first water and/or further evidence of everyone's favourite non-existent phenomenon - "Broken Britain".

But that said, if you allow for free will (as you do), I presume you accept that it would be quite impossible to correctly identify the point at which free will ends and automatic response begins. You might even argue that people with strong wills are better able to exercise free will. I still maintain that people's decisions to do stupid, irrational or pointless things is the best evidence of free will, so is it the case that criminals who commit ridiculous crimes or who commit other crimes in a totally dopey fashion should be treated more harshly than those who think them through properly, on the grounds that those in the latter category are evidencing more signs of being prompted by automatic response rather than free will?

This fits your argument (possibly), but it does fly in the face of accepted wisdom, which tends to hold that a planned crime is more blameworthy than an opportunistic one and that treating stupidity as an aggravating feature is not really cricket.

I would never try to argue that circumstance and stimuli do not affect decisions. However, I don't think it's a "one or t'other" situation in which we are either responding automatically or truly exercising free will. I would see it more as a sliding scale, perhaps always with elements of both and rarely (if ever) with only one to the exclusion of the other.

Regards,

Peter