Does free will exist?

[Alternative]

I am new to this forum so I haven't been reading much around, pardon my lack of knowledge if this is already discussed or doesn't make sense.

I read in the other topic that God gave us free will. I don't have much for God but given the benefits of the doubt. Is there such thing as free will?

I believe everything happens is due to "cause and effect" or butterfly effects. Free will is just an illusion for people that can't accept or see a predetermined path that is not guided by a deity, but by the environment and experience of an individual.

The argument for "we do have free will" is because we are able to choose between the choices given to us. But what I see is that choices are guided by our experience, we will always choose the one benefits or lead to one's desired goal. One might choose to charge at someone holding at gun at him because he knows he can take him down because he did so in the past or capable of doing so with combat experience/ or he take cover because he know he is not experience enough to survive a direct confrontation.

Hope someone would enlighten me.

[Nothingman]

Sup and welcome Alternative,

[Belinda]

Re#1

Does free will exist? is a useful way to pose the question, as the notion that FW exists presuposses that FW is an entity, not a process.

Firstly, Few modern people believe in supernatural entities that exist in the state of lodging within individuals' bodies. This is the stuff of certain late night movies made for light entertainment.


Secondly, please consider that FW is not choosing what to do. We all have the experience of choosing, that is, from about the age of two years old.
What is free choice in a world where we need to know reasons how things connect together? In the absence of the aforementioned creepy spirit thingy FW can be nothing more nor less than a base for randon choices.Random choices are not a big deal, and even are arguably Bad and Evil, and possibly the sort of choices that pertain to ugly characters in sci fi movies .
_________________
Socialist

[OTavern]

[Gearge]

[JPhillips]

If you believe consiousness is a product of the physical brain then there is no free will. This is because if everything is mechanical, if you know the brain and all variables involved in every decision making process, then you would be able to predict with one hundred percent accuracy every reaction to every action, every effect for every cause. You would be able to predict precisely not only what an individual is thinking thinks but how one will behave based on past experiences, that person's physical brain, and the stimuli that evoked the response. You would be able to predict precisely what a person will say and how he will react when spoken to. One's whole life would be predetermined down to every thought and every action. A murderer would have choice but to murder, a rapist would have no choice but to rape, and a thief would have no choice but to steal.

If you believe consiousness lies outside the human brain then there is free will.

I believe I have free will. You may believe you are a robot and that is your prerogative. You have free will to believe whatever you want.

[Alun]

I agree with Belinda.

Of course this discussion hinges first on the question; if free will exists, then what is it?

I think the predominant idea of free will is really one of responsibility, not of metaphysics (i.e. an ad hoc defense in the problem of evil). So what is responsibility?

I don't think it's very controversial to say that responsibility is, and the etymology is illuminating, the ability of a being to be held meaningfully accountable for its actions. "Accountable" meaning not just that the responsible thing actually caused the action, but that you can assign costs to the responsible thing.

Take, for example, a rock. If a rock rolls off a hill and smashes someones skull, the rock caused their death. Suppose we were to respond to the rock, perhaps telling it that, "If you smash another person's head, I will throw you into a burning volcano!" I'm guessing here that the rock will be unimpressed; telling it this will have no effect whatsoever on whether it smashes another person's head.

In contrast, if perhaps a person kicked the rock, our threat would likely be heeded--one way or another. A person understands what we're saying. Further, a responsible being can account for said responses whenever it acts deliberately.

This is not really a controversial psychological position if you strip away what may sound like meta-ethical assertions here. When we act consciously, we generally are influenced by reasons and the consequences we anticipate for our actions. Hence, we at least ought to know and anticipate what costs people may impose on us (or reward us with) for our actions.

So, in my view, we're responsible--i.e. thinking, deciding, and communicating--beings, and therefore in every meaningful way we are free beings in a way that rocks simply are not.

As to God and gods, I will just say briefly that by definition, if some being(s) caused everything, then they caused my actions. Period. If some being(s) know everything, then they caused my actions knowing what they caused my actions knowing their consequences. Hence, in a way, these beings are more responsible for what I do than I am.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world"

[whitetrshsoldier]

[JPhillips]

Belinda and Alun

Here is the definition of free will:

"The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."

I would argue then that free will is at least in part, deciding what to do.


Alun

I enjoyed your comments and for the most part felt what you had to say, as usual, was very well said and made a lot of sense.

Except for the last part about if God made us He is to blame for our actions. So how can you claim to really understand the meaning of free will? I know you don't believe in God, but if you did, would you rather He made you incapable of choosing any thought or action you so desired? This is really what free will is. You have a choice. You are not a robot. You can choose to be a nice person or you can choose to be a jerk if it suits you. You are even free to call me a backwards hillbilly for believing in silly fairy tales like God. Would you want God to take that away from you?

You seem to think that God should either make us so we can't have an bad thought or perhaps should follow us around and remind us everytime we are doing something wrong (oh never mind, He does this, in a way. It is referred to as a conscience, which even atheists have).

I thought the following might be of some interest to people who believe in science and scientific studies but deny the existence of free will; you might want to keep this to yourselfs:
http://www.in-mind.org/issue-9/free-will-in-social -psychology.html

"The Vohs and Schooler (2008) studies showed that belief in free will has behavioral consequences. Participants who were induced to disbelieve in free will showed an increase in antisocial behavior: They cheated on a test and thereby effectively stole money from the researchers. Subsequent work in our laboratory using their procedures has found other disturbing effects, including aggression, reductions in helpfulness, and mindless conformity (e.g., Baumeister, Masicampo, & DeWall, 2009)."

[Alun]

[JPhillips]

Alun

The definition of free will was from Webster's dictionary, not mine.

However, I concede that the dictionary definition is too concise in view of the fact that there are different views and different versions of what determines free will.

I had a psychology professor in college who worshipped B.F. Skinner and felt that Skinner and other behaviorists had proven that humans are just a sophisticated version of Pavlov's dog. I disagree.

I also have worked with and been around Social Workers who will tell you that it is society's fault when poor and underpriveleged kids from broken homes end up joining gangs and committing violent acts of aggression toward innocent people. I've seem too many people "rise above" their upbringing, so although I believe their environment should be taken into consideration and that things could be done to improve upon their lot, I do not believe you cn just absolve them of all wrong doing.

I hope this gives you some insight into my argument. I supposed you could say I have somewhat been conditioned to think a certain way in accordance with past experiences. But my experiences are only part of the equation; it is what I make out of my experiences through the process of reasoning that cause me to be unique from every other human being.

Therefore I submit to you that we should all achieve to be positive, think positive, and treat others in a positive manner because this serves to condition ourselves and the ones we interact with to be more positive in life. It is my free will to choose to try and be a positive person. Even though negative experiences in my life serve to make this approach more difficult, I know it can be done if I have the will to do so.

[Alun]

I think that's generally a good outlook, but what I'm saying is that it (both your conclusion and the controversy of nature/nurture) has exactly nothing to do with "real" or metaphysical free will. Your thoughts and perceptions are, most likely, deterministic--very complicated, but deterministic. Otherwise, we would simply be creatures who occasionally acted randomly--not by considered choices. So to me it doesn't make sense to talk about human beings being "free" from their physical makeup or God's will, if God made human beings, because then we would really no longer be human beings--much less responsible human beings.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world"

[JPhillips]

Alun

Since I adhere to the belief that God created us in His image, and did so in such a manner that ultimately we cannot fail in our quest to return to the Kingdom of God (think Universal Salvation; reincarnation; Karma) I suppose I would be a determinist of sorts if I adhered to the belief that once we've obtained enlightenment, we would be incapable of ever straying from God again.

Even though it is impossible to ever reach perfection in the sense that God is presumed to be, it seems logical that I should eventually become what God has planned for me to become. Following this line of thought, I should be able to achieve the ability to only think "good" thoughts and to behave in a manner consistent with God's will. If the ability to think bad thoughts and acting in a manner that is not in accordance with the will of God remains an eternal reality, then it seems I would always be capable of committing thoughts or acts that would cause me to become spiritually unpure and to be separated from God again. In this sense, I would always have free will.

There is a belief that God first created man as souls without a body, and man in his own selfish desires to experience the pleasures in a physical body, strayed from God and eventually became mortals who forgot from whence he came. We are essentially going through a process that will allow us to return to this original state. Since we have learned many lessons in our time on earth, it would be unlikely that we would ever desire to stray again. However, if free will is truly a choice that we will have always,it would not be impossible to stray again.

Obviously our minds would have to evolve to such magnitude that we would have the power to truly control our emotions,thoughts and actions.

[OTavern]

[Alternative]

I am somewhat leaning towards with what JPhillips said. Other than the God part, not a fan of him/her.

Alun
If your actions are the products of your own thoughts, desires, and perceptions. Then would you not agree that those thoughts, desires, and perceptions are product of your past experience and upbringing.

If you look at the bigger picture, at least from my point of view. A path is already determined at childbirth, factors such as living environment, relatives and friends changes your desire and perception of things. The ability to choose is further restricted by social norms, advertisements, punishments and teachings as well as other minor factors. Would you say you would be the same person with the same desire and perception now if you're brought up in the opposite situation than you had?

If free will or freedom to choose exists, then one wouldn't hesitate to actively put his hand into the boiling water and knowing the consequences without previous instruction or desires. As stupid as that might be to any observers, he can be consider as actively and freely choose to do it regardless of any mental restrains.


I hope that makes sense, not that good with my vocabulary.