Free will? What do you think?

CoIin: Ah, free will. A vexed notion indeed.

Yes, of course. the topic has been covered before here in WireClub, and the term "free will" rears its ugly head almost every day in the Religion Forum or Chatroom.

Whenever someone like myself suggests that free will is an illusion, or just a confusion of terms, the reaction is usually one of amazement, or horror, or both. "But it's so OBVIOUS!!"

This form of shock is usually a result of people not having given the issue much thought - we're told we have it and that's that. We take it for granted. I'll be arguing that when properly scrutinized, the whole notion of free will becomes unintelligible.

So, to begin with we need to be clear what we're talking about. A typical reaction from a stunned pedestrian might be...

"I can do whatever I want to do. I can have tea or coffee with breakfast. I can date Bob or I can date Steve, or I can date no one at all. It's my life. I'm in charge. Of course I have free will."

Well, so what? My cat is lying on the coffee table right now when it might be lying on the bed. Does that mean it has free will?

I don't think anyone denies that in the absence of coercion or other limiting forces (eg. locks, chains, prison) you are indeed free to act as you please - enjoy your coffee or tea. But we're not talking about free ACTION, we're talking about free WILL - the freedom to "will/desire/want/whatever", not the freedom to "act".

CoIin: When people speak of free will, surely they mean something more than just acting on our desires? After all, even animals and Canadians do that. It must be something over and above that, something that distinguishes us from pigs and monkeys? (And I think that should be enough to make any evolutionist wary)

Then people tell me that free will comes into play when we have to make a moral decision - whether or not to commit adultery with that hot neighbor : to steal or not to steal: to eat that apple or not - THIS is where free will kicks in.

Well, now instead of just one simple desire, you're faced with two competing desires. You have a desire to make whoopee with that neighbor and another desire to be "good" (call it your conscience if you like). AND THE STRONGER DESIRE IS ALWAYS THE ONE YOU ACT ON. As with a pan-balance, the heavier weight determines which way the balance will move.

What on Earth is mysterious about this? Quite frankly, this is where "free will" starts to become completely incomprehensible to me. People talk as if, faced with moral dilemmas, or any dilemma for that matter, free will is like some fairy godmother - something ethereal and incorporeal OUTSIDE yourself - something APART from the laws of nature which appears like a deus ex machina to arbitrate.

Well, if that's the case, how come, as often as not, IT DOESN'T WORK ? If your will is indeed free, why don't you always do the "right" thing? (please don't mention Satan )

If you did indeed commit adultery, that reveals you wanted to more than you wanted not; and vice versa if you abstained. So what?

(And if the holy men in their wisdom decided to make eating a sin, you'd see most people sinning three times a day, no matter how free they tell us the will is )

CoIin: Now, let's be clear. This is not to say that you'll always act in the same way under similar circumstances. Perhaps next time you'll say "no" to that hot neighbor. But these are SIMILAR - not IDENTICAL circumstances! There's no point beating yourself up about "what I might have done instead". If we could rewind the tape, so to speak, you would do exactly the same thing every time.

Or consider a more extreme case - that of the child molester. Inexplicably, I hear people assume a self-congratulatory tone while condemning the moral turpitude of such wretched individuals.

Well, again, I think the situation is very simple and I see no need to invoke this supernatural "free will" hocus pocus. The reason that the vast majority of us do not molest children is that we have absolutely no desire - no WILL - to molest children.

Evidently there are people who DO have such desires. Some will act on these desires, others won't. When the urge to act becomes stronger than the urge not to - i.e. when the urge becomes irresistible - and the appropriate circumstances present themselves, action ensues. What's mysterious about this?

You have good reason to be very grateful that you're not a pedophile - just as you have good reason to be grateful you are not deformed or retarded or cancer-ridden - but NO reason to take pride in this fact. And much as we might despise that child-molesting priest, we also have to face the uncomfortable fact that if we traded places with him, atom for atom, we would BE him and do exactly as he does.

(Lest I be misunderstood here, I'm not appraising the "right" or "wrong" of these actions - there will always be plenty of others eager to judge - I'm simply DESCRIBING)

If the will is indeed free, why would anyone "choose" to be something that he knows in all likelihood will result in great suffering to himself as well as to his victims? If the will were free, he could simply will away his destructive desires.

Whether we're talking about crime or coffee, looked at correctly, there is no "choice" at all. An exact copy of yourself in 1000 parallel universes would make exactly the same "choices" as you do in this one. Where's the freedom in that? I see 1000 puppets dancing in synchronicity, not 1000 free men or women.

Just think about how ridiculous it sounds. Let's say you choose the coffee. You choose the coffee because you prefer coffee or you have an urge to drink coffee. But where did that preference or urge come from? Were you its author? Did you "decide to have an urge" to drink coffee?

Aha! But now you say, "I had an urge to drink coffee, but I remembered that my doctor had advised me against too much coffee, so I fought the urge. I exercised free will." Well, so what? A second desire - a stronger one - trumped the first.

And in any case, where did that "memory" of the doctor's advice come from? Did you pull it out of a hat or did it jump out at you? Did you "decide to remember" your doctor's advice?

It's clear that events in other organs, the spleen or the liver, say, are beyond our control and therefore beyond praise or blame. Why should events in the brain be any different? The brain does what it does just as the kidneys do what they do.

Being conscious of certain events in the brain (and totally unaware of most others) does not entail that you are the initiator of these events any more than awareness of certain events during a flight makes you pilot.

In fact, science can already show that your brain knows before "you" do when a decision to act has been made. Say you are sitting down and make a decision to stand up. You are the author of this decision, right? -Wrong!

It has been shown repeatedly in various experiments that the motor areas of the brain are already firing up BEFORE you become aware of your "decision" to stand up. Rather than issuing an order to your body to stand up, it would be more accurate to say that your consciousness is being INFORMED of an executive decision already made. (see the work of Benjamin Libet and others for details)

Put this way, we see free will once again to be an absurd notion. How could you possibly be aware of a decision THAT HAD NOT BEEN MADE YET? The decision MUST come before the awareness.

Where is this freedom you speak of?

Let's close with a quote from Albert Einstein (always a good man to have on your side in a debate )

“Honestly, I cannot understand what people mean when they talk about the freedom of the human will. I have a feeling, for instance, that I will something or other; but what relation this has with freedom I cannot understand at all. I feel that I will to light my pipe and I do it; but how can I connect this up with the idea of freedom? What is behind the act of willing to light the pipe? Another act of willing? Schopenhauer once said: Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will (Man can do what he will but he cannot will what he wills).”

CoIin: Neuroprosthetics? Do they work in pigs?

Yeah, and I agree, Caly. The brain is my second favourite organ too

DawnGurl: Notions of "freedom" "beauty" "truth" are imaginary constructs we use loosely but have no "real" intrinsic value. They are relative values, so "free will" is another relative term. Compared to inmates we have more 'free will' than they. Our most cherished imaginary construct and overlord( aka God )has the ultimate "free will." Compared to Jehovah/Allah we are not free to do as we please as they are.

Does this have anything to do with "Free Willy"?

Yan26: My understanding of free will ( as used by the religious people) is that free will is the ability of someone to choose his decision i.e God doesnt make you do bad things you choose to do it.
So take an example.
Two identical twins living in the same house all their life within the same society and social constraints. Both discover a wallet which is not theirs. Will one of them pick it up or will both pick it up?
Some people believe the outcome is based on a combination of their genetic make up and social conditions. For these people there is no free will because they believe if a person with X genetic make up has Y social conditioning he will always react in the same manner.

Others( religious people who qoute free will ) believe that there is a third quality which is the soul which has the most important impact on a persons decisions. So the Free will is being exercised by the soul and not the biological person. And it is the soul that is therefore judged.

So if you believe in a soul then Free Will seems logical.

DawnGurl: No more cough syrup for Caly........

DawnGurl: I think this whole bullshit discussion about free will is a ruse by Colin to get us to buy him drinks. Its his cheap New Years Party "extravaganza."

DawnGurl: I know I know I feel your pain; I too have been scandalized!

DawnGurl: And me as well!

CoIin: @ Caly and Dawn

@ Yan

Hmm, thanks, but the soul is another one of these unintelligible concepts, to me anyway. And I don't think it helps much in this discussion.

After all, does it just float along beside us doing nothing (in which case what good is it? ) or does it intervene at appropriate moments (in which case it apparently has the power to suspend the laws of nature )

And why do we get the souls we do? Am I responsible if I get a killer's soul?

It just seems to be another one of these invisible pink elephants which, while serving to cheer some people up, has no observable consequences, adds an unnecessary extra layer of complexity, and which opens the door for any Tom, Dick or Harry to make up stories about and sound learned.

CoIin: coiin's Picture

Yan26: The main context / reason in which I have seen Free Will being used is when the religious are questioned about why people do bad things if god is responsible for everything. So Free Will is used as the reason why God should not be responsible for the bad things that happen.
If a person believes in god he would usually believe in souls too. For such a person it is the soul which decides how a person lives his life and it is the soul that is judged by god. So Free Will would be something that is exercised by the soul( which also makes sense why it is the soul that is judged).
Whether a soul exists or not is a completely different question. The fact is that people who believe in god generally believe in souls . And for someone who believes in souls free will seems logical.
So the question of Free Will actually hinges on religious belief or the lack of it

CoIin: Sounds like another fiendishly clever sadistic notion

Not only does You-Know-Who get off scot free with a handy Get-Out-Of-Omnipotence-Free card, but we get to be judged, lynched and burned in this life as well as tortured in the eternal thereafter.

Unless you have a brain tumor, of course. Then you're not responsible. And neither is He. Just bad luck, I guess. Or good luck? Or quantum indeterminacy?

CoIin: The deterministic game of Monopoly was proceeding harmoniously until George landed on the Chance square. He read his card aloud...

"Heaven error in your favor. Collect free will"

George jumped up and down with joy.

He knew that the game would proceed exactly as before (after all the generous offer didn't include power to control the dice), but from now on he would get to enjoy a false pride each time another player landed on his property and a dreadful guilt each time he "screwed up" and landed on someone else's.

DawnGurl: Caly be very careful; I noticed Colin attempting to pickpocket you again.

Aura: Free will. Poor will has been framed no need to keep him locked up.

No really 'to do something in free will' to me means no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to do it. The action is yours and so is the consequence.

As to the question if you have any choice in this whole free will thing, sometimes, sometimes not. Like my coffee, not only do I prefer it, I'm probably addicted. So if I were to drink tea, not only would I drink something I don't like, I'd get an headache sometime after.
But free will does come into play when I need something, say insurance, and there are 3 options equally good or bad for me to chose from. the reason for my needing it might not be free, but what I chose is done from my free will.

Zanjan: You know, sometimes humans overthink things, creating their own mysteries where there are none. Reminds me of finding a crumb on the floor and examining it to death, finally arriving at the ultimate conclusion everything is made from dust. What has one learned?

‘Free Will’ refers to a power belonging only to the human intellect; it’s an ability of mind that goes above and beyond conscious awareness and natural inheritance of Spirit. It’s not a natural response to stimuli. This means that, unlike animals, there’s more to us than the size of our brains.

Notice that other sentient creatures have a single, distinct nature that fits a purpose in the food chain. Yet each species is also marked by unique features necessary for its own survival. For instance, cats will do this (catch prey just for practice, wasting the kill); dogs will do that (play bow/group song howl); and the ostrich does another thing (sticks head in sand for protection). We recognize these distinctive traits as belonging to the nature of their species and they can’t change that - there is no choice.

Man, on the other hand, has TWO natures; therefore, he’s endowed with Ego and Soul – the former is base, the latter is spiritual. Since these natures have distinctly different traits of their own, man cannot display both simultaneously; however, he can decide which he allows to take precedence. To do that, he has to turn his face towards his desires (what he loves most), which means his back is turned to the other.

The Soul is what sets man in a different kingdom of creation than those of animals and plants; and ‘Free Will’ is the power by which we move from one of our natures to the other.

Many think Free Will is nothing but the *ability* to make an intellectual choice for one’s self, or as a *permission*, as if it’s one of the Human Rights. Others see it as an *event* - any personal decision that isn’t influenced by conditions ie. duress, incentive, fear, ulterior motive or pressure of cultural norms. I think that’s a description of an altruistic act, not a faculty.

Free Will, in religious terms, is something God has bestowed as a *power* no other creature possesses – so, it’s a greater gift than the faculty of determination. You see, as power that every human has the potential to display, it seems to be latent in some folks. This power cuts the tethers that bind us to our base nature -> our human limitations. By it, humans rise above ego to true nobility, reflecting the divine traits of the spiritual reality of a true man.

CoIin: Zanjan, I know you mean well, but you really do talk a lot of crap. No offence.

David Hume says it best

When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

But you'll refute him too, no doubt. Sigh.

Hey Zanjan... Do you ever think you might be wrong? Guess not.

CoIin: But you seem quite peaceful, so that's cool