Free Will: Fact or Fiction

[IATIA]

Then. from whence does your thought come if not from physiological chemical processes?

Please re-read my prior answer. I used your supposition that thinking requires a chemical reaction.

As I read your post;

deciding on the action to take

This supposes that a decision can be made after the chemical processes. It would still require a physiological process to make a decision. If the decision is not a direct result of these, how does thought manefest outside any physiological process?

[Tino]

This supposes that a decision can be made after the chemical processes. It would still require a physiological process to make a decision. If the decision is not a direct result of these, how does thought manefest outside any physiological process?

I've seen this view before and it mystifies me a bit. You seem to be describing a mechanism of the brain operation that is so isolated that it doesn't seem relevant - ie a chemical process happens and then a thought occurs. I don't think anyone fully understands how the brain works, but the general model I've read about is you take 100 billion neurons, with heavy inter-connection, all of them operating on an electro-chemical basis, and all together they create a neural network that in humans supports consciousness. This ongoing mechanism is what responds to internal and external stimulus, and supports a mind capable of making decisions.

I haven't heard that we know that a specific individual chemical exchange leads to a specific individual thought. But this also feels like the type of thinking that believers use to justify god, with some sort of "from nothing, nothing comes" argument that is far from the point.

I am interested in the question of free will, I'm open to learning that we don't have free will, but other than this "every thought requires a physiologic process" I haven't seen the argument fleshed out to say, eg:

1. If our will isn't free, what is it? What controls it? Is observed behavior consistent with the proposed controller?

2. If our will isn't free, we ought to be able to demonstrate it somehow. Shouldn't there be a scenario, demonstration, experiment, whatever, that illustrates that we don't have free will?

3. Going in the other direction, what would it take to convince you that we do have free will?

[Erinome]

I don't see that anyone really has free will. This seems to be more of an illusion than reality.

Did you choose your parents or what they would teach you? Did you choose the time period and culture that you would be born in? Did you choose the opportunities that would be made available to you in life? Did you choose your personality or preferences?

There are things in life that no one could possibly control, because they're being impacted by another person's freewill. It's how you react and handle the things you can't control that makes you free.

If someone is beaten or raped, it's obviously not of their will, but their reaction is their will. Whether they seek counseling, or self-destruct is their will. Cause and effect.

I know this- there are some pretty shitty parents, cultures, time periods and opportunities in this world. If your particular god forces that shittiness upon innocent babies, he doesn't deserve to be worshiped. He deserves to be tortured for eternity in a lake of fire.

On top of all that, you at all times choose what you most desire, our decisions are chained/limited by what our greatest desire is (you can have conflicting ones).....but we can't even choose our desires.

That's bullshit. No one chooses at all times what they most desire. I most desire to drink liquor and sleep all day, but it wouldn't be beneficial. A lot of times we choose what we must do, over what we desire. I am not going to give any fucked up, sadistic, imaginary sky being credit for the willpower I use to improve my life, and the lives of those around me. My desires are chosen by me.

I believe only God can change your desire. I believe that by nature people do not find God appealing.

Can't think of one reason why the alleged creator of parasites, diseases, killer tsunamis, cleft lips, anencephaly, blindness, deafness, the plague, and dumb motherfuckers wouldn't be naturally appealing to humankind...

It's only by God's intervening that anyone would see a relationship with Him as desirable or even plausible.

How convenient! Why does he only intervene with so few people, relatively? Too busy whipping up miscarriages and malaria?

I believe that (for real Christians) God changes the desires of your heart and allows you to see Him as He is....glorious.

How do you define a "real christian"? I'm guessing it's someone who thinks just like you. Oh yes! Your god is soooo glorious... for me to poop on. I bet he's blessed you in so many ways. Why doesn't he bless Africa? Let me guess... because he's glorious, right?

These are my opinions as a Reformed Christian. I am not stating them as fact so please no "prove it" statements. I'm simply wanting to throw in as it were.

We all know you can't prove shit.

[IATIA]

1. If our will isn't free, what is it? What controls it? Is observed behavior consistent with the proposed controller?

I am thinking you meant to state 'is free.'

Let us start with my definition of free-will. "The ability to make a choice beyond the constraints of physiology". If free will comes from something besides the physiology of the body then we get into souls and afterlifes because the mind is then not confined to the body.

2. If our will isn't free, we ought to be able to demonstrate it somehow. Shouldn't there be a scenario, demonstration, experiment, whatever, that illustrates that we don't have free will?

The neurons would still require some action to make them fire. Drugs and electricity can force thoughts, emotions and actions for which we have empirical data, but the mapping has a loooooong way to go.

3. Going in the other direction, what would it take to convince you that we do have free will?

If I am still aware after my death, I will be convinced my awareness is not a part of the biochemical/bioelectric functions of the body and truly have free will. As a side note, it would also change my views on nihilism and a lot of other things, including the possibility of a god. In fact, it would wreck my world. hock:

---

I do not believe we can have free will in a godless existence. Free will was the last thing I lost any belief in as I could not find a way to accept free will without accepting a god. I believe free will to be a god=like power.

[Tino]

1. If our will isn't free, what is it? What controls it? Is observed behavior consistent with the proposed controller?

I am thinking you meant to state 'is free.'

No I meant it as written. If our will isn't free, what is it?

I'm not inventing anything new for the definition, just taking the dictionary definition of "will."

1.

the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.

2.
power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.

3.
the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.

4.
wish or desire: to submit against one's will.

5.
purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness: to have the will to succeed.

The neurons would still require some action to make them fire. Drugs and electricity can force thoughts, emotions and actions for which we have empirical data, but the mapping has a loooooong way to go.

The action that fires the neurons comes from the mind through the neural net.

You haven't offered any way to demonstrate the lack of free will. Does your view of it have any practical or demonstrable effect or is this just a thought exercise?

If I am still aware after my death, I will be convinced my awareness is not a part of the biochemical/bioelectric functions of the body and truly have free will. As a side note, it would also change my views on nihilism and a lot of other things, including the possibility of a god. In fact, it would wreck my world. hock:

---

I do not believe we can have free will in a godless existence. Free will was the last thing I lost any belief in as I could not find a way to accept free will without accepting a god. I believe free will to be a god=like power.

You lost me here. I don't know what free will has to do with awareness after death or any of the other things you mention. I think we're discussing two different topics.

[IATIA]

Free will is steered by the body, which makes it not free, but rather deterministic or free will is separate from the body which means the body is not necessary.

[Whateverist]

Free will is steered by the body, which makes it not free, but rather deterministic or free will is separate from the body which means the body is not necessary.

I'm not sure what you are trying to saying here. Why should there be any separation between me, my body or what is willed? Why do you imagine that one part controls another? I'm pretty sure all the parts are integrated in my unit.

[Jackalope]

Question: How would a world populated with people who have free will be distinguishable from one where they only have the illusion of it?

To take a stab at your question I'd need to know what it is that is actually controlling our will in the scenario that free will is an illusion.

Well, it was a rhetorical question, but if you want to run with it, I'm game. I treat the question as philosophical in nature and don't think it can be adequately answered at this time (which is why I take an agnostic position on the free will vs. determinism question).

From a naturalistic point of view (*), one could suppose that the illusion of free will could be based in biological or psychological determinism.

I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or other other - but I do find it interesting and sometimes illuminating to explore how a thing is distinguishable from the illusion of said thing.

(*) I operate under the assumption that you subscribe to naturalism (as do I), and write from that POV. If that isn't your POV, then I'd be happy to present a hypothetical from another POV.

[Angrboda]

@Erinome:

John Rawls in his work on justice and ethics, from what I understand, lumps things like intelligence and physical beauty into what he terms "natural goods," being things which are arbitrarily allocated to us as individuals independent of anything we might have done or not have done to deserve them. Curiously enough, he also puts things like "effort" into the category of natural goods as well, being things that we inherit as a consequence of the society, family and environment we are born into. In a Harvard lecture on Rawls, one example of this that was given was, during the lecture, those who rank first in the birth order are asked to raise their hands. First borns greatly outnumber others in this particular Harvard class. I know this effect personally, both as a last born, and coming four years behind a pair of darling twins. Competing for love and affection on the same grounds as my elder sisters would have been a losing proposition. I learned to get what I needed by being sick and helpless all the time. It was the only field in which I could successfully compete. Does that mean I had a defective will? I don't think so. It means I did what I had to do to survive. And it carries forward to today. Am I defective for not changing my basic coping strategies learned in childhood? I would say no, but you seem to disagree.

[Tino]

To take a stab at your question I'd need to know what it is that is actually controlling our will in the scenario that free will is an illusion.

Well, it was a rhetorical question, but if you want to run with it, I'm game. I treat the question as philosophical in nature and don't think it can be adequately answered at this time (which is why I take an agnostic position on the free will vs. determinism question).

From a naturalistic point of view (*), one could suppose that the illusion of free will could be based in biological or psychological determinism.

I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or other other - but I do find it interesting and sometimes illuminating to explore how a thing is distinguishable from the illusion of said thing.

(*) I operate under the assumption that you subscribe to naturalism (as do I), and write from that POV. If that isn't your POV, then I'd be happy to present a hypothetical from another POV.

I guess I subscribe to naturalism, if that means that I reject all supernatural claims.

Yes we could all be brains in a vat, or I could be the only sentient being in the universe and this whole forum could just be a dream I'm having. I don't see the point in considering these alternatives and their ilk.

I didn't see anything in the determinism wikis that was specific enough for me to determine what a deterministic world would look like - ie how the people in it would behave.

As for your rhetorical question, I think it gets to the heart of the matter, and I wish the no-free-willers would describe how a free-will world would look different than the world we have today.