Free will is impossible unless one is omnipotent. Agree?

[Compassionist]

We are all unique prisoners of causality. Our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences make us who we are. Our awarness, our values, our interests, our goals and our choices all arise from the complex dynamics of our unique combination of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. We don’t all want the same things. We are not all equally able to do what we want. I think that we have a constrained will – our wills are constrained by causality. I think that free will is impossible unless one is omnipotent.

Although there are similarities between people and other living things, everyone is unique. Two people, share 99% of their genes. Two identical twins share 100% of their genes. A human and a chimp share 98% of their genes. While genes are the starting point, they are not the only ingredients in the complex broth that we are.
Genes, environments, nutrients and experiences make us who we are. These four groups of variables interact dynamically and in multiple layers.

While it’s relatively obvious what I mean by genes, I think I should clarify what I mean by environments. By environments, I am talking about the physical environmental factors e.g. temperature, acidity, air pressure, pollutants, etc. For example, if one is too hot or too cold in the womb one would not develop within functional parameters.

By nutrients I don’t mean just carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals. I am also including oxygen and water as nutrients.

By experience, I mean all we perceive through our five senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell) and our thoughts about what we perceive and our feelings about what we perceive and how we respond in terms of words, actions and omissions. For example, right here and right now, YOU are experiencing reading these words of mine. You are also experiecing consequential thoughts and feelings of your own. You will in turn respond with your own words which you will type (i.e. action) or you might decide that it’s not worth the effort and refrain from sharing your thoughts (i.e. omission).

I think that if I had your genes, environments, nutrients and experiences then I would be you, living your life, the way you have lived and continue to live. And if you have my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences then you would be me, living my life, the way I have lived and continue to live.

Depending on the degree of similarities in terms of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences , we can empathise to various degrees. For example, if you have gone swimming then you can empathise with someone else who has gone swimming but if you have never done it you would find it difficult to empathise. Swimming as a human is different from swimming as a dolphin or an otter or a fish or a squid or a whale or a shark, etc. The degree of empathy is directly proportional to the degree of similarity.

Given that no one has totally identical genes and environments and nutrients and experiences, I think that it would be impossible to have total empathy with another organism.

In the poll, I have chosen the first option. I don’t think I could have chosen the other options given my unique combination of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. I am all too aware that I am a prisoner of causality. I am all too aware that I do not have free will. I am all too aware that I have a constrained will. I have made many choices in my lifetime and I don’t think that even one of them could have been any different at the place and time of the decisions. Of course, I learn from experience but this too, is constrained by causality. I can’t learn Japanese without ever being exposed to Japanese or trying to learn Japanese and my ability to learn Japanese may not be as good as yours. All things happen inevitably according to causality. The inevitable has happened, is happening and will continue to happen. You are welcome to try to prove me wrong but you will inevitably fail. And that’s not your fault. Unless you are omnipotent, you are also a prisoner of causality – just like me.

[TheMessage]

OK, I understand what you are saying about the illusion of free will now, but it still perplexes me that I could be able to create a multitude of "choices" in my mind and act upon one or more of them. It seems to me that expression of will is an expression of choosing between multiple effects of chemical reactions. There are chemical reactions in my brain that allow me to "think" about multiple actions and then I use more chemical reactions to act upon one or more of them. So wouldn't my "will" be a "chemical reaction" that "chooses" an earlier "chemical reaction" to act upon.

Sorry for all the quotation marks, I just want to make this make sense.

G

Yes, that's it exactly. But seeing as it's more chemical reactions that 'choose'* which course to take, it's still not really in your control. It's you doing it, but there isn't any true choice involved.

*Note that this use of 'choose' isn't meant to indicate an actual choice. It's really a massive number of complex factors on a chemical level that determine the outcome.

[ggeorge2814]

I don't know this for a fact, but I would assume that the chemical processes taking place in my brain when given any number of "choices" in a situation is different than than the chemical processes that take place in your brain when you're presented with the same situation. If this isn't the case, let me know. But I'll assume it for a moment.

Assuming that, then the individual nature of how my brain handles a situation through it's various chemical processes would mean that my set of chemical processes is making the choice, because we may not make the same choice. And if my chemical processes are specific to me and my body, then isn't that really me making the choice. I mean, if that process isn't what we call choice, then what is? Is the word defunct? I've heard "illusion of choice" arguments before, but it always just seems to come down to a semantic argument. I mean aren't all of the processes taking place in my body and the actions expressed therein... me?

G

[TheMessage]

I don't know this for a fact, but I would assume that the chemical processes taking place in my brain when given any number of "choices" in a situation is different than than the chemical processes that take place in your brain when you're presented with the same situation. If this isn't the case, let me know. But I'll assume it for a moment.

Assuming that, then the individual nature of how my brain handles a situation through it's various chemical processes would mean that my set of chemical processes is making the choice, because we may not make the same choice. And if my chemical processes are specific to me and my body, then isn't that really me making the choice. I mean, if that process isn't what we call choice, then what is? Is the word defunct? I've heard "illusion of choice" arguments before, but it always just seems to come down to a semantic argument. I mean aren't all of the processes taking place in my body and the actions expressed therein... me?

G

Yes and no, closer to the latter. The chemicals in your brain (That is, unique to you) are ultimately the deciding factor in forming what we may call 'decisions'. However, these chemical reactions aren't an entirely closed system operating on its own... rather, every event that is present near these chemicals (Or is otherwise communicated to them) influences the process. It isn't some independent decision, it's perfectly tuned and caused by everything around it.

A simpler way to explain it would be to take another route entirely. You're saying that since it's your chemicals then it's your choice. However, choice implies alternatives by definition. If there is only one course of action, there can be no choice.

Now, these chemicals aren't actually 'choosing' anything, it's deterministic. It's like an equation (Albeit an absurdly complex one that we haven't even scratched the surface of) where you put in all the variables that arise and then the conclusion, or action, is derived solely from those values. If you took the exact same circumstances of the exact same situation in the exact same moment in time, it would always result in that course of action.

Basically, you cannot say the choice was yours because there was no choice to begin with. It's a gauranteed outcome based upon every accumulated factor up to that point.

Or rather, that's what all of the evidence points to. I make no claims of omniscience, of course.

[ggeorge2814]

I just seems to me that it looks that way because we can't go back and change it. When the chemicals in my brain produce thoughts that seem to be options that I can choose from to promote action, and I "choose" one, what you are saying is that that "choice" was what had to happen, or a guaranteed outcome. If that's the case, why the illusion of multiple options? Why not just an efficient operation that only allows for the guaranteed option in the first place?

And to go a little further, I wouldn't make the same decisions about certain situations in the past that I would now in the present, due to better information. Like, I wouldn't choose to worship the Christian god now, but I did in the past. I gathered information that led me to stop worshiping in the Christian god, and every time I am presented with the option to worship the Christian god, I "think" about the multiple reasons for not doing so that I have learned. So being that we can change the way our brain processes information about certain situations, by learning new information, isn't that a catalyst for a more free will?

G

[McCulloch]

Yes and no, closer to the latter. The chemicals in your brain (That is, unique to you) are ultimately the deciding factor in forming what we may call 'decisions'. However, these chemical reactions aren't an entirely closed system operating on its own... rather, every event that is present near these chemicals (Or is otherwise communicated to them) influences the process. It isn't some independent decision, it's perfectly tuned and caused by everything around it.

Of those large numbers of events that influence your behavior, which of them are controlled by you (whatever that is). Ultimately, none of them are. So we are left with the chemicals in your brain, influenced by stuff outside of you, making your decisions. Can you control those chemicals? No, except by making a decision (a process involving those same chemicals). I cannot see a source of truly free will anywhere here.

[ggeorge2814]

But by learning new things, can't we shape our decision making processes of our brain, essentially, our will?

G

[Cathar1950]

Yes and no, closer to the latter. The chemicals in your brain (That is, unique to you) are ultimately the deciding factor in forming what we may call 'decisions'. However, these chemical reactions aren't an entirely closed system operating on its own... rather, every event that is present near these chemicals (Or is otherwise communicated to them) influences the process. It isn't some independent decision, it's perfectly tuned and caused by everything around it.

Of those large numbers of events that influence your behavior, which of them are controlled by you (whatever that is). Ultimately, none of them are. So we are left with the chemicals in your brain, influenced by stuff outside of you, making your decisions. Can you control those chemicals? No, except by making a decision (a process involving those same chemicals). I cannot see a source of truly free will anywhere here.

I tend to agree. It seems what is metaphorically called the "will" is a need or desire to respond or seek satisfaction that has both social and biological dimensions along with learning, adaptation and experience.
We learn and practice so we don't have to make some choices or willfully do some things. The better we are the more thoughtless we can become freeing our minds for other things.
Having wills almost seem to asume we are somehow complete among other problems as well as how we learn. How much is learned my imitation?

[McCulloch]

But by learning new things, can't we shape our decision making processes of our brain, essentially, our will?

And how do you decide to learn? Was it not a decision made by your brain chemicals?

[ggeorge2814]

I'm just not sure here, that "I" should be considered anything separate from "my brain chemicals." This is the issue I'm having. My brain chemicals conjuring up a decision for me to make is the process that takes place when "I" make a decision. I think it's a misplaced separation.

G

[TheMessage]

I just seems to me that it looks that way because we can't go back and change it. When the chemicals in my brain produce thoughts that seem to be options that I can choose from to promote action, and I "choose" one, what you are saying is that that "choice" was what had to happen, or a guaranteed outcome. If that's the case, why the illusion of multiple options? Why not just an efficient operation that only allows for the guaranteed option in the first place?

And to go a little further, I wouldn't make the same decisions about certain situations in the past that I would now in the present, due to better information. Like, I wouldn't choose to worship the Christian god now, but I did in the past. I gathered information that led me to stop worshiping in the Christian god, and every time I am presented with the option to worship the Christian god, I "think" about the multiple reasons for not doing so that I have learned. So being that we can change the way our brain processes information about certain situations, by learning new information, isn't that a catalyst for a more free will?

G

No, because while you have learned it wasn't through free will and it won't be through free will that you utilize that knowledge. The fact that your opinions (Or usual lines of action) change over time merely demonstrates that the chemical reactions take into account increasingly larger amounts of factors which change the conclusions over time.

None of this proves free will, or even lends evidence to believe in such a concept.