Do we have free will?

[scorpia]

The Persnickety Platypus Speaking:



Diverging from the original topic (True Christians love abortion) Scorpia and I entered a rather interesting discussion on human free will. The relevant posts have been split from the original topic and moved here for a more open philosophical debate.



Free Will- The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances

Recently, I have come to a personal conclusion that animals (in general) lack this quality, and are governed by two external agencies; genetics, and environment.



Do our our thoughts and actions depend on such circumstances, or may we make decisions of our own accord? If God created us each as unique, individual beings, then is it possible that he created some people more likely to revert to sin, therefore burdening them with an unfair opportunity at salvation?

Please try to disgregard the religious side talk jumbled in, and focus on the free will portion of the debate.

















Scorpia speaking:

Blame the puppet? Not the puppeteer pulling the strings?

And why presume that there is any puppetry at all?

[scorpia]

In that case, no. I think he did it all because he cared for his wife or his kid or something. That would have been caused by his emotions. But if emotions can be controlled, would they really be a causation that would negate free-will?

[McCulloch]

If you can demonstrate that emotions are uncaused, then I would concede that there is free will.
This offer does not mean much. How could you possibly prove that emotions are uncaused? There is a huge difference between uncaused and having unknown or highly complex or even chaotic causes. Emotions are demonstratably affected by many things; brain chemistry, trauma, genetics, drugs (proscribed and recreational), personal interactions, diet, health, weather, luck, decor, etc.

[scorpia]

Yeah but, emotions may be the cause in some instances. But is that because emotions are a cause and there is no free will, or is it because someone lets the emotions be a cause?

And whatever emotions are caused by, are they really a cause when someone can control the effects of these causes on themselves? Would the ability to resist the effect of these causes on oneself be proof of the existance of free will?

[McCulloch]

And whatever emotions are caused by, are they really a cause when someone can control the effects of these causes on themselves? Would the ability to resist the effect of these causes on oneself be proof of the existance of free will?

I think that we agree that emotions are part of the chain of cause and effect. Emotions are caused by a complex and perhaps chaotic interaction of factors which may include brain chemistry (natural and artificial), environment, neurology and other biological factors, human and non-human interaction and the experience of other emotions. Emotions then affect our will.
But we can choose to override our emotions. We can choose to skeptically challenge the claims of the salesman, even though our emotions say that he is a really nice guy and would not misrepresent his product. We can choose to go down into the dark basement that we are afraid of at night to change a fuse. Yes we have will.
The difference is that you claim that we have free will. Will that is somehow, "unconstrained by external circumstances". I do not agree with that claim. I believe that our will is, itself, caused in complex chaotic ways just as our emotions are. Our will is affected by our intellect, our emotions, our circumstances, social pressures and all of the things that affect our emotions. You have not been able to demonstrate free will.

[HughDP]

And whatever emotions are caused by, are they really a cause when someone can control the effects of these causes on themselves? Would the ability to resist the effect of these causes on oneself be proof of the existance of free will?

I think that we agree that emotions are part of the chain of cause and effect. Emotions are caused by a complex and perhaps chaotic interaction of factors which may include brain chemistry (natural and artificial), environment, neurology and other biological factors, human and non-human interaction and the experience of other emotions. Emotions then affect our will.
But we can choose to override our emotions. We can choose to skeptically challenge the claims of the salesman, even though our emotions say that he is a really nice guy and would not misrepresent his product. We can choose to go down into the dark basement that we are afraid of at night to change a fuse. Yes we have will.
The difference is that you claim that we have free will. Will that is somehow, "unconstrained by external circumstances". I do not agree with that claim. I believe that our will is, itself, caused in complex chaotic ways just as our emotions are. Our will is affected by our intellect, our emotions, our circumstances, social pressures and all of the things that affect our emotions. You have not been able to demonstrate free will.

How about if I present you with two buttons - one marked 'A' and one marked 'B'. I tell you nothing else about those buttons but ask you to press one of them.

How 'free' is your will in choosing which one?

[McCulloch]

How about if I present you with two buttons - one marked 'A' and one marked 'B'. I tell you nothing else about those buttons but ask you to press one of them.

How 'free' is your will in choosing which one?

It is a matter of perception. I am unaware of all of the factors which lead me to chose one over the other. So it seems to me that I can freely choose one over the other. However, that does not change the fact that there has been no demonstratable uncaused agent affecting my choice. I have no reason to believe that there is anything other than those things which can be shown to exist which affects such a decision. Given the lack of evidence, I must provisionally proceed under the assumption that there is no soul; no ghost in the machine.
Provide evidence and we'll revisit that assumption. That is science and skepticism.

[HughDP]

How about if I present you with two buttons - one marked 'A' and one marked 'B'. I tell you nothing else about those buttons but ask you to press one of them.

How 'free' is your will in choosing which one?

It is a matter of perception. I am unaware of all of the factors which lead me to chose one over the other. So it seems to me that I can freely choose one over the other. However, that does not change the fact that there has been no demonstratable uncaused agent affecting my choice. I have no reason to believe that there is anything other than those things which can be shown to exist which affects such a decision. Given the lack of evidence, I must provisionally proceed under the assumption that there is no soul; no ghost in the machine.
Provide evidence and we'll revisit that assumption. That is science and skepticism.

Well I don't believe in a soul myself, but that's besides the point.

What I'm getting at is that there could be a distinction between having no free will and having ones will conditioned (even if it's conditioned heavily).

I don't think anyone could deny that we are all conditioned by genetics, emotions, environment and such to quite an extensive degree, but I think that's different to saying that all our future activities are entirely mapped out for us based on that conditioning.

There is certainly randomness at the microscopic level; I'm not sure to what degree that affects things like emotions though.

McCulloch, I have no evidence for absolute free will and I doubt that anybody does, but I think theres a cut off below that where systems are complex enough to prevent calculation of all possible outcomes, and such systems do a fine job of providing apparent free will at least. Now if something - like a god - was interfering with our will beyond that then it would be a different matter altogether.

[McCulloch]

What I'm getting at is that there could be a distinction between having no free will and having ones will conditioned (even if it's conditioned heavily).

I don't think anyone could deny that we are all conditioned by genetics, emotions, environment and such to quite an extensive degree, but I think that's different to saying that all our future activities are entirely mapped out for us based on that conditioning.

There is certainly randomness at the microscopic level; I'm not sure to what degree that affects things like emotions though.

But even random events qualify as external circumstances. Pseudo-random events like tossing a die can affect our will and change our choices, so certainly it is possible that random quantum events might do the same. But that is not the same as saying that we have free-will. It is just adding one more external factor into the mix.

McCulloch, I have no evidence for absolute free will and I doubt that anybody does, but I think theres a cut off below that where systems are complex enough to prevent calculation of all possible outcomes, and such systems do a fine job of providing apparent free will at least.

I cannot debate that point. Our will, I have already admitted is most probably chaotic. What I meant by that is exactly what you have stated. In Chaos theory, a chaotic system is completely deterministic and yet impossible to calculate. Hence, our will, a property of our brain, is determined by a combination of many things, all which follow deterministic rules if broken down into small enough segments. Yet the end result it beyond calculation. Therefore, we have the paradox of apparent free-will in a deterministic system.
There are those who try to link quantum randomness to free-will. I find their arguments unconvincing. The appear to be trying to express their spiritual presumptions in quantum physical mumbo-jumbo.

[harvey1]

But even random events qualify as external circumstances. Pseudo-random events like tossing a die can affect our will and change our choices, so certainly it is possible that random quantum events might do the same. But that is not the same as saying that we have free-will. It is just adding one more external factor into the mix.

I think what you are missing McCulloch, is that a system can be indeterminant because it is an indeterministic system and not because it would have been deterministic had it not been for random events acting upon it. We don't have to make the assumption in the first place that all systems are deterministic. The reason for a system having free will is because this is a quality naturally shared by most sufficiently complex physical systems.

There are those who try to link quantum randomness to free-will. I find their arguments unconvincing. The appear to be trying to express their spiritual presumptions in quantum physical mumbo-jumbo.

I don't think that one has to single out people as the only complex system being autoplectic resulting from quantum chaos. In addition, quantum chaos has already been demonstrated in a lab. So, I think there is sufficient reason to believe that classical chaos could be caused by quantum chaos. That would mean that classical chaos is not necessarily deterministic since the initial conditions may themselves be indeterministically determined.

[McCulloch]

A hint for correcting the link.
Use quantum chaos