Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Do we have free will, or not?

It appears to us that we have free will. Beyond that, I can't see any definite conclusions that we might draw.

Yes, it only appears to us that we are having free will. But when we try to do something we see all the barriers and hindrances that we have to overcome, hence questioning the possession of free will.

You seem to think that we can - i.e. we are able to - overcome the difficulties of finding out whether we have free will or not? And, having overcome these difficulties, you seem to be assuming that we should? It seems to me that the difficulties might be insuperable, and maybe also that there is no good reason to enquire further even if we can. We are too intimately involved in this question to carry out investigations with sufficient rigour and clarity?

Here's what we know about the the concept of Free Will:

1) All objective evidence is consistent with the presence of Free Will.

2) Yet Free Will is unproven.

3) Free Will likely cannot be proven.

4) Free Will can be disproven, but has not yet been.

5) Logical alternatives to Free Will can and have been made. Some of them can be proven, but none of them have been.

Fair enough. I might quibble about your #1, as I don't think there is much in the way of objective evidence when we consider free will. But what you say here makes sense to me.

[Luzephyr]

'Choice' is just the feeling of one will being stronger than multiple competing wills. The feeling of 'choosing' one particular desire over the other possible ones is nothing more than the dominance of the stronger will over the weaker wills which are constantly contending against each other for supremacy within one's own being.

Therefore I equate the word 'free' not with choice - choice is an illusion - but with the fact that one will is 'master' over the other ones, and is subject to no will above itself - the will of another human being, for instance, has no power over itself. That I call a free will; otherwise the phrase 'free will' has no truth or meaning to it.

But it is not just my own peculiar use of the word. If you unpack the meaning of the word 'free' or 'freeman' you will find that it is always follows my sense of the word, and the equating of 'freedom' of the will with mere choice is a relatively late development of modern times. The idolatry of human 'choice' in general is no doubt the product of the consumer culture of modern times, and philosophies centered around that are a reflection and justification of the value system that would have to exist in order for the consumerist mind-set to be such a dominant force in human culture.

I say that 'choice' only exists if it is interpreted as the consciousness of one will being stronger and therefore defeating all the other desires. There is no one inside of your head picking and choosing between different wills and desires; that is a figment or your imagination. It is not natural for man to be so fixated on his internal states of mind as to contemplate the nature of his will.

Perhaps the human mind was not designed to be so introspective, and therefore when the consciousness became overly focused on the internal states of the mind, the mind couldn't make sense of much of it, and so personfied the wills and desires, which gave rise to the illusion of a 'chooser' within one's head that decides which will is to be the winner, and which desires are to be rejected. I say the strongest will always wins, and the weaker ones always lose.

[LuckyR]

Do we have free will, or not?

It appears to us that we have free will. Beyond that, I can't see any definite conclusions that we might draw.

Yes, it only appears to us that we are having free will. But when we try to do something we see all the barriers and hindrances that we have to overcome, hence questioning the possession of free will.

You seem to think that we can - i.e. we are able to - overcome the difficulties of finding out whether we have free will or not? And, having overcome these difficulties, you seem to be assuming that we should? It seems to me that the difficulties might be insuperable, and maybe also that there is no good reason to enquire further even if we can. We are too intimately involved in this question to carry out investigations with sufficient rigour and clarity?

Here's what we know about the the concept of Free Will:

1) All objective evidence is consistent with the presence of Free Will.

2) Yet Free Will is unproven.

3) Free Will likely cannot be proven.

4) Free Will can be disproven, but has not yet been.

5) Logical alternatives to Free Will can and have been made. Some of them can be proven, but none of them have been.

Fair enough. I might quibble about your #1, as I don't think there is much in the way of objective evidence when we consider free will. But what you say here makes sense to me.

Oh, I never said there is evidence OF Free Will, I said "all objective evidence is consistent WITH... Free Will".

[Pattern-chaser]

Oh, I never said there is evidence OF Free Will, I said "all objective evidence is consistent WITH... Free Will".

Oops, I missed that. Sorry. It seems we are in complete agreement, then.

[lec_nemanja]

I think that as human beings we have free will, but not in an unlimited sense. Our free will is limited by a number of external factors that most often cannot be influenced, or insisting on our free will could only bring us trouble. However, I believe that our free will is closely related to our independence.

[iiQ007]

Is anyone truly free? Beyond the notion of physical freedom, are anyone's thoughts genuinely free or original? I have observed that every thought is, in essence, an idea born from one's observations, grounded in information obtained through the five senses. Even what we perceive as new inventions, I view as the discovery of thoughts, often a form of improvisation on pre-existing ideas.

Yet, I venture to question: How do thoughts come into being? How does the mind communicate with the brain? My observations lead me to believe that the pursuit of free will often culminates in predetermination. While this path may not be just a dead end, I see no path in pursuing freewill.

Let it be clear; I am not an advocate for predetermination either. Instead, I propose that if one were to stand at a point and retrospectively examine their life, they might perceive a sequence of events leading to their current state. However, this perception can be deceptive. Once you entertain the notion that only specific actions on particular days led you to where you are, or that specific incidents determined your outcomes, you fall into a mental trap. This perspective blinds you to the other patterns life presented, the moments you overlooked or sacrificed in pursuit of what you believe brought you here. I argue that you would have reached this point or the desired position even without some of those specific actions, as it was you who chose between the available paths.

The act of connecting the dots in one's life is a deceptive trap. It creates an illusion that the mind, inherently drawn to patterns, eagerly embraces. What you see in those patterns is often what you wish to see, overlooking the multitude of other factors that contributed to your journey.

[LuckyR]

Is anyone truly free? Beyond the notion of physical freedom, are anyone's thoughts genuinely free or original? I have observed that every thought is, in essence, an idea born from one's observations, grounded in information obtained through the five senses. Even what we perceive as new inventions, I view as the discovery of thoughts, often a form of improvisation on pre-existing ideas.

Yet, I venture to question: How do thoughts come into being? How does the mind communicate with the brain? My observations lead me to believe that the pursuit of free will often culminates in predetermination. While this path may not be just a dead end, I see no path in pursuing freewill.

Let it be clear; I am not an advocate for predetermination either. Instead, I propose that if one were to stand at a point and retrospectively examine their life, they might perceive a sequence of events leading to their current state. However, this perception can be deceptive. Once you entertain the notion that only specific actions on particular days led you to where you are, or that specific incidents determined your outcomes, you fall into a mental trap. This perspective blinds you to the other patterns life presented, the moments you overlooked or sacrificed in pursuit of what you believe brought you here. I argue that you would have reached this point or the desired position even without some of those specific actions, as it was you who chose between the available paths.

The act of connecting the dots in one's life is a deceptive trap. It creates an illusion that the mind, inherently drawn to patterns, eagerly embraces. What you see in those patterns is often what you wish to see, overlooking the multitude of other factors that contributed to your journey.

It is unfortunate that the concept of Free Will is labeled such, since folks get caught up with the various meanings of the word "free". It is simpler and less confusing to think of Free Will as AntiDeterminism.

[iiQ007]

Is anyone truly free? Beyond the notion of physical freedom, are anyone's thoughts genuinely free or original? I have observed that every thought is, in essence, an idea born from one's observations, grounded in information obtained through the five senses. Even what we perceive as new inventions, I view as the discovery of thoughts, often a form of improvisation on pre-existing ideas.

Yet, I venture to question: How do thoughts come into being? How does the mind communicate with the brain? My observations lead me to believe that the pursuit of free will often culminates in predetermination. While this path may not be just a dead end, I see no path in pursuing freewill.

Let it be clear; I am not an advocate for predetermination either. Instead, I propose that if one were to stand at a point and retrospectively examine their life, they might perceive a sequence of events leading to their current state. However, this perception can be deceptive. Once you entertain the notion that only specific actions on particular days led you to where you are, or that specific incidents determined your outcomes, you fall into a mental trap. This perspective blinds you to the other patterns life presented, the moments you overlooked or sacrificed in pursuit of what you believe brought you here. I argue that you would have reached this point or the desired position even without some of those specific actions, as it was you who chose between the available paths.

The act of connecting the dots in one's life is a deceptive trap. It creates an illusion that the mind, inherently drawn to patterns, eagerly embraces. What you see in those patterns is often what you wish to see, overlooking the multitude of other factors that contributed to your journey.

It is unfortunate that the concept of Free Will is labeled such, since folks get caught up with the various meanings of the word "free". It is simpler and less confusing to think of Free Will as AntiDeterminism.

Free will should not be confused with anti-determinism, a concept linked to the philosophical question of free will. Anti-determinism is often referred to as indeterminism. Indeterminism weakens the connection between the past and future, suggesting that the world is not a predetermined place. While indeterminism challenges the link between the past and future, it may not be the most suitable theory for understanding free will and determinism. If indeterminism is accurate, our actions would lack regularity, implying a lack of control as they become random and unpredictable.

In such a scenario, we would be unable to hold ourselves accountable for actions due to the absence of a causal relationship; events would simply occur without genuine freedom or moral responsibility. Genuine freedom requires control over our actions, and if they are random, true freedom and moral responsibility become unattainable. Therefore, the ability to control our actions is a crucial aspect of achieving genuine freedom.

[LuckyR]

Is anyone truly free? Beyond the notion of physical freedom, are anyone's thoughts genuinely free or original? I have observed that every thought is, in essence, an idea born from one's observations, grounded in information obtained through the five senses. Even what we perceive as new inventions, I view as the discovery of thoughts, often a form of improvisation on pre-existing ideas.

Yet, I venture to question: How do thoughts come into being? How does the mind communicate with the brain? My observations lead me to believe that the pursuit of free will often culminates in predetermination. While this path may not be just a dead end, I see no path in pursuing freewill.

Let it be clear; I am not an advocate for predetermination either. Instead, I propose that if one were to stand at a point and retrospectively examine their life, they might perceive a sequence of events leading to their current state. However, this perception can be deceptive. Once you entertain the notion that only specific actions on particular days led you to where you are, or that specific incidents determined your outcomes, you fall into a mental trap. This perspective blinds you to the other patterns life presented, the moments you overlooked or sacrificed in pursuit of what you believe brought you here. I argue that you would have reached this point or the desired position even without some of those specific actions, as it was you who chose between the available paths.

The act of connecting the dots in one's life is a deceptive trap. It creates an illusion that the mind, inherently drawn to patterns, eagerly embraces. What you see in those patterns is often what you wish to see, overlooking the multitude of other factors that contributed to your journey.

It is unfortunate that the concept of Free Will is labeled such, since folks get caught up with the various meanings of the word "free". It is simpler and less confusing to think of Free Will as AntiDeterminism.

Free will should not be confused with anti-determinism, a concept linked to the philosophical question of free will. Anti-determinism is often referred to as indeterminism. Indeterminism weakens the connection between the past and future, suggesting that the world is not a predetermined place. While indeterminism challenges the link between the past and future, it may not be the most suitable theory for understanding free will and determinism. If indeterminism is accurate, our actions would lack regularity, implying a lack of control as they become random and unpredictable.

In such a scenario, we would be unable to hold ourselves accountable for actions due to the absence of a causal relationship; events would simply occur without genuine freedom or moral responsibility. Genuine freedom requires control over our actions, and if they are random, true freedom and moral responsibility become unattainable. Therefore, the ability to control our actions is a crucial aspect of achieving genuine freedom.

Thanks for the information. Just to make sure I am understanding what you are saying, there are three possibilities: 1) the antecedent state Determines the resultant state (with no role for decision making, nor randomness), 2) the antecedent state doesn't (fully) Determine the resultant state and there is a role for decision making (Will) and 3) the antecedent state doesn't (fully) Determine the resultant state because there is a role played by randomness but none by decision making (Will). With 1 being Determinism, 2 being Free Will (hate that name as said) and 3 being Indeterminism. Please correct if I'm not understanding you.

[Wilson]

At the cellular, chemical, neuronal, and electrical impulse level we do not have free will. At the person level we do.

Most of us will have more sympathy for those who grew up in terrible circumstances - poor, abused, in a violent neighborhood, and so on. But for practical purposes we must craft our criminal justice system so as to best protect our citizens. And the punishment to those convicted should have little to do with life circumstances. After all, a rich person with all his advantages is, like all of us, simply following what his brain tells him to do.

[popeye1945]

The concept of free will is great ignorance of the complexity of reality and its complext history, it is a tragedy, a roadblock to a greater humanity, it is ignorance enshrined.

[LuckyR]

The concept of free will is great ignorance of the complexity of reality and its complext history, it is a tragedy, a roadblock to a greater humanity, it is ignorance enshrined.

You were predetermined to say that. As I am to disagree with you.

[Good_Egg]

The concept of free will is great ignorance of the complexity of reality and its complext history, it is a tragedy, a roadblock to a greater humanity, it is ignorance enshrined.

Quite the opposite. Freewill acknowledges the complexity of reality A person who believes in freewill engages with other minds as minds, treating their apparent thoughts and choices as genuine thoughts and choices, explaining them in terms of emergent properties that minds possess. That way lies reciprocity and mutual respect.

The alternative is material causation. Treating other people's apparent thoughts and choices as being rigidly determined by material causes. If I believe that anything you say is caused (in the extreme case) by the fact that you ate cheese last night, then I'm not going to respect your views. That way lies inhumanity.

[LuckyR]

The concept of free will is great ignorance of the complexity of reality and its complext history, it is a tragedy, a roadblock to a greater humanity, it is ignorance enshrined.

Quite the opposite. Freewill acknowledges the complexity of reality A person who believes in freewill engages with other minds as minds, treating their apparent thoughts and choices as genuine thoughts and choices, explaining them in terms of emergent properties that minds possess. That way lies reciprocity and mutual respect.

The alternative is material causation. Treating other people's apparent thoughts and choices as being rigidly determined by material causes. If I believe that anything you say is caused (in the extreme case) by the fact that you ate cheese last night, then I'm not going to respect your views. That way lies inhumanity.

Exactly. Putting aside the logic/illogic of Free Will (which of course, are up for debate), it is subjectively what we experience every minute of every day. That's not "proof" of anything, but no one needs to wonder why it is the default assumption that alternative explanations are measured against.

[LovelyLau]

I believe in free will and it should never be limited. I think even when talking in a higher power, I believe in a God who thinks we should have choices.
Not just God's way or the highway.
I believe people should always have their free will and never be forced into anything.