• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does Freewill Exist?

It is definitely complicated. It depends on what you mean by “free will” and it also depends on the definition of “self” or “I” or “you”. While I certainly live my life as though free will exists, if I really drill down into the subject I find myself believing it doesn’t REALLY exist. For example, we know through experimentation that the brain seems to commit to decisions before the conscious self is aware of that decision. It is estimated this delay is about half a second. It is an illusion that your conscious self is making choices. But if you consider it free will when your subconscious makes choices then that isn’t an issue.

And then if you REALLY drill down to the cellular (or smaller) level, you could theoretically just explain “choice” as a matter of cause and effect at the microscopic level.

Freewill to me is the ability is to do whatever you want, whenever you want without restrictions. Were you free when you wrote your response? No. I influenced you. Even if you believe that your words descend from your autonomous intellect, my words or rather questioning true freedom willed your response.
 
But your belief in free-will caused you to post this, and his denial of free-will has already determined he will ignore your conundrum. This was decided at the beginning of the universe and the prophecy has now been fulfilled. Even my comment, whether you take it as serious or factitious, which you were already going to do, was decided before our ancestors even began to think that they might be able to do something besides respond to stimuli.

That could be a logical option - in a universe without entropy.
 
Freewill to me is the ability is to do whatever you want, whenever you want without restrictions.

But that is an absurd definition. Even the Christian God is not supposed to have such ability: He is constrained by logic and His own nature. He cannot make 2+2 equal 7, not anymore than you can turn into a giant fire-breathing panda at will.

Free will refers to our capacity of making choices between available options - as opposed to following some kind of programming/instinct.
 
But that is an absurd definition. Even the Christian God is not supposed to have such ability: He is constrained by logic and His own nature. He cannot make 2+2 equal 7, not anymore than you can turn into a giant fire-breathing panda at will.

Free will refers to our capacity of making choices between available options - as opposed to following some kind of programming/instinct.

I believe the idea is that a long chain of causal events lead to our making the decision. It only appears to us that we made a choice because of that long chain of events.
 
But that is an absurd definition. Even the Christian God is not supposed to have such ability: He is constrained by logic and His own nature. He cannot make 2+2 equal 7, not anymore than you can turn into a giant fire-breathing panda at will.

Free will refers to our capacity of making choices between available options - as opposed to following some kind of programming/instinct.

So were you free when you wrote that response without me determining your reaction?
 
I believe the idea is that a long chain of causal events lead to our making the decision. It only appears to us that we made a choice because of that long chain of events.

Yes this relates to the determinist view. It only appears that we make choices but so far in this thread nobody hasn't demonstrated they have freewill independent from influence
 
I believe the idea is that a long chain of causal events lead to our making the decision. It only appears to us that we made a choice because of that long chain of events.

I "believe" this is complete nonsense.

I can finish this paragraph and click "Post Quick Reply", or I can say, "Oh, why bother", and post nothing.

You can, of course, insist that the choice that have actually made was 100% determined by what I had for breakfast last Friday - and that, in turn, was completely guaranteed by the fiscal policies of Sargon the Akkadian (we just cannot quite discern all the influences), but that would mean a flat denial of all the randomness and chaos of real life that manifest themselves abundantly, all around us.

What is more incredible - A system of the world that defies a mountain of empirical observations and laws of thermodynamics, or The volitional faculty of human mind that we observe in action every waking moment of our lives?
 
So were you free when you wrote that response without me determining your reaction?

Of course. You have posed a question. You could not possibly determine my answer - or lack thereof.
 
So you are saying free will is not free because it is influenced from us (i.e., we arrange for the direction of it)?

Yes. I believe in the determinist view in that choices are caused by factors and in that choices that we make are determined by extraneous factors.
 
I "believe" this is complete nonsense.

I can finish this paragraph and click "Post Quick Reply", or I can say, "Oh, why bother", and post nothing.

You can, of course, insist that the choice that have actually made was 100% determined by what I had for breakfast last Friday - and that, in turn, was completely guaranteed by the fiscal policies of Sargon the Akkadian (we just cannot quite discern all the influences), but that would mean a flat denial of all the randomness and chaos of real life that manifest themselves abundantly, all around us.

What is more incredible - A system of the world that defies a mountain of empirical observations and laws of thermodynamics, or The volitional faculty of human mind that we observe in action every waking moment of our lives?

I'm not saying I believe it. But, if it were to be the case it'd be at an elemental level. It wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with what you had for breakfast. It was some philosopher that first posited the idea. I forget his name, but I learned about the idea in a philosophy class.
 
Of course. You have posed a question. You could not possibly determine my answer - or lack thereof.

I didn't have to determine your answer I influenced your participation. My point is that your freedom is an illusion. As long as something influences you, you do not have freewill.
 
Yes. I believe in the determinist view in that choices are caused by factors and in that choices that we make are determined by extraneous factors.

How about an example?

Between choices provided from the extraneous factors why cannot I choose something completely else?
 
I didn't have to determine your answer I influenced your participation. My point is that your freedom is an illusion. As long as something influences you, you do not have freewill.

This makes no sense.

A zillion of things influence me at every given moment. Right now - a minute ago, to be precise - I was influenced - annoyed - by a spider venturing to turn my balcony desk lamp into his own small business. I could squash the beast like a bug, or I could let it be, or I could take him gently and throw into the bushes underneath, and remove the web from my lamp. I had chosen the last option. Driven by his instincts, the spider had no choice but to spin his web; as a volitional being, I had at least three enumerated options - and could choose between them, which I did.

"No influences" would mean "no information". Rendering the very act of choice impossible. Influences are both always present and necessary for the free will to manifest itself. They don't negate free will - they set a stage for it.
 
I "believe" this is complete nonsense.

I can finish this paragraph and click "Post Quick Reply", or I can say, "Oh, why bother", and post nothing.

You can, of course, insist that the choice that have actually made was 100% determined by what I had for breakfast last Friday - and that, in turn, was completely guaranteed by the fiscal policies of Sargon the Akkadian (we just cannot quite discern all the influences), but that would mean a flat denial of all the randomness and chaos of real life that manifest themselves abundantly, all around us.

What is more incredible - A system of the world that defies a mountain of empirical observations and laws of thermodynamics, or The volitional faculty of human mind that we observe in action every waking moment of our lives?
The randomness of the universe does preclude the idea of perfect prediction (especially long range prediction since the randomness "builds up" over time) but it does not provide evidence of free will. Randomness is just as much the antithesis of free will as predetermination.
 
One way to validate free-will in a purely materialist universe is to deny the "rule" of cause and effect.

An absurd definition of free-will perhaps. Not the practical definition that we are apparently terrible at precisely defining.
Again, if we understood consciousness sufficient, our definition of free-will, and how it relates to cause-effect could be described. We can't describe it today, and claiming that since cause effect is true, therefore free-will is false, is reasonably inappropriate.
 
This makes no sense.
"No influences" would mean "no information". Rendering the very act of choice impossible. Influences are both always present and necessary for the free will to manifest itself. They don't negate free will - they set a stage for it.

Trivially true. No influence is an absolute, of which we have no knowledge in reality. We can talk about meta-physics in absolutes, because they are fiction, abstracts conceived of in the mind, they are not held to necessarily represent something in reality. The universe IS. The idea from anyone, in any field, that aspects of that universe exist independently (without influence) from the universe of which it's just a part, is absurd, by definition. If they can't get their premise right, they have communicated nothing. We don't even have to argue free will exists at that point, simply that they have communicated no truth about reality, i.e. no different than being silent...
 
Randomness is just as much the antithesis of free will as predetermination.

Nope. I does contradict predetermination. The universe is not a clockwork. It neither confirms nor denies free will - but it provides a good part of the plethora of choices that free will deals with.
 
The first question I'd have to ask is do you believe in an objective (or universal, if you prefer) morality? From what I've seen, that's the first large separator.

It has to be universal to be moral (in my opinion).

The later. Our genes are the general program and our environment is the input for that program. Because of our intelligence and memory capacity our environment usually adds to the general programming. For example, we learn that walking into the street without accounting for cars can cause injury or death and we learn that even though most of our ancestors never saw car or anything like it. (Well, maybe a stampeding herbivore but they usually come in herds.)

So why do you think we defend segments of the population even though its not advantageous? For instance the mentally ill or the physically disabled? Our reproductive capacity is that which we could easily replace these individuals with those who could have a greater contribution to society.

Do you believe protecting the weak is merely a leftover from the population crisis of the dark ages?


The nature and topic of this discussion insures that. If you look at my posts in the morality threads I think you'll find a different take than what you're seeing here. Like most people, I don't normally think about my everyday delusions. From my viewpoint those delusions are usually there to help me so I don't question them, I just run with the ball. But when we talk about free will or consciousness I have to consider my delusions and account for them.

And how do you account for the delusion of free-will? What benefit do you find for its denial?


There is one major benefit in believing in free will and consciousness or at least acting most of the time like you do - it allows you to be part of the tribe. Buts that's no different than believing 1000 years ago that the world was flat or believing 500 years ago that illness was caused by demons or believing in Christ 200 years ago. To not believe those things was a hindrance to living (you'd be thought "a little strange" at best!) and in some cases downright dangerous.

That's the ONLY disadvantage? You can't think of some other reasons why an acceptance that one has no control over themselves would be self destructive?

Do you then believe that a tree chooses where it's branches grow? And if you do then just how far down the food chain do you go? Bacteria? DNA strands? RNA strands and viruses? Any self-replicating molecule? Where is the line because the closer we look at the difference between organic and inorganic the more blurry the line between them gets.

I don't know where it begins and ends. I'm not a tree so I couldn't tell you what the internal processes are.


I have to believe that you're real, that the whole world is real, except that thing that seems to hover behind my delusional eyes. ;)

You have to believe in that too. Your denial of it is based in some form of nihilism which you demonstrate only in a philosophical discussion. I can justify a denial of everything. There's no basis of certainty to justify everything's existence. Descartes adherence to reality relied on a benevolent god which would not lie to him. That's not exactly the most infallible justification. Instead, you've drawn the line at the scientific method, which is not nearly as flimsy but it's just as logically flawed.

But that wasn't exactly what I was talking about. There seems to be MRI proof from various studies that what we believe to be our conscious choices and reactions are nothing more than an after-the-fact story we're telling ourselves. ((And from another idea, that's most likely because we remember events better in the form of stories.)) If that is indeed true, then at this point it's not some mental illness or abstract thought that leads us to free will and consciousness being delusional. They're now real scientific questions and, seemingly, ways to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

Hmmm, don't know about that. That simply calls into question the capacity of our memories.

Never read Nietzsche except in bits and pieces.

Well, you might like him.


Whether we believe people are accountable for their actions or not doesn't usually change the gross outcome.

Really? Do you think addicts could kick their addiction if they believed they had no control over it at all?

The violent criminal still ends up banished from the community (in jail) "because they deserve it" or "because they're a menace". It may change the way we justify the things we do but most of the time it leads us where we already are or where we're headed, anyway.

Possibly, though I'd still say they can choose not to act.

Hypersonic said:
Because choice or the idea that we choose is illusory. For example I "chose" to attend college for higher learning and a better opportunity. I did not spontaneously think higher education leads to a better opportunity, someone had to tell me. Just as someone who is a vegatarian we are largely influenced by something. Your thoughts betray you because I determined, no, willed your to response.

Making large life choices for reasonable reasons does not mean you lack free-will, it means you're not stupid.
 
That's right, if you don't believe in free will than it is impossible in your world view.

No ... How could it be possible? Your saying I'm begging the question ... I'm not, given determinism or indeterminism free will seams impossible.
 
Thats a great theory but then how come we can make decisions? A rock is unarguably mindless, we humans though can think. The rock can never for any reason decide that it doesnt want to fall into the water. We and other animals have motor skills and can avoid water altogether. The key attribute that allows that to happen is a brain. Organisms with brains can decide to go into water or not. The rock is just a rock and will do nothing but what physics says it will do.

My argument is we don't make decisions .... we think we do, but it's all just mechanical. We don't think, it's all just mechanical, we have thoughs, they exist, but they are all caused mechanically, they don't cause actions ... (epiphenominalism).

A brain, doesn't change that, since a brain is still ONLY matter, and like a rock, will do nothing but what physicas and chemistry tell it to do, a brain is complex ... yeah.

Also ithe reason animals and humans avoid the water, is physical and chemical reactiosn in the brain, all caused physically and chemically.

Yes I know that you will say that organisms with brains are just more complicated but still are determined by the same physics to do whatever physics dictates, which is true. But along that chain of events decision making organisms exist. Again dont confuse all of this with the idiotic concept that people call free will. The fact that an organism can make a decision doesnt somehow mean that the decision was outside of the laws of physics.

Forget about free will its nonexistent and pointless, just a fantasy. Many moons ago I tried to argue for free will but I came to realize that the concept lacked any real foundation in reality. So when you start denying observable concepts like decision making or throwing around concepts like agent and what not you really are not talking about my assertions just trying to assign my assertions to the concept of free will. Its like arguing about the heavenly sphere, it will get nowhere as long as you maintain a dogmatic theory of existence. Again I am fine with my thoughts on the subject, I just believe that brains have functions and that rocks are nothing more than a inanimate object. A organism with a brain will react on a profoundly different level than a rock to its surroundings. The rocks reaction to its surroundings can be predicted given all the data. A organism with a brain can be predicted too, perhaps if we had all the data. But that is just a theory that has not been proven to be correct.

the fact that it can be predicted in theory is a logical necessity .. it it is just a more complex form of matter ... I mean EVERYTHING that is just physcial and subject to physical laws can by necessarily predicted.

If you want to claim that brains can be predicted you are going to need to show that they can be predicted. Theoretical and philosophical pondering's cant show that a brain can be predicted to do anything. While we are at it your theory that everything is predetermined on into infinity starting perhaps with the big bang needs to be proven as well. The obvious proven problem with a predetermined universe is on the quantum scale. The theory was really good up until it was shown that true indeterminism in quantum mechanics exists. The best that you could say is that existence is somewhat predetermined. To what extent does quantum mechanics play in the universe? After all small exists everywhere.

Of coarse they can show, unless you think that they are the ONLY physical object in nature that cannot be understood ... THAT is an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence (using the battle cry of atheists), what your saying is that the brain is the only unique physical object that cannot be fully understood theoretically.

With Quantum mechanics, it becomes determined on a larger scale do to probibilities, but quantum mechanics can still be predicted, but just based on probibilities which when compounded lead to accurate predictions.

"uncertainty" and "certainty" a combination of both allows the existence of a certain amount of the predetermined and the undetermined. You cant with any believable certainty tell me how much of our existence is predetermined by physics and how much quantum mechanics have screwed with those physical determinations. So I find it very doubtful that every cause and effect going back to the big bang can be predicted mathematically not when there exists true indeterminism in nature even if its at a quantum scale.

So are my thoughts predetermined exclusively by physics alone? Doubt exists that every thought is predetermined. Does it point to free will? lol no it points to cracks in the theory of Determinism. The Universe does not revolve around the Earth or the Moon.

Even if indeterminism is primary ... it doesn't show that the brain is any more indeterminate than a rock ...

Also what does your last sentance have to do with anything?
 
My argument is we don't make decisions .... we think we do, but it's all just mechanical. We don't think, it's all just mechanical, we have thoughs, they exist, but they are all caused mechanically, they don't cause actions ... (epiphenominalism).

A brain, doesn't change that, since a brain is still ONLY matter, and like a rock, will do nothing but what physicas and chemistry tell it to do, a brain is complex ... yeah.

Also ithe reason animals and humans avoid the water, is physical and chemical reactiosn in the brain, all caused physically and chemically.



the fact that it can be predicted in theory is a logical necessity .. it it is just a more complex form of matter ... I mean EVERYTHING that is just physcial and subject to physical laws can by necessarily predicted.



Of coarse they can show, unless you think that they are the ONLY physical object in nature that cannot be understood ... THAT is an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence (using the battle cry of atheists), what your saying is that the brain is the only unique physical object that cannot be fully understood theoretically.

With Quantum mechanics, it becomes determined on a larger scale do to probibilities, but quantum mechanics can still be predicted, but just based on probibilities which when compounded lead to accurate predictions.



Even if indeterminism is primary ... it doesn't show that the brain is any more indeterminate than a rock ...

Also what does your last sentance have to do with anything?

We dont make decisions you say? Its all mechanical you say? Well then how come in that study where those decisions were made before the person making the decision knew were not 100%? I forget the percentage but a certain amount were not a few minute moments before consciousness was aware, but were in real time.

So there is a problem with your argument. If what you say is true then our brains defy the law of physics sometimes. But since that obviously isnt happening then I think you need to go back to the drawing board. The evidence says that we sometimes are able to make real decisions and this has to be a 100% situation for you. Either the brain cant do it and you are correct or even the smallest chance that the brain can make decisions blows your argument out of the water.

AT any rate I still am not asserting that the brain acts outside of the laws of physics or that quantum mechanics makes the brain explainable. In fact most of your complaints about my argument are fictitiously thrown at me and will not stick since they are not mine. I clearly argued that the brain is bound by the laws of nature and cannot act outside of those limits. You then turned around and tried to say that I said otherwise. Shame on you. I was careful to make sure that I said what I did so that you wouldnt try this.

You would have to prove that we are merely robots which is what you seem to be arguing. But clearly we are not robots. You equate this study as being your proof. Your argument relies on assuming the nature of thought that you havent at all shown to be the truth. Your assumption is that when the brain comes to a decision before the person is aware of said decision that, that is the result of physics showing itself. I will need more than you just saying so for your argument to be worth my time. So give me something to work with.


Again my assertion is that decision making exists as a element of nature. There isnt any magical part that is required since the decisions are just the core part of what makes a sentient being sentient. As I have said before a delusional mind may make irrational decisions that defy all logic or a mind may think up a solution that took years of thought to figure out. Yes its just a overly complicated cause and effect I agree and wasnt denying that fact. But I am not talking about magical behavior like you seem to want me to be saying. But I do remain skeptical that a human mind could ever be 100% mathematically predictable. All it takes is one random thought to throw a curve ball, or a 0.00000000001% success rate. Your argument demands 100% predictability. But the problem is that your argument isnt provable right now by any stretch of the imagination, so you cannot back up your argument at all really. You could throw some theories and some damn good ones that I know are going around right now but thats as good as you could do.
 
So why do you think we defend segments of the population even though its not advantageous? For instance the mentally ill or the physically disabled? Our reproductive capacity is that which we could easily replace these individuals with those who could have a greater contribution to society.

Do you believe protecting the weak is merely a leftover from the population crisis of the dark ages?
Because throughout most of human history, helping our tribe members did help the tribe as a whole. Whether that still holds true or not is a different question.

In the past those concerns were taken care of by our predators. The mentally ill (if it was bad enough) and the physically disabled simply didn't survive life long enough for it to become an issue.



And how do you account for the delusion of free-will?

What benefit do you find for its denial?
Most humans are egocentric in one way or another. Our genes make us that way. Is it so very far to go to believe we could easily delude ourselves into thinking we actually have conscious control over our surroundings?


For me it didn't come up as a matter of philosophy. Recent and unexpected scientific discoveries have prompted the question. Only time and more research can answer your question. However, if it turns out to be true, wouldn't we have to be a little crazy to ignore that?



That's the ONLY disadvantage? You can't think of some other reasons why an acceptance that one has no control over themselves would be self destructive?
Really? Do you think addicts could kick their addiction if they believed they had no control over it at all?
Some people believe they require God to get by in their day-to-day lives. In fact, many religious people continue to tell us that we must listen to God and follow The Word or all will be lost! The fact is that atheists are just as moral and responsible as religious people - maybe even more so in many ways. How did that happen without God to guide them? IMO - you're trying to draw the same parallel. Are you a religious person?



I don't know where it begins and ends. I'm not a tree so I couldn't tell you what the internal processes are.
Then I'll back up. You said you believed animals had free will. Do you believe a sponge has free will?



You have to believe in that too. Your denial of it is based in some form of nihilism which you demonstrate only in a philosophical discussion. I can justify a denial of everything. There's no basis of certainty to justify everything's existence. Descartes adherence to reality relied on a benevolent god which would not lie to him. That's not exactly the most infallible justification. Instead, you've drawn the line at the scientific method, which is not nearly as flimsy but it's just as logically flawed.
You misunderstood my response - and looking back at it I can see how. Let me add this to clear things up. I don't have to believe in "that thing that seems to hover behind my delusional eyes" because I take that as a given; I am.


You think science is logically flawed?



Hmmm, don't know about that. That simply calls into question the capacity of our memories.
You mean stories being easier to remember than unrelated facts? You know the moral of the story, don't you? ;)



Possibly, though I'd still say they can choose not to act.
You can look at it in whatever way makes you feel warm and comfortable inside. :)
 
Last edited:
We dont make decisions you say? Its all mechanical you say? Well then how come in that study where those decisions were made before the person making the decision knew were not 100%? I forget the percentage but a certain amount were not a few minute moments before consciousness was aware, but were in real time.

Because maybe the mechanics and the awareness were in real time .... There is nothing about that that hurts my argument.

So there is a problem with your argument. If what you say is true then our brains defy the law of physics sometimes. But since that obviously isnt happening then I think you need to go back to the drawing board. The evidence says that we sometimes are able to make real decisions and this has to be a 100% situation for you. Either the brain cant do it and you are correct or even the smallest chance that the brain can make decisions blows your argument out of the water.

No it doesn't, those decisions are 100% causaly explainable, its still all mechanics, even if it's real time.

AT any rate I still am not asserting that the brain acts outside of the laws of physics or that quantum mechanics makes the brain explainable. In fact most of your complaints about my argument are fictitiously thrown at me and will not stick since they are not mine. I clearly argued that the brain is bound by the laws of nature and cannot act outside of those limits. You then turned around and tried to say that I said otherwise. Shame on you. I was careful to make sure that I said what I did so that you wouldnt try this.

Laws of nature don't create limits, for which objects can just do whatever they want in them, Laws of nature control EVERYTHING that matter does ... ever, the same with a brain.

I'ts not like a rock has some options within laws of nature, all of it's existance and movements are controlled 100% by it, the same with teh brain.

If you are saying laws of nature only make limits, and that the brain can do somethings within those limits but not caused by the laws of nature ... what causes those things?

You would have to prove that we are merely robots which is what you seem to be arguing. But clearly we are not robots. You equate this study as being your proof. Your argument relies on assuming the nature of thought that you havent at all shown to be the truth. Your assumption is that when the brain comes to a decision before the person is aware of said decision that, that is the result of physics showing itself. I will need more than you just saying so for your argument to be worth my time. So give me something to work with.

I didn't use that study as proof ... Also it doesn't rely on the brain coming to a decision before the person is aware either ...

Simultaneous causation is not outside laws of nature at all, and doesn't argue against my point.

Again my assertion is that decision making exists as a element of nature. There isnt any magical part that is required since the decisions are just the core part of what makes a sentient being sentient. As I have said before a delusional mind may make irrational decisions that defy all logic or a mind may think up a solution that took years of thought to figure out. Yes its just a overly complicated cause and effect I agree and wasnt denying that fact. But I am not talking about magical behavior like you seem to want me to be saying. But I do remain skeptical that a human mind could ever be 100% mathematically predictable. All it takes is one random thought to throw a curve ball, or a 0.00000000001% success rate. Your argument demands 100% predictability. But the problem is that your argument isnt provable right now by any stretch of the imagination, so you cannot back up your argument at all really. You could throw some theories and some damn good ones that I know are going around right now but thats as good as you could do.

is decision making CAUSED by the laws of nature? If not what causes it?

Even if you have a random thought, casued by some quantum mess in your brain, that isn't a decision ... it's a random quantum fluxuation ....
 
Back
Top Bottom