Is there free will?

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 28
Topic's author
#1
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
You dont choose the place where you are born.

However, the place where you are born greatly affects your life and your decisions.

First, being born in loving and caring family greatly increases your chances of becoming a good person later in life.

Second, being born in an abusive family where you are hurt and neglected greatly increases your chances of becoming a bad person later in life.

From this, only one conclusion can be made.

There is a person who, if born in loving and caring family, would become a good person.

That same person, if born in an abusive family, would become a bad person.

The place of birth dictates if that person will be good or bad.

The place of birth dictates the choices that person makes.

Now, some might say "the person changes his choice in different situations, but its still the person's choice".

I would say thats not correct. Rather, its the situations that change that person's choice.

The person in loving and caring family learned a lot about being good and how being good pays off. Such person learned a lot about love and how love works.

However, that same person, when being born in abusive family, wouldnt learn any of that.

We make choices by the knowledge we have available. Now we see that the same person being born in two different families would have different knowledge available to him depending on which family he was born in.

Person in abusive family wouldnt know about how loving relationships are formed. That person would only know about how abusive relationships are formed. So naturally, that person would only be able to form abusive relationships.

The problem is not about knowledge alone, but also about values.
Person makes decisions based on that person's values.
Place of birth can change person's values.
Since the value of love doesnt exist in abusive family, the first value that person would learn would not be love. Values learned in abusive family usually consist of cheating, lying and harming.

With corrupted knowledge and corrupted values, can a person be blamed for being bad?

So therefore, such person would be good or bad depending on his place of birth.

Can that still be called free will?

Is such person good or bad?

How do you even meassure what makes a person choose to be bad, if not his place of birth and his life experiences?
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea
Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have. And, as uncomfortable as this may be, it's very much consistent with neuroscientific research.
#3
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Does it matter?

I mean, a movie is complete when it is released even if we haven't watched it. Then, why are we more displeased when we are spoiled of the ending rather than not? Why the difference?

Life is the same, you can't see the ending. Except, you would possibly be thrilled if you are told you are going to be spoiled of your own life, well. That's that.
#4
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have. And, as uncomfortable as this may be, it's very much consistent with neuroscientific research.
When I get home from work, I'll find the time to walk all over you on this one.

...and if you want to formally debate it, I'm in.
#5
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Intelligence_06
Does it matter?

I mean, a movie is complete when it is released even if we haven't watched it. Then, why are we more displeased when we are spoiled of the ending rather than not? Why the difference?

Life is the same, you can't see the ending. Except, you would possibly be thrilled if you are told you are going to be spoiled of your own life, well. That's that.
Yes, it matters, I'll address this later too.
#6
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Sidewalker

No thanks.
#7
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making.
Unsupported faith based assertions are not a logical argument, and arbitrarily declaring the subject matter of the debate an “illusion” is not a logical argument, it’s OK to make assertions regarding axioms of your faith, but it is not a logical argument.

Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have.
The argument against Free Will invariably presupposes determinism without establishing determinism as a fact. While the denial of free will is typically put forth as scientifically derived, there is nothing “scientific” about simply presupposing determinism without establishing determinism as a fact, and determinism is not a conclusion of science. On the contrary, since Laplace developed the concept in a thought experiment 200 years ago, there has been no actual scientific evidence that reality is deterministic, and a boatload of evidence that it is not. The strictly philosophical doctrine of determinism is nothing more than an archaic and failed concept that is in fact, unscientific.

The fact is, physical determinism has never been logically valid because physical science is not a logically conclusive process, it’s an empirical endeavor and empirically speaking, the physical evidence has never justified the assumption of determinism by any stretch of the imagination. 

The unfounded belief in determinism remains prevalent because mathematics, logic, and deductive reasoning appear to be deterministic systems, but Gödel's proof has explanatory power regarding the inability to directly map these symbolic tools to reality.

Logic, mathematics, and deductive reasoning are abstractions, merely mental tools used to explain our experience of reality. To deny free will you must deny experience and claim that our abstractions are real and reality is an illusion, which makes no sense.

An argument that reality isn’t real is self-refuting.  

The attempt to deny the self-evident experiential reality of human consciousness and the associated fact that we are morally responsible causal agents is a very extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the unfounded and completely faith-based belief in determinism doesn’t constitute extraordinary evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

Consciousness has causal influence due to its content, not solely because of the physical aspects of its neural correlates. A conscious state includes a desire or intention, it includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state, it includes the ability to the ability to foresee the consequences of one's decisions, evaluate and choose among alternatives, and then act upon those choices. That makes it more than a purely physical state, it is a conscious state with reference to a future possibility, and no such reference is part of any purely physical state.  Such conscious states can have causal effect to bring about further states for the sake of values and purposes, and intents. Values, purposes, and intents are not reducible to the purely physical state of the determinism argument. 

Theargument necessarily denies purposeful action or human freedom and responsibility in order to reduce all behavior to purely physical deterministic laws.  The argument is refuted by the fact that human beings are subject to both physical causality and the aforementioned teleological causality, which means we are free and responsible causal agents, we can change our conduct for reasons that are not included in the purely physical causation which by definition, does not include intent, values and purpose.

The strongest argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident.  Consequently, the denial of free will is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence, and the argument against Free Will becomes a rejection without “proof”, which eliminates induction as valid. These two aspects of the approach clearly reject the very basis of science and scientific knowledge, leaving nothing but detached abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world. 
Philosophy is concerned with saying something which is true or significant, science with doing something which is effective. Science is about the real world, grounded in perceiving and doing, the argument against Free Will is completely abstract and invalidates both perception and doing, it is a complete rejection of science as valid, and philosophically it amounts to a rejection of the very basis of truth and significance.

In the end, there is no valid basis upon which the rejection of Free Will can be said to be true of reality.

And, as uncomfortable as this may be, it's very much consistent with neuroscientific research.
If you are talking bout Benjamin Libet’s work, it has beencompletely misinterpreted by those with an agenda, even Libet denies thecontentions that his work provides a basis for the denial of free will, all he actually measured was an “action potential”.

Consciousstates, while closely correlated with brain states, are emergent realities,existing as autonomous aspects of very complex and integrated neuralsubstrates.  Conscious states have causal influence on thephysical world surrounding them, which results from their consciouscontent, not solely because of their physical aspects.
#8
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Intelligence_06
Does it matter?

I mean, a movie is complete when it is released even if we haven't watched it. Then, why are we more displeased when we are spoiled of the ending rather than not? Why the difference?

Life is the same, you can't see the ending. Except, you would possibly be thrilled if you are told you are going to be spoiled of your own life, well. That's that.
Yes, it matters.

Multiplestudies have shown that belief in free will has important behavioralconsequences that bear on social behavior, sense of personal control, moral andethical choices, and general well-being.

Again and again, studies have found that those who do not believe in free will are more inclinedto cheat, are less inclined to help others, have more aggression, more inclinedto mindless conformity, less feeling of guilt, less learning from moral andethical mistakes, and less inclined to think about how they might havecorrected their behavior.  It is alsoassociated with lower career prospects and poor job performance, and higherrates of neurosis. Conversely,believing in free will correlates with better career prospects and higher jobperformance, along with a host of positive attributes including, self-control,life satisfaction, subjective happiness, mindfulness, and ambition.  

Thefact is, the belief in free will has been shown to causally influence behavior,it has important practical implications well beyond the idea that it is simplya matter detached theoretical philosophy.
#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker


Believing in free will is a pre-meditated process.

As is not believing in free will.

I simply run with the idea that free will is an impossibility.

On the basis that every action has stimulus and involves a physiological process.


And quite frankly I cannot see how the conclusions to the studies that you cite above, mean anything more than people will conform to a type, whereby answers and behaviour are predictable irrespective of the question.
#10
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4
@Sidewalker

I now think that there might be free will, but I am still researching it.
#11
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

You all know that I am a Borg, don't you? That is why I cannot have fee will.
#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
I am in fact the Borg Queen.

You are only thinking that there might be free will......Because.
#13
Slainte
Slainte's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 131
1
5
9
Slainte's avatar
Slainte
1
5
9
-->
@zedvictor4
@FLRW
@Best.Korea
@Sidewalker
We can use math to determine where matter will go, and where it has been.  There is no free will in a newtonian physical sense.

Quantum mechanics  tells us that things are probabilistic, which also means that they are not directive.

Spiritually, I agree with Best.Korea that nurture is a huge influence.

So the question is...  If we could calculate everything at the same time, would everything actually be pre-determinable.  Let me have a beer and think about it.
#14
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

There are some sites online that have free wills.

#15
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Believing in free will is a pre-meditated process.
By “pre-meditated”, do you mean it’s the self-evident default state of all humanity, our experiential reality, and the foundational basis of every moral and legal system found in every known time and place where humans have ever existed?

As is not believing in free will.
The difference is not believing in free will is strictly faith-based belief which denies experience, science, and logic, probably best described as a religious belief.

I simply run with the idea that free will is an impossibility.
If free will is impossible then you have no ability to reason and so I guess all you can do is run with the idea, you weren’t free to do anything else so it’s not up to you anyway.

On the basis that every action has stimulus and involves a physiological process.
Nope, as far as you are concerned it’s not on any basis whatsoever, you have no choice in the matter, it was all determined billions of years ago and you are just going along for the ride.

And quite frankly I cannot see how the conclusions to the studies that you cite above, mean anything more than people will conform to a type, whereby answers and behaviour are predictable irrespective of the question.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but I guess it doesn’t really matter though since it doesn’t have anything to do with us, we are automatons just going through the predetermined motions, thinking it matters is just an illusion.


#16
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Slainte
We can use math to determine where matter will go, and where it has been.  There is no free will in a newtonian physical sense.

Quantum mechanics  tells us that things are probabilistic, which also means that they are not directive.

Spiritually, I agree with Best.Korea that nurture is a huge influence.

So the question is...  If we could calculate everything at the same time, would everything actually be pre-determinable.  Let me have a beer and think about it.
You are talking about four hundred year old science here,  the only way “we can use math to determine where matter will go” is IF reality is completely circumscribed by Newtonian mechanics (and it isn’t), AND the motion of every particle in the universe can in principle be predicted from exact knowledge of its position, momentum, and the forces acting on it (and it can’t),  AND everything occurred within a single, universal reference frame where an absolute Euclidean space and an absolute time that passes uniformly, that are autonomous and independent aspects of reality (and they aren’t), THEN “theoretically”, all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by purely physical causes such that, there is one and only one possible effect for a particular cause or set of causes, (there isn’t).

The archaic belief that Newtonian physics translates into a deterministic universe was never anything more than a failed thought experiment, it’s been a scientifically obsolete concept for well over a hundred years. The two most prevailing scientific theories, Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics are explicit that reality is not the Newtonian World Machine that Laplace believed in, and Heisenberg showed us that even in principle, adequate knowledge of a particle’s position, momentum, and the forces acting on it are impossible, the requisite exactness of those quantities just doesn’t occur in the real world.


#17
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
A Zedku for Sidewalker.


Thinking it matters is thinking it matters, I think.

I'm not sure that we can precisely pin it down to anything more than that.

Though we can verbalise about it all day long.


And so we will meaningfully organise words in a time honoured fashion.

Meaningful, in so much as meaningful is.....Or what we think it is.

And Under those circumstances we can base one opinion upon another ad infinitum.


So, spontaneity without a reason, or seemingly spontaneous.

You can choose, based upon something or another.

And eloquently respond if you feel so inspired.
#18
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
A limerick for Zedvictor

No free will and everything’s the same.
No responsibility, no logic, no shame.
Said the man with a grin
As he wiped off his chin
For my actions I am not to blame.
Topic's author
#19
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
I dont think free will means no punishment for bad actions.

There are basically only two options that you have, regarding will:

either will is causes by something, either its not caused by anything.

P1) Person's will is caused by something
P2) If we dont know what causes person's will, then we cannot know if person has free will.
P3) We dont know what causes person's will
C) We cannot know if person has free will

P1) Person's will is not caused by anything
P2) If person's will is not caused by anything, then person's will is not caused by a person
C) Person's will is not caused by a person

P3) If person's will is not caused by a person, then person has no free will
C) Person has no free will

Or if you assume person's will is caused by person:

P1) Person's will is caused by some part of a person
P2) That part of the person is not person's will
C) Person's will was caused by some part other than person's will.

P1) If that part is not under the control of person's will, then person's will is caused by something that person's will cannot control
P2) That part is not under the control of person's will
C) Person's will is caused by something that person's will cannot control

P1) If that part causes will and has existed before will, then it cannot be under the control of will
P2) That part causes will and has existed before will
C) That part cannot be under the control of will
#20
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
The free will debate is about whether we have the cognitive ability to conceive of future courses of action, deliberate about various reasons for choosing among them, determine our actions on the basis of such deliberation, and control our actions despite the presence of competing desires.  If we can exercise these cognitive abilities to act without our actions being unreasonably compromised by external pressure, then we possess free will and human beings are morally responsible causal agents that can change our conduct for reasons that are not included in the purely physical causation which by definition, does not include intent, values and purpose.

It’s a conscious state with reference to a future possibility that causes human decisions in order to bring about further states for the sake of values and purposes, and intents. Consciousness has causal influence due to its content, which usually involves a desire or intention and includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state. A conscious state with reference to a future possibility, along with intents, values, and purposes are not reducible to the purely physical deterministic state.

Free will is the belief that the future is not beyond our control. The belief in free will then, is a rejection of the causal closure of the universe, a contention that we have the ability to select a course of action as a means of fulfilling some desire which is consistent with an ability to judge some ends as ‘good’ or worth pursuing and value them. If we do in fact have free will, then it follows that we can have some effect on our personal and corporate tomorrows, which is to say that we are free to plan the future, and that our resultant intentions make a real difference in the world. 


#21
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
Eloquently responded.
#22
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Eloquently responded.
So you liked the limerick.
#23
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
Indeed.
Topic's author
#24
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
That still doesnt answer what makes a person to make a certain choice, or what makes person's will to make a certain choice.

33 days later

#25
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 195
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
There is a weak sort of free will in that, as modern theoretical physics asserts, everything in the universe is non-deterministic. This is, however, merely random noise. Basically, you have as much free will as a computer program with the occasional input from random.org.
#26
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Ones body usually decides ones fate.

If we had free will we could override the body.

We commit suicide for reasons.
#27
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 195
0
2
7
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Certainly to a large extent, but there is still some significant randomization.
#28
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
I don't know an end until I've come to it,
Better to fight on, not say I've no choice.

Even ends past 'could have been different,
That ends I've yet to reach, I best try be mindful of what I'm about,
For my mindfulness and will, ordained or not, lead to ends.

“Lay on, Macduff!”