Free Will

Oh OK, sorry Geoff, missed that (I have to get used to the lay-out, I'm not finding it easy with little time to navigate the pages efficiently).

Anyway, the post still stands as an attempt to put Dawkins in your category 3 with a notion of free will not determined by any extra-material matters.

By the way - I find both Dennett & Searle to be, respectively, too pompous & too abstract for comfort. In the area of philosophy of mind, I would prefer a Dawkins angle combined with a Jaynesian geneology.

Plse don't leave me.

GuidoNius

[Geoff332]

Dawkins isn't a philosopher -- he's a biologist. I find his models to be far to tied to his pre-conceptions of genes causing everything (his theories generally end up being extremely reductionistic; which is messy). The line of his that probably bugs me the most is (from The Selfish Gene):

We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.

Your explanation does not get away from determinism. It doesn't matter if I understand how my brain functions (luckily, because I don't). If it functions and its functioning is fully constrained by my biology/environment interaction, then there is no free will -- we are blind robot vehicles.

1. Yes Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist but importance in philosophy of mind is not much questioned. His major addition is not one of a new theory but rather of a new angle to look at the evidence. That is a very philosophical added value to have for a biologist.

2. Yes, he tends to be extremely reductionist up to obnoxious levels. It is however a fact that science does reduce lots of mysteries. He reduced the tendency to interpret Darwinian evolution as some kind of "volition" on the part of groups of species or some invisible hand. His introduction of game theory is very enlightening.

3. I can see why that line bugs you but, in introducing memes, Dawkins has himself shown the limits of genetic explanations. Yes, from a genetic evolution point of view we are merely survival machines for our genes - if we are good at surviving, our genes survive & our basic ability to go & survive comes from what's coded in our genes - we have no free will to decide on genetic evolution if we do not consider our mimetic evolution. However, considering mimetic evolution (enabled by genes that are - to say the least - proven to be very good at building succesful survival), it becomes more complex.

4. That complexity is what we commonly denote as "free will". Nature & nurture might well determine in an abstract reductionist theory all of our actions. However, & that is still my point, as long as we can't concretely as humans reduce our actions to nature & nurture - free will is a simple & useful term. Consider this: who does the nurturing?

5. What scientist can credibly claim that our functioning is predictable, if in the philosophy of logic & mathematics the view is predominant that it is impossible to come up with a closed system that determines fully that internal behaviour of that system.

6. If the functioning is not predictable - what term applies better to our state of affairs than free will?

I still see no issue with any of the above & determinism. We assume we can close the gap of impredictability but the fact is that until we haven´t conclusively demonstrated that we closed it - it is just an assumption.

GN

[castille]

What IS free will?

If I killed another man, is that free will? What if I killed him because he was a threat to me? Is that free will?

What if I killed another man because I was starving, and needed food?

[Impenitent]

free will is no cost probate...

if you willingly choose to do anything and do it, that is free will

if you react because you have no choice that is a reflex and not free will...

[Sodfather]

G-D, G-D, G-D, G-D, G-D: what the hell is this G-D? Do you mean God?

[CJFreeman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
I don't think God's existence impedes free will, but I do agree that there is no such thing as free will. All our actions are simply reactions made upon previous built up knowledge and instincts. When you really think about it, it doesn't matter how much you argue it, but its true.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

The largest complaint about God and "free-will" (that wonderfully redundant phrase) is that it seems completely arbitrary. He elects some, but not others, and entirely by His free-choosing. Hence we are bound by the destiny He has arbitrarily set.

However, the Bible is explicitly clear that we can choose our destiny (cf. Genesis 1-3). Ergo, we have some type of veritable will. But the things we choose are just as arbitrary as the supposed destiny we accuse God of choosing for us. For example, some people will choose red over green. Why? Why not, of course! Entirely arbitrary.

Now the platform for any type of freedom of the will is removed and we are falling toward the inevitable conclusion that we cannot make uninformed, uninfluenced decisions. As is stated in the preceding quote, "All our actions are simply reactions made upon previous built-up knowledge and instincts."

Only one person can make a perfectly-willed choice, and that is God. All other choices are reactions to what is set before us by the Creator. They are not entirely free because they are influenced by preexisting conditions; yet they are not entirely determined because there are finite options to choose between.

Cogita, Labora, Ora.
Rev. Christopher J. Freeman

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CJFreeman,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
I don't think God's existence impedes free will, but I do agree that there is no such thing as free will.  All our actions are simply reactions made upon previous built up knowledge and instincts.  When you really think about it, it doesn't matter how much you argue it, but its true.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

The largest complaint about God and "free-will" (that wonderfully redundant phrase) is that it seems completely arbitrary. He elects some, but not others, and entirely by His free-choosing. Hence we are bound by the destiny He has arbitrarily set.

However, the Bible is explicitly clear that we can choose our destiny (cf. Genesis 1-3). Ergo, we have some type of veritable will. But the things we choose are just as arbitrary as the supposed destiny we accuse God of choosing for us. For example, some people will choose red over green. Why? Why not, of course! Entirely arbitrary.

Now the platform for any type of freedom of the will is removed and we are falling toward the inevitable conclusion that we cannot make uninformed, uninfluenced decisions. As is stated in the preceding quote, "All our actions are simply reactions made upon previous built-up knowledge and instincts."

Only one person can make a perfectly-willed choice, and that is God. All other choices are reactions to what is set before us by the Creator. They are not entirely free because they are influenced by preexisting conditions; yet they are not entirely determined because there are finite options to choose between.

Cogita, Labora, Ora.
Rev. Christopher J. Freeman<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Thank you for putting so eloquently what I have tried to say before (though without the reference's to God). However, I would dispute that we have options to choose between; there may be multiple paths before a person, but which they follow is not their own choice, it is a reaction made upon prior experiences, experiences which themselves were also outside of our control. Only a person with total experience and understanding of every possibility could make a choice of their own, and it is only possible for a God to meet that standard, which is where we agree.

[Paul]

If we accept as a given that free will does not exist, it has a number of consequences.

1. Everyone's actions are the result of necessity.
2. Morality and ethics are illusions.
3. Love, hate etc. become only chemical reactions.
4. True consciousness does not exist either.

The only reason besides philosophical debate to make this argument is to avoid try to avoid responsibility for one's actions. It will not work because people will hold you responsible anyway, since they do not have free will either.

Santa Claus does not physically exist but he exists in my mind anyway. He enriches my existence. Free will is like Santa. Real or not we are better off with him than without him.

[Jeanne]

In having a discussion with a philosphy student, we discussed free will. He had persuaded me that I was a physiologist, but he wanted me to say that I believed in free will, which would then allow him to say that only theism can offer free will, so I must ultimately be a theist. Hmmm. Anyway, this is my take on free will and is totally without superior thought since I am just a chicken farmer and a mother whose brain is turning to oatmeal......"The illusion of free will is a physiological necessity and is produced by our brain in order to maintain sanity. When that physiological effect is glitched, then our brain sinks into wells of depression, falls into the chaos of schitzophrenia, soars into heights of mania. The brain loses control without the illusion of free will and then feels that there is no control over its very existence. The brain then responds to the whispering voices produced by its own insanity.

For some the illusion of free will is supported by faith in deities, for others the illusion works without theism and is supported by faith in science. For those unlucky ones the illusion fails to work, but can often be treated by tricking the brain through therapy and/or medications."

That is it.
Jeanne

[shunyadragon]

Free will and the predetermination of behavior are two different issues.

Free will versus predestination is an interesting debate. Are our choices when when have the choice a subject of free will or are these choices predetermined? Some churches and religions believe strongly in predestination, like Islam

I believe that predestination is not a good belief, but it is commonly used to justify good and bad events in history and one's personal life.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jeanne,)
In having a discussion with a philosphy student, we discussed free will. He had persuaded me that I was a physiologist, but he wanted me to say that I believed in free will, which would then allow him to say that only theism can offer free will, so I must ultimately be a theist. Hmmm. Anyway, this is my take on free will and is totally without superior thought since I am just a chicken farmer and a mother whose brain is turning to oatmeal......"The illusion of free will is a physiological necessity and is produced by our brain in order to maintain sanity. When that physiological effect is glitched, then our brain sinks into wells of depression, falls into the chaos of schitzophrenia, soars into heights of mania. The brain loses control without the illusion of free will and then feels that there is no control over its very existence. The brain then responds to the whispering voices produced by its own insanity.

For some the illusion of free will is supported by faith in deities, for others the illusion works without theism and is supported by faith in science. For those unlucky ones the illusion fails to work, but can often be treated by tricking the brain through therapy and/or medications."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Are you saying you do not believe humans have free will and everything is predetermined?

Faith in a religion may also support predestination.

[mbrock59]

With out free will we are robots, within and without of the context of religion. If my destiny as well as decisions and reactions are predetermined, why even try?

[damnrad]

I see no way to prove one way or another that we have any degree of free will. If we do not, then our behavior is programmed from the start -- including our belief or nonbelief in free will. On the other hand, if we have some degree of freedom, some ability to choose within limits, then new questions arise: how does it work, how much freedom do we have, can we increase our freedom of will and how? I am therefore programmed to believe that discussion of free will only makes sense if we have some.

[damnrad]

"Some people (notably Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker) argue that consciousness is a product of our biological processes. These processes wholely determine our consciousness and everything within it. As such, we are never free of these processes."

But one thing doesn't necessarily follow from another. Consciousness may be, likely is, a biologically-based process, but that does not mean that biology wholely determines consciousness. Before organisms had brains, they had senses -- that is, means of incorporating information from the world outside their own biology. A rather useful trait, that. As consciousness developed, it has largely been about interpreting information outside an organism's own biology. In effect, consciousness would be largely useless if it were purely determined by internal biology, because most of the threats to existence with which consciousness helps us to deal come from outside our own biology -- but not all, and in fact our own assessments of our health generally tend to be somewhat accurate.

[damnrad]

"If my destiny as well as decisions and reactions are predetermined, why even try?"

Obviously, because under those conditions, you are programmed to try. My question is: why believe that all of your actions are totally determined? It just seems to me more reasonable to assume that we have some degree of choice.