Do humans actually have free will?

@GridLok,

GridLok wrote:

Perhaps we have arrived at the nub of the matter: What does it mean to 'know'? How do we 'know'? :confused:

Reminds me of a proposition I read a while back, which still haunts me. The idea was that the two root questions for humans are, "Is there free will?" and "Can we really know anything?" The author then proposed that how we answer the latter question must determine how we answer the former. I never could understand how he answered the latter question though!:sarcastic:

@PeterDamian,

Cogito ergo sum?

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

Reminds me of a proposition I read a while back, which still haunts me. The idea was that the two root questions for humans are, "Is there free will?" and "Can we really know anything?" The author then proposed that how we answer the latter question must determine how we answer the former. I never could understand how he answered the latter question though!:sarcastic:

I am not sure how "really know" differs from just plain old "know". But I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And if you are familiar with the geography of South America, so do you. And, if you are not, you can either take my word for it, or check it on the Internet, or Hammond's World Atlas, or a good encyclopedia, or, I suppose you could phone the Ecuadorean Embassy in Washington, D.C. and ask them. Is there free will. Well, yesterday I went to an ice-cream shop, and I had a delicious plate of vanilla, and no one compelled me to do so, so I ate the ice-cream "of my own free will". Haven't you done that sort of thing often in your life when you did things you wanted to do?

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

Cogito ergo sum?

Let me run that into the ground...Is the tank full???

@Fido,

If humans do have free will we must allow that humanity is the cause of humanity's problems (i.e., moral evil). That is, free will requires that some humans be more good than others.

For humans not to have free will, either scientific determinism or God must be in effect; but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle destroys scientific determinism and it would be impossible to philosophically prove or disprove a God acting ex mundi, that is, above and beyond us.

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

If humans do have free will we must allow that humanity is the cause of humanity's problems (i.e., moral evil). That is, free will requires that some humans be more good than others.

For humans not to have free will, either scientific determinism or God must be in effect; but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle destroys scientific determinism and it would be impossible to philosophically prove or disprove a God acting ex mundi, that is, above and beyond us.

Not scientific determinism on the macro-level at which people act and choose. Only on the micro-level where we have no reason to think that people are affected.

But why is scientific determinism inconsistent with free will? I often do what I want to do. Isn't that freedom of the will?

@PeterDamian,

PeterDamian wrote:

Determinism seems to breach the so called free will because all things you do have been theologically determined by the supreme being. If determinism have all humans programmed like a computer operator does with computers, what happens to free will?

The is no doubt in all aspects, some people even think that all man's action is determined by his environment.

What is free will?

PeterDamian, Smile

There is no free will, man is a reactionary creature, his biology is plastic, his brain is plastic, thus his behaviours though not free, are indeed plastic, man adapts to the physcial world, that is his context, and he is defined by his context. He has a world of possiabilties to chose from to react to, but, he cannot chose not to react, for even inaction or non-reaction, is a reaction to context/environment. Could it be said that the physcial world has free will, no, the physcial world just is, a system, a condition in constant change, but it is what governs us. It is, and we react to its presence, from our somewhat lesser presence, freewill would I think be necessarily free from dominance, to be freewill one could not be reacionary in nature, and we are reactionary, that is our nature and the nature of all organisms.

PS: ex mundi is stillness surrounded by movement. The stillness is the centre of the universe, it is you as the axis of the world, the movement is the helter shelter of the world around you.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

PeterDamian,

There is no free will, man is a reactionary creature, his biology is plastic, his brain is plastic, thus his behaviours though not free, are indeed plastic, man adapts to the physcial world, that is his context, and he is defined by his context. He has a world of possiabilties to chose from to react to, but, he cannot chose not to react, for even inaction or non-reaction, is a reaction to context/environment. Could it be said that the physcial world has free will, no, the physcial world just is, a system, a condition in constant change, but it is what governs us, it is, and we react to its presence, from our somewhat lesser presence, freewill would I think be necessarily free from dominance, to be freewill one could not be reacionary in nature, and we are reactionary, that is our nature and the nature of all organisms.

Strange. I had an ice-cream cone yesterday, and no one forced me to have it. In fact, I chose it voluntarily (and according to you, selfishly). Are you really saying that I did not choose it freely?

And by the way, if, according to you all actions are selfish, how could I act selfishly, but not of my own free will.

I don't quite get it. Do you?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Strange. I had an ice-cream cone yesterday, and no one forced me to have it. In fact, I chose it voluntarily (and according to you, selfishly). Are you really saying that I did not choose it freely?

If you'll pardon me butting in here...

... that is a hard one to swallow, isn't it? (no pun intended). But I also believe it to be just so; that every action we take, every decision we make is based on input and variables that have lead us to that action or that decision. It feels counter-intuitive, but as I said, I too believe it to be.

Now returning you to your regularly scheduled conversation...

@PeterDamian,

Quote:

Strange. I had an ice-cream cone yesterday, and no one forced me to have it. In fact, I chose it voluntarily (and according to you, selfishly). Are you really saying that I did not choose it freely?

You chose it as freely as your nature allowed you to, but I don't believe it was just a random action precipitated by nothing. Your choice for the ice-cream was free as far as the fact that it was voluntary and you could reason with the decision, but the reasoning behind your decision could have been precipitated by a multitude of variables. In other words, you're free as far as your nature allowed you to be. Everyone's free is different as everyone has a different basis for input and variables (stealing from Khethil), but no one is free in the sense that nothing causes the choice.

So, if by free you mean it was a personal choice, I agree - you rationally chose it. But if by free you mean that the decisions you make have no backing whatsoever and transcend influence from reality, I disagree.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

... but no one is free in the sense that nothing causes the choice.

... agreed ... but what are the implications if the choice is self-caused? ... for example, if I plan my day ahead of time such that at 4:30 I'm in the park at my favorite corner vendor choosing whether to have an ice cream or a popsicle? ... feedback in a system can be a squirrelly thing Wink

... so am I a purely reacting being? ... or is there a dance of reciprocal action going on between myself and the world? ... and if I am the "intelligent" one of the two, who's in the lead in this dance? ...

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... agreed ... but what are the implications if the choice is self-caused? ... for example, if I plan my day ahead of time such that at 4:30 I'm in the park at my favorite corner vendor choosing whether to have an ice cream or a popsicle? ... feedback in a system can be a squirrelly thing ... so am I a purely reacting being? ... or is there a dance of reciprocal action going on between myself and the world? ... and if I am the "intelligent" one of the two, who's in the lead in this dance? ...

Paulhanke, Smile

I think the lead in the dance is the physcial world, as I stated earlier you have a world of choices, what you do not have is the ability not to chose, your brain is flexiable/plastic just so that you might follow the lead, your very consciousness is reaction to.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Paulhanke,

I think the lead in the dance is the physcial world, as I stated earlier you have a world of choices, what you do not have is the ability not to chose, your brain is flexiable/plastic just so that you might follow the lead, your very consciousness is reaction to.

... but why is it that you privilege "the physical world"? ... because it's bigger? ... let's put it another way: isn't it really the fact that there's nothing but "the physical world" and you can choose to segment it any way you please? ... so I decide to carve up the physical world into "me" and "not me" ... having divided physical world in this way, what reason is there for me to privilege one part over the other? ... sure, I could say that the "not me" section acts and "me" section reacts ... but, I could just as easily say that the "me" section acts and the "not me" section reacts ... the logical conclusion being that neither is inherently in the lead ...

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... agreed ... but what are the implications if the choice is self-caused? ... for example, if I plan my day ahead of time such that at 4:30 I'm in the park at my favorite corner vendor choosing whether to have an ice cream or a popsicle? ... feedback in a system can be a squirrelly thing ... so am I a purely reacting being? ... or is there a dance of reciprocal action going on between myself and the world? ... and if I am the "intelligent" one of the two, who's in the lead in this dance? ...

Choices have no selves, therefore, choices are not self-caused, QED If you mean that people make choices, that is not people causing choices. That doesn't mean anything either.

If you mean that what I do sometimes affects the world, and sometimes the world affects what I do, then, of course, that is obviously true. But what has that to do with free will?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

If you mean that what I do sometimes affects the world, and sometimes the world affects what I do, then, of course, that is obviously true. But what has that to do with free will?

... the ability to make choices now that positively constrain the choices you will need to make later in an endless feedback loop is free will ... it is a deterministic free will that does not violate any physical laws; it is an evolved free will that the inanimate segments of the physical world do not possess; it is how I create the very conditions of my own sustainment, of my own happiness ...

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... but why is it that you privilege "the physical world"? ... because it's bigger? ... let's put it another way: isn't it really the fact that there's nothing but "the physical world" and you can choose to segment it any way you please? ... so I decide to carve up the physical world into "me" and "not me" ... having divided physical world in this way, what reason is there for me to privilege one part over the other? ... sure, I could say that the "not me" section acts and "me" section reacts ... but, I could just as easily say that the "me" section acts and the "not me" section reacts ... the logical conclusion being that neither is inherently in the lead ...

paulhanke, Smile

:)No doubt that organisms on the planet slowly change in degree the environment, but that is a subtle change over long periods of time, the environment is a complex condition, and I suspect was and/or is itself chaos, but, when an organism adapts to chaos it can then see chaos as order. I think the fact that it is we who do the adapting to, it is rather obvious that the physcial world leads, indeed the environment is now changing so quickly that man will have to leave the dance floor, he will nolonger be able to follow, his plasticity will just not be flexiable enough.

"The ability to make choices now that positively constrain the choices you will need to make later in an endless feedback loop is free will ... it is a deterministic free will that does not violate any physical laws; it is an evolved free will that the inanimate segments of the physical world do not possess; it is how I create the very conditions of my own sustainment, of my own happiness ..." quote

:)If freewill is determined by having choice within the context of ones environment then yes you have freewill, but, you do not have the ability to not chose, so your restrictions are a world of complexity. Again even inaction/ or the lack of reaction, would still be a reaction to ones environment, so, if you do not have the abiliity to not chose, do you have freewill?

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

paulhanke,

:)No doubt that organisms on the planet slowly change in degree the environment, but that is a subtle change over long periods of time, the environment is a complex condition, and I suspect was and/or is itself chaos, but, when an organism adapts to chaos it can then see chaos as order. I think the fact that it is we who do the adapting to, it is rather obvious that the physcial world leads, indeed the environment is now changing so quickly that man will have to leave the dance floor, he will nolonger be able to follow, his plasticity will just not be flexiable enough.

... but this seems to me to be some kind of assertion that humankind is not of the physical world - that we are somehow different and less ontologically privileged ...

boagie wrote:

... so, if you do not have the abiliity to not chose, do you have freewill?

... if I choose a course of action because I have foreseen an undesirable choice that I do not want to make, and I successfully avoid having to make that choice, haven't I exerted by ability not to choose? ...

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... agreed ... but what are the implications if the choice is self-caused? ... for example, if I plan my day ahead of time such that at 4:30 I'm in the park at my favorite corner vendor choosing whether to have an ice cream or a popsicle? ... feedback in a system can be a squirrelly thing ... so am I a purely reacting being? ... or is there a dance of reciprocal action going on between myself and the world? ... and if I am the "intelligent" one of the two, who's in the lead in this dance? ...

To ask what are the implications if the choice is self-caused is just asking what are the implications of every decision leading up to the decision that is desired (in this case the situation to be able to choose from an ice-cream). Many choices, no, I'd say a majority of choices we make are self-caused. If we go to a grocery store, many choices we have the opportunity to make there are self-caused (buying groceries, encountering certain people, using a certain coupon etc.). We can extrapolate this out to so many different situations, and all this proves is that we are aware of our actions, can log memory, and have some influence over the choices we have to make - not that we can defy the nature from which our actions are developed or that we can deny choice entirely.

Sure, you can buy groceries if you go to a grocery store, but your choice to even go to the grocery store in the first place was a result of a reaction to a stimuli or desire (we cannot deny the nature of the development of our actions). Again, we are free only as far as our nature allows; we can reason, having some influence over which choices we make, but we cannot escape making choice entirely (we cannot deny choice entirely)

Quote:

... if I choose a course of action because I have foreseen an undesirable choice that I do not want to make, and I successfully avoid having to make that choice, haven't I exerted by ability not to choose? ...

You're still choosing something. In this case, you're choosing to plan your life according to not having to be in a certain situation. Put it like this: If you encounter it, you have to make a choice. The fact that there are choices out there that you haven't encountered, or have chosen not to encounter, doesn't mean you can defy making choice. All it means is that we have some power over which choices we have to make. In other words, we still are reactionary creatures even though we're able to shape which choices we must react to.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

... not that we can defy the nature from which our actions are developed or that we can deny choice entirely.

... ah, but I'm not making a claim for transcendental free will - merely a kind of free will that is not possessed by inanimate matter (which is purely reactionary) ... of course, if it ain't transcendental, then some will poo-poo it as not meeting their criteria for "free" will ...

Zetherin wrote:

In other words, we still are reactionary creatures even though we're able to shape which choices we must react to.

... if you're saying that there is nothing in the physical world but reaction, then I will agree ... thus, I react to the rest of the physical world, and the rest of the physical world reacts to me ... and so we're back to the dance ... and in this dance, I have the upper hand because of the powers evolution has given me (and my peers! Wink

) ... thus, I lead in this reactionary dance - as you say, I have the power to shape it ... if this is not free will, then what do we call it?

@paulhanke,

Paul,

Then we see eye to eye. Yes, I'd consider this free will, but I just wanted to clarify "free", as it can definitely be misconstrued. You understand the clarification, and I rest my case.

Thanks for your insight.

Be well,

Zeth

Philosophy Forum

Do humans actually have free will?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know