Do humans actually have free will?

@Seeker phil,

Quote:

There are two possibilities in this argument. Either we have free will and are able to do what ever we wish, or we do not have free will and there is some being governing our actions for us that does posess free will.

Actually, "free will" not only seems incompatible with determinism, that every event has a cause, but "free will" is also imcompatible with indeterminism, that events have no cause.

But, what is the need for all of this talk about free will, anyway? Even if we accept that humans have a will, then we must still ask ourselves if we humans can freely apply our will. Imagine if we had a free will, but no control over that will; a will that could do and not do as it pleased, without the oversight of reason.

@Didymos Thomas,

I vote for neither.

Listen, as long as we look at will as individual, and a quality and characteristic of the individual then we mist the point of it completely. We start saying defining it as this or that without good cause. If will is life, and all life for example then it is possible for it to be both free in some respects and determined. If I am trying to survive, and I run across some microbe that is trying to survive then each of us will determine the next move of the other. It is the same with human life. We each may be free and alive, but our perceptions, illusion, prejudices, and desires will in each case determine our behavior and the reactions of the other. Our lives, our bits of will are both free and determined by will.
And
If I can give you an example: If some old fossil news man asks a politician- we can't let Iran have nuclear weapons, can we? Does anyone believe the answer is not determined by the nature of the question, and by the way it was phrased? When people are locked into behavior by their prejudices their lives are on autopilot. They have denied what should be essential to any freedom, and certainly to any free government which is a variety of options. No options mean no choice which means no freedom. I do not believe good government can exist by making choices or deciding between choices. Freedom requires that government reserve itself to finding choices or creating choices for the people to make. Life is not a chess board where kings can be forced into a corner, but people can be led to their destruction by being made to perceive a corner where there is none.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Actually, "free will" not only seems incompatible with determinism, that every event has a cause, but "free will" is also imcompatible with indeterminism, that events have no cause.

But, what is the need for all of this talk about free will, anyway? Even if we accept that humans have a will, then we must still ask ourselves if we humans can freely apply our will. Imagine if we had a free will, but no control over that will; a will that could do and not do as it pleased, without the oversight of reason.

Actually, "free will" not only seems incompatible with determinism, that every event has a cause, but "free will" is also imcompatible with indeterminism, that events have no cause.

It that is true, then free will implies that determinism is false, and free will implies that indeterminism is false. But since determinism and indeterminism are contradictories, that implies that free will implies a contradiction, and that implies that the idea of free will is, itself, contradictory. But no one believes that. So either free will is compatible with determinism, or it is compatible with indeterminism. And, since it seems to be incompatible with indeterminism (since free will implies responsibility) it must be compatible with determinism.

Let me just mention something John Locke wrote: "It is not the will that is free, but persons".

@kennethamy,

Is not the key to free will that of consciousness itself, and free will seems to mean the choice to act on what is conscious. In fact consciousness provides you might say a variety of choices as to how one reacts, but no real choice about reaction itself, for even a considered choice of reaction is reaction, a conscious inaction is also a reaction, thus no free will in the face of the necessity of reaction.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Actually, "free will" not only seems incompatible with determinism, that every event has a cause, but "free will" is also imcompatible with indeterminism, that events have no cause.

It that is true, then free will implies that determinism is false, and free will implies that indeterminism is false. But since determinism and indeterminism are contradictories, that implies that free will implies a contradiction, and that implies that the idea of free will is, itself, contradictory. But no one believes that. So either free will is compatible with determinism, or it is compatible with indeterminism. And, since it seems to be incompatible with indeterminism (since free will implies responsibility) it must be compatible with determinism.

Let me just mention something John Locke wrote: "It is not the will that is free, but persons".

I can agree with Locke that persons are free, and agree it is will that makes them so, but also will in the form of another person that makes slaves. Even though all have will, and all life has will, this does not mean that will will not be expressed personally and antagonistically to all other will. We have met the enemy and it is us, and we are not pulling ourselves up with our bootstraps but pulling ourselves down with our hats.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Is not the key to free will that of consciousness itself, and free will seems to mean the choice to act on what is conscious. In fact consciousness provides you might say a variety of choices as to how one reacts, but no real choice about reaction itself, for even a considered choice of reaction is reaction, a conscious inaction is also a reaction, thus no free will in the face of the necessity of reaction.

The meaning of the phrase: revenge is a dish best served cold is this in fact. No man who considers himself a man is free who is not self controled. Children react, but the old consider how best to react, and do not act in haste or hot blood. In fact, no man is free except by choice, and no man is a slave except by choice, and yet the hardest part of freedom to accept is the knowledge that freedom is shared, and defended in common, so freedom equates to equality, and this is why so many of the intelligent choose to be masters rather than free men when being a master is only another form of slavery. Will is just a force. It is mind that must turn it to a purpose.

@Fido,

A helpful link perhaps

FT.com / Arts & Weekend - I think therefore I am, I think

@boagie,

Quote:

Let me just mention something John Locke wrote: "It is not the will that is free, but persons".

The very inspiration of the second part of my post.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

The very inspiration of the second part of my post.

Freedom is not something to somebody until it is everything to everybody.

America is not a bastion of freedom, but a bank of insecurities.

fido

@Fido,

If life is free will then all living things poses it. Im sure a silverback gorilla does what he wants.

Obviously humans have superior cognition in determining the results of our choices but that doesnt mean other life doesnt have free will also.

so then is choice free will? choice abounds in nature, but you would'nt think of earth worms as having free will.

Every living thing choses within the confines of available choices and within the confines of its nature!

It seams as though we have free will, due to the miriad of choices, but I have serious doubts about human kind as a spiecies breaking free from the patterns of our history, our natural patterns. If we could somehow rise above our human nature and consiously shift our paradigme, like controll population or iradicate war, then I think we have free will, otherwise I think we would have to evolve and emerge with a whole new nature.

@ogden,

ogden wrote:

If life is free will then all living things poses it. Im sure a silverback gorilla does what he wants.

Obviously humans have superior cognition in determining the results of our choices but that doesnt mean other life doesnt have free will also.

so then is choice free will? choice abounds in nature, but you would'nt think of earth worms as having free will.

Every living thing choses within the confines of available choices and within the confines of its nature!

It seams as though we have free will, due to the miriad of choices, but I have serious doubts about human kind as a spiecies breaking free from the patterns of our history, our natural patterns. If we could somehow rise above our human nature and consiously shift our paradigme, like controll population or iradicate war, then I think we have free will, otherwise I think we would have to evolve and emerge with a whole new nature.

Will is not doing as you want but doing toward a goal which usually can be reduced to -more life.

And I would not count out the lowly worm. They may not look like they're built for speed. They don't come with a fancy paint job and racing stripes, but they get there, and they carry the earth upon their backs when the do. They never fly except in the belly of a bird, but no matter how great the empire is in its day, at some point, its history will be buried in worm shit.

@PeterDamian,

'Freedom', 'free-will', 'choice', 'Jesus', 'autonomy', etc... are all predominately emotionally/egoically based 'beliefs'.
For those who need to believe in such, it is 'real' for them, in their world-views, in their lives. Argumentation is fruitless. They 'know' better. The 'evidence' of their perceptions (naive realism) is sufficient.
For those who don't need to 'believe', these concepts remain nonsense, fantasy. The relevency of science showing these things to be illusion is irrelevent to the 'believers', and justification/support for those who don't.
Those who 'believe' have no choice but to 'believe' and those who do not, likewise, at any particular moment.

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

'Freedom', 'free-will', 'choice', 'Jesus', 'autonomy', etc... are all predominately emotionally/egoically based 'beliefs'.
For those who need to believe in such, it is 'real' for them, in their world-views, in their lives. Argumentation is fruitless. They 'know' better. The 'evidence' of their perceptions (naive realism) is sufficient.
For those who don't need to 'believe', these concepts remain nonsense, fantasy. The relevency of science showing these things to be illusion is irrelevent to the 'believers', and justification/support for those who don't.
Those who 'believe' have no choice but to 'believe' and those who do not, likewise, at any particular moment.

So did I choose (freely?) to believe in such things as free-will and Jesus, or was it not really my choice? If not there's no sense (as far as I can see) in anyone being frustrated at me for these beliefs, or expecting that I could change... Of course if I have a choice in the matter, then I would think I'm right about free-will at least, though of course Jesus is still up for debate. Wink

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

'Freedom', 'free-will', 'choice', 'Jesus', 'autonomy', etc... are all predominately emotionally/egoically based 'beliefs'.
For those who need to believe in such, it is 'real' for them, in their world-views, in their lives. Argumentation is fruitless. They 'know' better. The 'evidence' of their perceptions (naive realism) is sufficient.
For those who don't need to 'believe', these concepts remain nonsense, fantasy. The relevency of science showing these things to be illusion is irrelevent to the 'believers', and justification/support for those who don't.
Those who 'believe' have no choice but to 'believe' and those who do not, likewise, at any particular moment.

What your list is made of is concepts of meaning without being. There is no such thing as a freedom, or a choice or a Jesus. It is not belief that gives these concepts their power, but the power is the meaning we give to them. Not all people believe in Jesus, as Jesus the son of God. Even those who do not believe give Jesus a value, a meaning either positive or negative. You can show me a snake. A snake has being and meaning. Many of the concepts we have are only the meaning we give them.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

There is no such thing as a freedom

So are you saying that no one is free, and no one is not free? We are all equally free in every aspect? Why do we have the word "free" if it doesn't describe anything? :confused:

Unless you're saying that it describes a concept, and that concepts don't exist outside of the mind? But certainly it's a concept that directly applies to real life.....?

@Fido,

G'day all. This is my first venture into any specific forum.

I'm not sure what a discussion about "free will" is doing in Epistemology, but whatever the basis of its categorisation, the matters under consideration remain the same.

I read all the posts since Peter Damian's initial entry and wondered if it might be possible to make some sort of concise listing of just what are the points of contention?

Failing that, perhaps we could review just what is being referred to when the term 'will' is being used. I notice, what seem to me to be, two distinctly different applications:
i). As included in Fido's post of Nov. 29; "Will is just a force". Here 'will' is used to refer to the dynamic nature of an action. Thus there may be reference to 'strong' or 'weak' will. In any event it would seem to generally be used in the sense of an individual trait or characteristic, and not something to which constraint (or lack of it) would normally be considered to apply. Thus one might exhibit strength of will (or not), but there could hardly be said to be any external constraints such as would make it appropriate to question whether or not it was 'free'.
ii). Elsewhere in the various posts it would seem that 'will' is used in the sense of 'choice'; i.e. the question is whether or not one is free to choose (cf. Aristoddler's post, Aug. 26).

For now, I will take it that what is at question is, the extent to which people may be said to be free to choose. In this context some salient points have been made, that seem to have at their core the following concerns:
i). What is meant by 'free' in this context?
ii). What are the implications of having 'free will'?
ii). What are the implications of not having 'free will'?

However there seems to have been little if any consideration of what it is that surely underpins the whole issue: What is it to be a human being? What is there, amongst that of which we are aware, that may be irrefutably be demonstrated to be an entity that exercises choice/will however constrained? In short, is our consciousness causal (deterministic) or consequential (i.e. symptomatic)? Is it perhaps, both consequential and causal, being part of the ebb-and-flow, the flux of energy-states that constitute that which we call The Universe?

Yeh, well just a few thoughts.
Wink

@NeitherExtreme,

Quote:

Will is not doing as you want but doing toward a goal which usually can be reduced to -more life.

How is doing what you want not a goal?

Quote:

'Freedom', 'free-will', 'choice', 'Jesus', 'autonomy', etc... are all predominately emotionally/egoically based 'beliefs'.
For those who need to believe in such, it is 'real' for them, in their world-views, in their lives. Argumentation is fruitless. They 'know' better. The 'evidence' of their perceptions (naive realism) is sufficient.
For those who don't need to 'believe', these concepts remain nonsense, fantasy. The relevency of science showing these things to be illusion is irrelevent to the 'believers', and justification/support for those who don't.
Those who 'believe' have no choice but to 'believe' and those who do not, likewise, at any particular moment.

Could one not equally argue that the denial of freewill, ect, is just as much a belief as the opposite? Could one not equally submit our own experience, which supports free will, as you submit science? - which, by the way, sometimes comes in on the side of freewill.

@GridLok,

GridLok wrote:

In short, is our consciousness causal (deterministic) or consequential (i.e. symptomatic)? Is it perhaps, both consequential and causal...

I just want to say that IMO this is a very consice (and I believe wise) response to the question... It refuses to go to either extreme, bot of which apear to be nonsensical to me when applied to "real-life".

From there we could debate forever over how much of life is "caused" and how much is "freely-willed", but I have to say that I see both plainly at work in humanity...

Well done, in my opinion. Smile

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

So did I choose (freely?) to believe in such things as free-will and Jesus, or was it not really my choice?

You have no choice but to 'believe' (as you do!) that you made a 'choice', no options but to think that you made a 'decision' to 'believe' in 'Jesus' or 'free-will'.. There are no 'options' to that which Is, Here/Now.

Quote:

If not there's no sense (as far as I can see) in anyone being frustrated at me for these beliefs, or expecting that I could change...

(One moment, you may be like this, another like that.. You do not 'change' but are a new 'creation' each and every synchronous moment. 'Change' is an illusion of memory.)
One who understands this doesn't get frustrated at others (or self), doesn't get angry at others (or 'self'), there is no blame, no punishment, no retribution, no guilt, no judgement... all the little 'happy things' that some 'perspectives' bring.
Instead of spending money to punish people who cant behave nicely in society, perhaps we can 'cure' them, re-educate them, and if not, keep them segregated from society, humanely.

Quote:

Of course if I have a choice in the matter, then I would think I'm right about free-will at least, though of course Jesus is still up for debate.

In your world-view, with the memories that are 'you', you are not 'right', not 'wrong', but you are as 'valid', your 'memory' is as 'valid' as anyone else's. 'Free-will' is 'real' in your mnemonic universes, for you.
For me, there is no such thing as 'free-will' or 'choice' (neither blame nor punishment, etc..). This is also 'my reality'; not 'right', not 'wrong', but simply as 'created'.
Both of us are the fabrication of memory, neither is 'righter nor wronger' (but by pride and ignorance) than the 'other'.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

What your list is made of is concepts of meaning without being.

Our concepts, which is all memory, has whatever 'meaning' that is applied (inherent), all the 'Being' that we can know.

Quote:

There is no such thing as a freedom, or a choice or a Jesus. It is not belief that gives these concepts their power, but the power is the meaning we give to them.

An illusion by any other name... You 'believe' in (the representational meaning and concept of) 'freedom', or you do not. If you 'believe' in it, you will fight, kill, die in support and propagation. History shows that.
Freedom = choices. There are none (choices/options) but as a 'belief' or an 'illusion'. I see the illusion, I do not 'believe' in it's 'reality'. Others do. All the various perspectives are what give depth and breadth to the illusion/dream of 'life'.

Quote:

Not all people believe in Jesus, as Jesus the son of God. Even those who do not believe give Jesus a value, a meaning either positive or negative.

I don't give any value (or meaning) to that which is not 'real'. Others do.

Quote:

You can show me a snake. A snake has being and meaning.

In your concepts/memory.

Quote:

Many of the concepts we have are only the meaning we give them.

Concepts are memories (not necessarily containing 'meaning'), some of which arise with 'personal/perspectival' 'meaning', some do not.
No 'concept' is the 'thing' (unless it's a 'concept' of a 'concept'?), a 'memory' is a 'memory', nothing more.
There is no evidence of anything 'more'.

Philosophy Forum

Do humans actually have free will?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know