Can you make an argument for why free will exists? My understanding is that free will, insofar as the layman defines it, not only does not exist but cannot. I propose that people only believe in free will due to some combination of willful ignorance and/or ego (I.e. I must have free will, because I'm not special without it, and I know I'm special).
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
13 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I think free will exists, because you can change the structure of your brain by making the decision to develop new neural pathways and then practicing.
That being said it is not unlimited free will. You can have a chemical imbalance that makes you depressed and no amount of positive thinking will address that chemical imbalance without medication.
So yes, it exists to a certain extent, but it also has limits
Myah
Level 6
Feb 16, 2018
0
But how do you know that the choices you made that led to the changes in your brain were free? You're presupposing the conclusion in your argument.
Much like the animals we deny being, we are creatures of instinct. If free will does exist, it is a very narrow slot. Traumas and past experiences can sometimes make it so there is really only ONE way out, and if we don't die PHYSICALLY from fighting/confronting it, a mental or spiritual piece of us will die in response in not taking action.
Logan7
Level 4
Feb 7, 2018
1
I don't need to, I have as free a will as I could have, my only limitation is consequences for me of using my free will, also I don t quite know how 'the layman' would define it
jacpod
Level 8
Feb 4, 2018
0
If you can't define it, then you can't say you have it.
Once again, this is nature vs nurture in sheeps clothing. I'm not special at all. Free will is real. Any time you go against your gut you are engaging in free will. The two dot experiment exemplifies this.
Imagine there are two dots that occupy the same space in time. How do you define them and why?
jayneonacobb
Level 7
Feb 4, 2018
0
I don't see evidence for free will there. I think you're confusing someone who makes choices with someone who makes choices but could have made another choice. The two aren't the same.
Still free will if a person makes one choice and not another.
This week I used my free will to tell my son, to register my car on Las Vegas on his name for a 1 dollar purchase in the title. I also asked my middle daughter on my free will... for her to exercise her free will and select between a Bose 200 series III or a Dell Inspiron 15 3000 Laptop. Both brand new, in the box, never used, I got them from my sister. She used her free will to choose the Laptop. I will choose then the Bose for my other daughter that just sold her condo and is buying a new house as a house gift. To me That is Free Fucking Will. I know... a different human will keep it all to himself while screaming Mine!!!!! I am such a Bad Capitalist, I am ashamed of myself.
GipsyOfNewSpain
Level 9
Feb 4, 2018
0
I have my doubts that I actually have any free will over my actions, but the judge evidently thought I did.
Rudy1962
Level 9
Feb 4, 2018
2
@Donotbelieve that's good
Not sure how that follows. We know from quantum physics that random probability governs what state a system ends up in. Certainly Newtonian determinism isn't true. (Newton actually never held this belief but it ended up getting named after him anyway.)
Why shouldn't quantum uncertainty also apply (at least to some degree) to macro-states? Particularly to consciousness? On reflection, although not necessarily useful, it seems to meet the very definition of "Free Will." One's consciousness is "free" to end up in whatever random state it "chooses" whether that be from "conscious" decision or not. While it is hard to see how random chance meets the definition of "chooses", I'm not sure "chooses" is even a well defined thing at the quantum level.
Maybe ultimately that is what consciousness actually is. A large collection of random states organized by fuzzy rules into a system which proceeds in making heirarchical decisions based on results of those states and the order of the system.
marmot84
Level 7
Feb 4, 2018
1
To the extent that quantum uncertainty leaves our choices unbound, doesn't that just make them arbitrary? That may technically be freedom, but it's not the type of freedom the lay person intends when they say they have free will.
@imnotdavid Yes, that is, I think, the most relevant question. But it presupposes the existence of a soul. "Mind in the machine." My personal view is that "Mind is the Machine."
So, yes, will we have what we might call "free will" but it isn't really free as it is apparently dictated by random quantum events. I'm not entirely happy with this result and feel that it must somehow be wrong but I don't know how. One avenue of interesting research is the deep question which is the current dirty secret of quantum physics:
Somehow consciousness and quantum entanglement are connected and WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS.
If you are interested in the physics I would point you to something called "the delayed choice experiment" which seems to show that our decision on the measurement affects the outcome. Not the measurement itself mind you but the decision on whether to make the measurement or not! I sure as hell don't understand it and it does not fit with the model of Quantum mechanics that was taught to me in Graduate school physics. Nevertheless, the experimental results have be robustly repeated.
@marmot84 my whole issue is that there seems to be an infinite regression problem whenever you try to justify free will in the sense people want to believe they have it. No matter how far you go...brain, soul, quantum fluctuations, whatever origin of choice you arrive at is going to have the same problems, that it is either (1) governed by rules and is therefore not free or (2) is completely unbound by rules in which case it is simply arbitrary.
@imnotdavid Yes, which is why I referred to the mind-body problem. Either there is a soul in the machine or there isn't. Personally, I don't believe there is. Thus we are not "free" in the way we probably want to be but since there is no soul it shouldn't matter. We still kinda are because the machine can attempt to do what the machine wants to do as long as it is within the machine rules. But how can a machine want anything - Oh wait - we are the machine!
Guess that really doesn't solve anything but ... at least with QM we've escaped predestination.
@marmot84 my argument is that even a soul would suffer from the same problem that eventually defeats any attempt to claim free will. There's nothing special about separating the mind from the body that solves the problem, because it has to do with logic and nothing to do with material vs. immaterial.
@imnotdavid I disagree since a soul can be as "magical" as one likes. Thus a soul could have free will via magic (or substitute God or substitute anything not understood, maybe "freewillism" ) and not have to obey the laws of physics or anything else.)
If consciousness is a thing independent of material it certainly could have ANY properties one likes because it isn't subject to the rules of the material.
Since we don't really even understand what consciousness actually is, it is very hard for us to say that we know how it acts. Personally, I believe it to subject to the objective laws of physics but the delayed choice experiment leads me to believe that I may really be wrong.
My argument is ontological. If freewill can be defined as a PROPERTY that could exist then souls COULD have it. I don't believe that it does, but, that is beside the point.
Your infinite regression argument doesn't apply if we are outside of the rules of game and I claim that we can conceive that we might be.
@marmot84 a soul can be as magical as one likes, but it can't do things that are logically impossible, like be in the shape of a triangular square. And I'm saying that free will is impossible on a level that fundamental. It simply cannot be demonstrated regardless of whatever leeway you grant in a hypothetical. And if we are, as you say, "outside the rules of the game" then we're back in the land of the arbitrary.
@imnotdavid I understand that you are saying that. I disagree. I assert that freewill is a concept that is possible. I have worked through your iterative infinite regression and did not accept it as proof.
I can imagine a universe (not necessarily ours) where beings exist who have what we are calling "Free Will" apparently you would say that something causes the choice and that something determines the choice so that "Free Will" is a logical contradiction. I disagree. I assert that nothing is wrong with the concept of "Free Will" and if these being in my hypothetical universe are a "thing" that isn't the same "thing" as the rest of the universe that they are "in" then they could have it.
Perhaps we are at the point in the argument where we should agree to disagree. I mean I'm not annoyed or anything but I don't accept your assertion. I'm more than happy for you to take another stab at explaining it to me but I'm not sure that it would help.
Philosophy is fun, yes? I remember taking Philosophy 231 as a U. Michigan undergraduate many many years ago. I didn't realize that they didn't want me to think about stuff but instead they just wanted me to regurgitate the stuff they taught me. Thus, I got C's on my first couple of papers and didn't grasp why. Finally, I caught on and got A's on the rest. Later when taking an upper level Philosophy course I used the same technique reporting on research. Eventually, I got an A- on a term paper for NOT providing a small amount of my own thoughts. I thought it was ironic. I guess this is something that I would have grasped sooner had I had different mentoring in HS.
Define free will.
Ultimately, we are chemical reactions responding to our environment. However, as sentient beings that have developed an understanding of how the natural world operates, it could be argued that we have an element of free will in that we are able to think through choices.
Ultimately, the question is unlikely to be resolved as philosophers and scientists and all those in between will likely argue the point for eternity along with the definition of free will.
I like to think I have free will, but you are free to think otherwise.... 
Uncorrugated
Level 7
Feb 4, 2018
1
I can make a compelling and lengthy argument why it doesn't.
IntellectualRN
Level 6
Feb 4, 2018
1
It's a long complicated argument. I've listened to several debates on the topic, and finally decided I don't care.
Eazyduzzit
Level 7
Feb 4, 2018
1
Were you made to say what you just said? or did you think it up yourself freely?
ripcurldane
Level 7
Feb 4, 2018
0
Yes, that is the question. Asking the question doesn't help resolve the issue though.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.