News Do You Believe We Have Free Will?

[Hashi]

Thanks for posting links to more.

I'm afraid I find the rebuttal article unreadable - being written entirely in sentences like "I am not being disingenuous when I say this museum of mistakes is valuable;" - so unfortunately I don't know what points that is making.

But with regard to the book review it sounds like the "there is no free will" arguments come from bogus conclusions. For example:

Probably the most influential among these discoveries were the results of the famous EEG experiments conducted by the physiologist Benjamin Libet and others in the early 1980s. They showed that the brain makes decisions before consciousness becomes aware of them.

This might apply to catching a ball, but I don't think that also means we don't make our decisions when it comes to choosing how to live. Did these experiments include EEG results for someone deciding, for example, where to move to? Did they monitor them spending six months talking on and off with their partner , friends, neighbours and work colleagues, thinking about it before falling asleep at night, looking things up on the internet, making trips to different areas on their days off and reading copies of the local paper to get a sense of the location? If not - and I doubt it - then how can you say their brain made the decision before they did?

He even allows for the possible usefulness of public moral condemnation: “It may be that a sham form of retribution would still be moral — even necessary — if it led people to behave better than they otherwise would.”

Er....how is it possible to behave better than you otherwise would if you have no control over it?

We can still condemn “the conscious intention to do harm,” he says,

Again, these seems contradictory. More than that, it isn't even as simple as a conscioius intention to do harm. There can be a choice not to see that we're doing harm, or a choice to excuse ourselves for doing it, or a choice not to do something about it today but think we'll address our stress etc later when things in our lives are more settled (and therefore we will do more harm tomorrow) etc etc.

Perhaps the book puts forward more convincing arguments than the review can convey?

I do think there are times when biology/biochemistry limits our choices. The survival instinct is one of them, also things like traumatic amnesia and extreme dissociation. I think the question isn't a general question "do we have free will?". I think the discussion has to be about a few very particular circumstances in which free will might be impaired - and perhaps a large number of circumstances in which that's claimed but free will might still be there.

 

[Kupo_Nut]

I find this topic interesting in it's fundamental ideas and I understand the arguments for free will not existing. I do, however, feel that it is dangerous to NOT believe in a sense of free will because it can lead to crimes/unjustifiable acts, being neutrally justifiable which creates an environment of immoral thoughts and behaviours, I feel that believing in free will 'creates' its existence and not believing in it 'destroys' its existence in the counciousness of people. E.g.
'I only killed them because I had no will to do otherwise'. I feel that this way of thinking is wrought with contradiction and is a way of not blaming oneself for a bad action, which is a bad action that one can have a choice over. Belief is what proves free will to me, if we did not have free will how could we choose to believe in it and, in the process, give it to ourselves?
I apologise for being confusing but this is a very deep and philosophical topic, belief in free will is also belief in God, after all.
(Not wanting to go into a debate on that as it would last forever)

 

[Muzikluvr]

There is a thread discussing the belief in God, called The God Debate. You're welcome to contribute to it, or just read through it.

feel that it is dangerous to NOT believe in a sense of free will

Do you mean that, disregarding the reality in which we may actually exist, the danger of how we might "maintain" civility toward one another without the belief in Free Will, justifies perpetuating a false belief? (I put "Maintain" in quotes because as I look around me, I see a lot of horrifying choices made by people in our society, and although I don't doubt that it can get worse, I wonder if it could be better...)

I feel that believing in free will 'creates' its existence and not believing in it 'destroys' its existence in the counciousness of people.

This is an interesting idea, but what about those who refuse to believe? When our society relies on everyone agreeing to believe in the same ideals, to hold the same perspective, then we agree to ignore some part of reality, which leads us away from our goal, ultimately. Can our consciousness determine reality? No. It can determine our perception of reality, but that leaves us vulnerable to those who would perceive reality closer to the way it really is because they would be able to better predict what to expect given various causes. We would be at their mercy, easily manipulated by our hopes and fears.

'I only killed them because I had no will to do otherwise'. I feel that this way of thinking is wrought with contradiction and is a way of not blaming oneself for a bad action, which is a bad action that one can have a choice over.

In this case, I think the best result in NOT believing in Free Will, is the removal of the need to persecute or seek revenge on the murderer. S/he is a murderer. Hate the crime. Resent the crime. Mourn the victim. Memorialize the victim. Separate the murderer from society. But, what need is there to spend emotional energy hating the murderer? The murderer couldn't help it, or wouldn't help it, and what were the reasons for that? Did they hate? Did they fear? Were they high? Were they paid? Emotions confuse us, convoluting our ability to reason.

With the removal of the belief in Free Will, we might look at the persons whole life, and try to understand them, which may lead to rehabilitation. Right now, murderers don't always get a life sentence or the death penalty. They may get 7 years of living in a terrifying environment where they are likely to be raped, ridiculed, shamed, disgraced, forced to be in a gang in order to survive, etc... and we think they deserve it because they murdered someone. Our prison system is cruel and broken. People are making money off sending other people to prison. And, our society seems so callous as they shrug their shoulders and make jokes about prisoners experiencing rape by other prisoners and guards. As if that is an appropriate response of our society when someone murders or rapes other people. This is barbaric. And, we call ourselves a "Christian Society" as if that means something.

Jesus is the way the truth and the light, the only way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ... but, there is only one sin that is unforgivable, Suicide. So what kind of moral value is that? How does my Free Will hold me accountable when I can commit any crime I want, and ask Jesus to forgive me, and he will! Then, I can go to heaven with my victims! That's bullshit. That is. That is no better than exploring what choices are available to our society, should we choose to embrace other solutions to our society's problems, solutions based on 2000 years of experiences that the authors of the bible had never known. 2000 years of scientific experiments. 2000 years of philosophy. The geographic differences alone could account for so many new and creative ways of solving problems! Our ability to transport ourselves and products all across the globe. Our communications! We are far better off than we were when we came up with the concept of God.

Where might we be, if we let go of the idea of Free Will, and embrace our own limitations? What ways might we discover to overcome our limitations, once we are willing to admit them?

 

[Tinyflame]

Yes. Did the abuser have free will? And what choices did he/she think of at the time? What factors limited the abuser? Do those limiting factors (like diagnosed psychopathy) make the abuser less responsible for the choice, without making them less dangerous to society? We may hate the psychopath, but is that hate a response to fear? And, would that fear be contained as long as the psychopath was contained?

Jesus is the way the truth and the light, the only way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ... but, there is only one sin that is unforgivable, Suicide. So what kind of moral value is that? How does my Free Will hold me accountable when I can commit any crime I want, and ask Jesus to forgive me, and he will!
Then, I can go to heaven with my victims! That's bullshit.

It is my understanding that 'the one unforgivable' sin is not suicide, but lying; that is the consuming pervasive lying wherein (we) each or all tell ourselves so many lies in justifying what we do, or think wrongly in relation to others that we actually come to believe the lies as truth, & truth as lies. For example, to feel justified abusing another, so much so in fact that we neither believe we need nor want forgiveness. It would not be God saying anything (regretted) is not ultimately forgivable, but ourselves neither thinking we need, nor want forgiveness. In that case, free will I think still applies.

What is done to us is the free will of another, our response (even at least internal) is within our free will.

JMHO though.

 

[Kupo_Nut]

I didn't want to start any morality quarrels, I don't see how the existence of free will gives way for a discrepancy of miscarriage of justice. If the murderer or other criminal where to see their wrongs and want to start a better life, they should be given that opportunity there are biblical quotes that go towards your argument of rehabilitation.

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free," Luke 4:18

The accountability is still theirs, however, but they could repent and they could be forgiven, especially if they've had a difficult life and people can understand where they're coming from. The only way to be forgiven is to not divert blame onto others it is to accept that it was their own fault and to hold guilt, without accepting fault, they're not accepting feelings of guilt for what they've done and cannot look for repentance. I am not saying that they should be locked in a lonely cell until they accept what they've done was wrong, they should be shown and guided by rehabilitation, if they can be then it is an injustice not to. Yes, prisoners whole lives should be taken into account, even if most of their lives where horrendous is doesn't mean they 'had' to have committed the crime, there are too many reasons and variables for that to be viable.
Free will does not mean the given ability to blame, it means the ability to forgive.
Also, suicide only can't be forgiven, because they are dead, so they can't repent for what they've done. This doesn't mean, if there is a heaven, they can't be forgiven there (personally, I believe in purgatory to do this). To explain why suicide is a sin, it is killing oneself and killing is a sin, if someone else killed them, that would be a sin.

I don't want to sound heartless, I don't think there is any lower point to go than to contemplate suicide and you have to feel awful if someone takes that road, thinking it's sinful is an afterthought to the grief and pain and it doesn't justify it. It is sinful, because it causes grief and sorrow to others, it shows ingratitude for their own life also, that is why it's a sin. No one should blame them for it because it may be the fault of others that drive them to that decision like bullying etc. but by taking that final decision, it is still them that does it, so it is still their free will. That is why people should support others and not blame, they should forgive and show compassion and by doing that, they are using their free will to its full purpose not using it to blame, because blaming leads to hate and intolerance, which can only lead to more suffering including suicides.
Forgiveness is not something that is asked in words, it is only by repenting that forgiveness is given.
We all have limitations but using free will, we can take control, we can see where we might go wrong and turn it around.

 

[Muzikluvr]

I think that we basically agree that one should be responsible for one's decisions, but we're coming at it from opposing angles.

According to the lecture I cited at the beginning of this thread, Sam Harris doesn't remove our responsibility for the choices we make, he discusses the limiting factors in the choices we have in our lives. If we can only think of a few options, and some of those options we throw out without consideration because they are against our religion or our family values or because one time they led to trauma, and we lack the creativity to replace those choices with new choices, then we often make decisions that we feel are the only choice we had; when in fact, another person, with different values and different DNA may be free to come up with a different and better solution.

What limits you? What wouldn't you allow yourself to think of doing?

A quick search on "The Power of Suggestion" led to this: http://www.psychologicalscience.org...luences-our-behavior-for-better-or-worse.html Suggesting solutions for people does cause them to focus in on those solutions, and our minds stop coming up with unique ideas and start working on whether or not the suggestion will work.

It's not that I think we have no power to affect change on ourselves, or that we have no responsibility for our own decisions, but that we are limited in our decisions and it's not because we're evil, but because we are ignorant, dogmatic, presumptuous, arrogant, meek, etc... we are limited by our humanity and by our culture. We are not free to make ANY choice, only free to make those choices we deem acceptable from the ones which come to mind.

I think, understanding what narrows one's willingness to explore more of their options, will help us encourage others to feel FREE to explore their options. We must maintain laws, which would limit people from killing each other or intentionally harming one another, etc... (or are supposed to do that) but, many of our limitations stop us before we get anywhere near breaking laws. Things like, our mothers would be ashamed of us. Our communities may shun us. God may condemn us. We reject being like certain people whom we dislike or distrust, and so refuse to make choices which they may have made. We desire to be like certain people whom we admire, and so we try to make choices that they may have made. We may fear being different, and so even though we've come up with a terrific solution, we choose a lesser one so we won't stand out. There are so many limiting factors to our "free will" that we aren't really free. I just wonder, maybe if we are willing to analyze those factors, which are individually limiting ourselves, and consciously let go of them; would we open up more freedoms for solving some of humanity's minor and major malfunctions?

Personally, I think we should have very few rules in life. Here is a nice list...

1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.

2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.

3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.

4. Every person has the right to control of their body.

5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.

6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.

7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.

8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.

9. There is no one right way to live.

10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

Understanding that we limit our own free will, and we allow others to limit it, and that even by nature our free will is limited, gives us a different perspective of how lucky we are to be who we are, and how unlucky others may be for being who they are. It also validates that our experiences change us; that our beliefs gained from those experiences, limit us; and that those limitations can lead to further limiting consequences in our lives. It isn't until we set ourselves free of all limitations, that we begin to see all the possibilities, which we can then begin to narrow down using mature reasoning skills; rather than indoctrinated beliefs or core beliefs which we created in childhood using childish logic.

If our lives are going along really well, and we admit we had wonderful parents, that we haven't suffered any negative events which we weren't prepared for or supported through, then is it because we are making better choices than others have done? It may well be due to the healthy core beliefs and values presented to us in childhood, which has nothing to do with our own free will because we didn't choose those core beliefs and values, we inherited them. Those which we had any hand in creating, we did so using childhood logic.

Perhaps there are limiting factors on others, like poverty, abuse, neglect, over-indulgence, etc... There are a million different ways to hurt a child mentally and emotionally without meaning to cause harm. But, children must grow up and when they do, they must examine their core beliefs and values and reject those which are harmful and find replacements which are healthy. It seems that Sam Harris' lecture is along these lines, that people don't choose the problems they have, nor the limitations on their free will, but if they never examine those limitations they may never solve their problems. In fact, if they don't communicate their problems with others, they may never imagine the proper solution to their problems.

An unexamined life is the life of a mental slave with many masters, some known and others unknown. Regardless of how well the life is lived, Free Will has no part in it until the person examines their core beliefs and values, and chooses how to proceed. Even then, the freedom to choose is limited by one's known choices.

 

[Lucycat]

In a very basic level I need to believe that I have free will. If I don't then somebody else is making my life choices. That includes decisions to continue or end life and the decisions to be nice or nasty to others.

I make choices and I strive to ensure they are the right ones. I may make mistakes. I am responsible for my mistakes.

 

[Nyssa]

I don't see it in a binary way, "no free will at all" versus "permanent free will at play".

I believe in the existence of free will. But I don't think every move one makes is the result of free will.

To exert free will in a given situation, there has to be a fairly high level of consciousness. Only that way can we actually make a conscious and pondered choice. Otherwise, we just react to past conditionning, emotions, automatism, unconscious schemes, etc. without making the effort to actually think.

Responsability is another matter, in my opinion. I believe I can be held responsible for my actions, as long as I am not forced by another individual or acting out of a psychotic break. If my actions are the result of free will, I am responsible for the choice I've made. And if my actions are thoughtless reactions to my emotions or old conditionnings, I am responsible for not having made the effort free will would have required.

 

[Deleted member 12723]

I believe in free will choices of abusers. They usually play the victim and blame others for the consequences of their own free will choices to abuse.

I have learned that when I do not choose the choice is made for me and I will not like the outcome. I speak from personal experience. Hope this helps to clarify.

 

[Kupo_Nut]

In reply to Muzikluvr,
I agree with everything you're saying, the only discrepancy is the religious angle.
I agree with your list wholeheartedly and understand your argument (I think to its entirety) but I am also very religious. I do not oppose scientific evidence, how could I? Science is observational laws and our way of understanding everything (I come from a family of very scientific minds who go on about things such as physics, advanced mathematics, chemistry and the such like, although I can't understand what they are talking about sometimes, even if I try) but the majority of them are also very religious. So science alongside religion has been equal in my life personally and I feel the two can go side by side and fit into each other like a puzzle.

"A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I think that belief is something very hard to explain, yet I regard open mindedness to be beyond relying on human observations, being open to the very possibility of God allows the scientific explaination to go further, not to hinder it. There are lots of debates about religion and I don't wish to repeat on what many others have said. I see no reason to try to convert any atheist to religion if their intentions are good and their minds free of hate and prejudice, I suppose the same should be vice versa. Faith is about accepting things into ones heart that cannot be proven, no matter how hard you try, not refusing to accept things you see but embracing them.

I apologise for changing subject mildly, but I need to to explain my views.

 

[joeylittle]

5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.

7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.

Contradictory. I'm familiar with the atheist 10 commandments (as you've presented them), and they are dogma just as any other religion has dogma. I think one has to tread very, very carefully when trying to make any kind of "all things for all people" statements, which is the way in which I think you are referring to these.
I treat other peoples' beliefs with respect, and strive to understand those which I do not understand - and for some people, (a) God is necessary.

3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.

9. There is no one right way to live.

It is not ok by my rules of engagement in philosophy to state there is a "most reliable way" and then state within the same treatise that there is "no one right way'. It's just faulty reasoning.

I'm trying to figure out why this thread is really provoking something in me - because it's always, always useful to learn your own triggers - and I think it might have something to do with the privileged bias of the whole debate.

Not everyone is free to debate whether or not there is free will.

Some, by virtue of the basic life or death situations they face daily; some, because of oppression...

To be blunt - I don't know that the civilians in Sudan (for example) have the same privileges as I do: but I doubt it. They can't enter this conversation right now; they need to stay alive for awhile first.

So it strikes my heart funny to even wonder whether or not there is "freedom" or "limitation" within self-determination. How about there are both, and every bit of grey in-between, let's just get about the business of being our great, flawed, human selves - and some of us will try and help those people, and others of us will not know about wars other than our own, and some of us will kill others of us in robbery and rape, but some of us will also save others of us in those very same situations.

I wonder if any of you feel like this video helps you release the hate you feel for your abuser, or for whomever may have caused your trauma, by explaining all the factors which constrict our ability to really choose ANY option imaginable in hindsight or from someone else's creative mind.

No. But not because of my own abuse. Because of the abuse others suffer. I can't accept that there is no other option for people suffering now.

This discussion fascinates me and excites me because I believe that human beings are the most incredible creatures due to their ability to, eventually, become aware of a problem, and then discuss among themselves what it means and how to classify it, and then work toward a solution.

I would counter that life moves much faster than this. When we have the privilege of time, yes, we can construct great sandcastles of thought and ideas. But how can you legitimately posit this utopian ideal when so many other humans just need to not be shot at every day?

I can't articulate it right - but the topic itself, ("free will or no"), has some built-in flaw that makes it cancel itself out. A bit like asking "do 2 and 2 make five or do 2 and 2 make 3?".

/poorly articulated but very heartfelt stance on the question of free will.

 

[Muzikluvr]

I love the way @Nyssa has distinguished between the limitations of our "Free Will" and the fact that we are still responsible for the choices that we make.

Thanks @joeylittle. I agree. There is something amiss about the "either" "or" of the argument. I hoped to engage in a discussion, perhaps I don't articulate my message quite the way I should sometimes.

I can sit in my comfortable house and debate this because my basic needs are met and I'm not in any danger. Who else would have that privilege? Who else would have that responsibility?

I think you infused a great deal of reality into the discussion. I'm not sure I understand your stance on free will, but it seems to me the thread is developing some consensus on free will being neither true freedom of will, nor ultimate lack of responsibility.

Maybe what is irritating you about the debate is that there's no point in it. Nothing will come of it that will help people experiencing war, poverty, famine, abuse, neglect, etc... Free will or no, we are still allowing people to suffer; we are still failing to protect people from man's inhumanity to man. There are more pressing matters to solve.

Actually, due to the debates I've had here, I've expanded my acquaintance base by joining a few groups. I go alone because I don't know anyone else interested in having "heady" conversations about politics and religion. I've met a few people, become facebook friends with them. My hope, though, is that I will gain confidence and maybe some connections. I am taking steps toward becoming an activist for human rights, for equality. I am starting small. I can't help it. My choices are few because my fears are great. Anyway, I'm not sure this thread amounts to much for anyone else, but for me, this is part of my path. Thanks to all for joining in. :)