Questions for those who believe in free will

[Rational Atheist]

I'm trying to understand the belief in free will. For those who believe in free will, do you believe that your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes or not? If you do, you're a determinist and do not believe in free choice, since you can't control the causes that took place before you were born. If you don't believe your actions are determined by a chain of prior causes, or don't believe that that causal chain extends to before your birth, then you believe that at some point before your action, an event occurred for no reason whatsoever (purely random). How could this possibly get you free will either? No combination of determinism nor indeterminism (randomness) gives you "free will" in the sense of authorship of and responsibility for your actions. How can you believe anyone is ultimately responsible for what they do?

[blackstart]

I don't call myself a compatibilist. What I said was that 'My own take on the subject of free will and determinism is very much akin to that of the compatibilist.' In other words I see it as being quite similar in that, given no outside restraining influences, I feel and act as if I am completely free to do what I want.

Sorry for my misunderstanding.

However, I would add that what I want is the result of reasons and, given eaxctly the same circumstances, I could do no other. That's where the deterministic part comes in.

Why do you think what you want is the result of reasons as opposed to, say, what you want can be explained using reasons, i.e., they are the describing the same thing?

And why does "given exactly the same circumstances, I could do no other" favor determinism over free will. I believe that I would freely make the same choice in the same situation every time.

Similarly, I suggest that everything I do and think is determined by cause and effect (leaving aside quantum mechanics, which may be responsible for a random element)) so that I cannot make total free will decisions. However, this does not stop me functioning in the natural world under what I consider to be the illusion of free will, because this is the way that nature intended me to act. In essence, the fact that I live my life as if free will existed is not evidence that it actually does.

Free will is hardly ever about being totally free in our decisions. We can be constrained by various factors and still not be determined to one choice in the midst of that.

Determinism implies that choices are made as a result of past events. In other words causes come before events or reasons come before outcomes. The fact that I might/might not be able to explain the reasons for a choice that I have made does not alter the fact that at the point I made the choice it was either because of reasons(whether conscious or not) or it had an element of randomness. If I could return to the exact circumstances of the event then I would have exactly the same reasons and I would make the same choice.

Free will, on the other hand, involves the ability to make choices that are not constrained to past events. How that would work I don't know. To me it seems a logical contradiction.

[The Tanager]

Determinism implies that choices are made as a result of past events. In other words causes come before events or reasons come before outcomes. The fact that I might/might not be able to explain the reasons for a choice that I have made does not alter the fact that at the point I made the choice it was either because of reasons(whether conscious or not) or it had an element of randomness. If I could return to the exact circumstances of the event then I would have exactly the same reasons and I would make the same choice.

Free will, on the other hand, involves the ability to make choices that are not constrained to past events. How that would work I don't know. To me it seems a logical contradiction.

Here is a first attempt at mapping out what happens in our decisions:

1. Various influencing factors (our nature and environment, possibly more)
2. Consideration of various influencing factors
3. Choice to do X
4. The event of doing X

First, do you agree with this or have steps that should be added/taken out/completely revamped? Second, what does "past events" cover in the categorization?

[blackstart]

Here is a first attempt at mapping out what happens in our decisions:

1. Various influencing factors (our nature and environment, possibly more)
2. Consideration of various influencing factors
3. Choice to do X
4. The event of doing X

First, do you agree with this or have steps that should be added/taken out/completely revamped? Second, what does "past events" cover in the categorization?

Fair enough, and on the face of it, it seems quite reasonable. I would emphasise of course that choosing is simply the act of selecting between two or more possibilities and says nothing about how we choose.


My own explanation would be this. At the moment of choosing, whatever we give priority to will be our choice, and that priority I happily accept will be resolved by such influences as nature, nurture, environment, experience. Every event that has happened up to the point of choosing may well influence that priority, but all those events are themselves the results of such influences as nature, nurture, environment, experience. So, when I talk about the past, I am talking about each and every event which affects the aforementioned priority up to the exact moment of choosing. If then we were to conduct a thought experiment where we could go back to the point of choosing, because every influence would remain exactly the same, we could do no other than make the same choice.

Looking at it from a more basic materialist viewpoint, if we consider the self to be the mind, and the mind to be a product of the brain, and if we were able to look in minute detail at the workings of the brain, then an event in the brain would inexorably be the cause of another and so on.

On the other hand, even if we were to suggest that some sort of 'soul' exists which allows us to choose according to the idea of free will, the same problems are revealed. This 'soul' would have to act on the basis of reasons or it would be subject to randomness, neither of which entails the idea of free will.

[The Tanager]

My own explanation would be this. At the moment of choosing, whatever we give priority to will be our choice, and that priority I happily accept will be resolved by such influences as nature, nurture, environment, experience. Every event that has happened up to the point of choosing may well influence that priority, but all those events are themselves the results of such influences as nature, nurture, environment, experience. So, when I talk about the past, I am talking about each and every event which affects the aforementioned priority up to the exact moment of choosing. If then we were to conduct a thought experiment where we could go back to the point of choosing, because every influence would remain exactly the same, we could do no other than make the same choice.

Okay, but why think the bolded above?

Looking at it from a more basic materialist viewpoint, if we consider the self to be the mind, and the mind to be a product of the brain, and if we were able to look in minute detail at the workings of the brain, then an event in the brain would inexorably be the cause of another and so on.

I agree. But why think materialism is true?

On the other hand, even if we were to suggest that some sort of 'soul' exists which allows us to choose according to the idea of free will, the same problems are revealed. This 'soul' would have to act on the basis of reasons or it would be subject to randomness, neither of which entails the idea of free will.

This is where I return to why "acting on the basis of reasons" means something like "these reasons made me do X" versus being an equivalent phrase to "I considered different reasons, liked reasons A and B, and in liking them did X.

[blackstart]

My own explanation would be this. At the moment of choosing, whatever we give priority to will be our choice, and that priority I happily accept will be resolved by such influences as nature, nurture, environment, experience. Every event that has happened up to the point of choosing may well influence that priority, but all those events are themselves the results of such influences as nature, nurture, environment, experience. So, when I talk about the past, I am talking about each and every event which affects the aforementioned priority up to the exact moment of choosing. If then we were to conduct a thought experiment where we could go back to the point of choosing, because every influence would remain exactly the same, we could do no other than make the same choice.

Okay, but why think the bolded above?

It was you who suggested several of those influences. I simply added to them. I quite accept that it may be possible to add others. My point is that, on the basis of these influences, we form our priorities and on the basis of our priorities we make our choices.

Looking at it from a more basic materialist viewpoint, if we consider the self to be the mind, and the mind to be a product of the brain, and if we were able to look in minute detail at the workings of the brain, then an event in the brain would inexorably be the cause of another and so on.

I agree. But why think materialism is true?

As far as we can tell we live in a materialistic(or natural) world. At least all the evidence points to that fact. That is not to say that something non materialistic doesn't exist, but, without evidence, it remains conjecture. I was simply pointing out that on the most basic physical level our brains seem to work on a basis of material reactions(including interractions of course). However as I've tried to make clear, the argument for determinism doesn't simply rely upon the material world, because it is a logical argument par excellence.

On the other hand, even if we were to suggest that some sort of 'soul' exists which allows us to choose according to the idea of free will, the same problems are revealed. This 'soul' would have to act on the basis of reasons or it would be subject to randomness, neither of which entails the idea of free will.

This is where I return to why "acting on the basis of reasons" means something like "these reasons made me do X" versus being an equivalent phrase to "I considered different reasons, liked reasons A and B, and in liking them did X.

The only question I would ask would be, after considering all the reasons, would it be possible to make any other choice, and if the answer is yes, then on what basis?

[The Tanager]

It was you who suggested several of those influences. I simply added to them. I quite accept that it may be possible to add others. My point is that, on the basis of these influences, we form our priorities and on the basis of our priorities we make our choices.

That's the point I'm contesting. You seem to be saying that the influences in step 1 "resolve" or determine our choice in step 3. I'm asking why you think that is true.

Here are the logically ordered "steps" again

1. Various influencing factors (our nature and environment, possibly more)
2. Consideration of various influencing factors
3. Choice to do X
4. The event of doing X

As far as we can tell we live in a materialistic(or natural) world. At least all the evidence points to that fact. That is not to say that something non materialistic doesn't exist, but, without evidence, it remains conjecture. I was simply pointing out that on the most basic physical level our brains seem to work on a basis of material reactions(including interractions of course).

Agnosticism would be the default position. Evidence would be needed for either materialism or the alternatives. I think there is very good evidence for the alternative. I'm not saying we have to hash all that out here, just questioning your treatment of materialism as the default position.

However as I've tried to make clear, the argument for determinism doesn't simply rely upon the material world, because it is a logical argument par excellence.

The only question I would ask would be, after considering all the reasons, would it be possible to make any other choice, and if the answer is yes, then on what basis?

I see step 3 as the conclusion to the considerations in step 2. At step 2, various choices are available to the individual. At step 3, that individual has already made their choice. So, after one has already considered the reasons, the choice has already been made. Determinism claims step 2 is determined by step 1. It would involve at step 2, various choices are not available to the individual. I think your "logical argument par excellence" begs this point against free will and is, therefore, not a logical argument.

[blackstart]

It was you who suggested several of those influences. I simply added to them. I quite accept that it may be possible to add others. My point is that, on the basis of these influences, we form our priorities and on the basis of our priorities we make our choices.

That's the point I'm contesting. You seem to be saying that the influences in step 1 "resolve" or determine our choice in step 3. I'm asking why you think that is true.

Here are the logically ordered "steps" again

1. Various influencing factors (our nature and environment, possibly more)
2. Consideration of various influencing factors
3. Choice to do X
4. The event of doing X

My take on it would be as follows:

Making a decision involves looking at the various alternatives in order to make a choice.

1 We are subject to various influences. as we consider the alternatives(consciously or subconsciously)
2 The range of influences, once they have been resolved (consciously or subconsciously), are the reasons for our choice.
3.We make the choice
4.We act upon it

The reason I think that this is so is that there are only two logical paths for making a choice a) because of a)reasons or b) randomly. Therefore I see the range of influences, once they have been resolved , as the reasons for our choice. If you don't agree then it seems to me that you will have to give some other alternative or additional reason for any choice that we make.

As far as we can tell we live in a materialistic(or natural) world. At least all the evidence points to that fact. That is not to say that something non materialistic doesn't exist, but, without evidence, it remains conjecture. I was simply pointing out that on the most basic physical level our brains seem to work on a basis of material reactions(including interractions of course).

Agnosticism would be the default position. Evidence would be needed for either materialism or the alternatives. I think there is very good evidence for the alternative. I'm not saying we have to hash all that out here, just questioning your treatment of materialism as the default position.

I actually prefer the words 'natural world' rather than 'materialism' because I find that the word 'materialism' tends to become a rather limiting concept. I would say that science is predicated on it, and science has achieved enormous successes. I also function as a human being as if I live in a natural world. Hence I would say that the natural world exists in some form which I can relate to. So, no, I have every reason to think that the natural world exists. That does not say, however, that there cannot be other, often called more 'spiritual' worlds, although I am not aware that there is any intersubjective evidence that this is so. Hence I remain agnostic to a large extent on any supernatural elements. However I digress. I repeat, the reason I brought it up was to illustrate that determinism can also be described as working within the physical aspects of the brain.

However as I've tried to make clear, the argument for determinism doesn't simply rely upon the material world, because it is a logical argument par excellence.

The only question I would ask would be, after considering all the reasons, would it be possible to make any other choice, and if the answer is yes, then on what basis?

I see step 3 as the conclusion to the considerations in step 2. At step 2, various choices are available to the individual. At step 3, that individual has already made their choice. So, after one has already considered the reasons, the choice has already been made. Determinism claims step 2 is determined by step 1. It would involve at step 2, various choices are not available to the individual. I think your "logical argument par excellence" begs this point against free will and is, therefore, not a logical argument.

See above.

[The Tanager]

My take on it would be as follows:

Making a decision involves looking at the various alternatives in order to make a choice.

1 We are subject to various influences. as we consider the alternatives(consciously or subconsciously)
2 The range of influences, once they have been resolved (consciously or subconsciously), are the reasons for our choice.
3.We make the choice
4.We act upon it

Your (2) and (3) seem to be the same thing to me. Us making a choice is the same thing as these reasons are the reasons for our choice. To me, there are influencing factors, our consideration of those factors, our choice after that consideration, and our attempt to act on that choice. Determinism says the factors decide our considerations and choices. Free will says the factors don't decide our consideration or our choice.

The reason I think that this is so is that there are only two logical paths for making a choice a) because of a)reasons or b) randomly. Therefore I see the range of influences, once they have been resolved , as the reasons for our choice. If you don't agree then it seems to me that you will have to give some other alternative or additional reason for any choice that we make.

I agree. The difference between determinism and free will, here, is how the influences that become the reasons for our choice are resolved. Determinism says the influences resolve what our "choice" will be. Free will says our free, conscious considerations amidst the influences resolve what our choice is.

I actually prefer the words 'natural world' rather than 'materialism' because I find that the word 'materialism' tends to become a rather limiting concept. I would say that science is predicated on it, and science has achieved enormous successes. I also function as a human being as if I live in a natural world. Hence I would say that the natural world exists in some form which I can relate to. So, no, I have every reason to think that the natural world exists. That does not say, however, that there cannot be other, often called more 'spiritual' worlds, although I am not aware that there is any intersubjective evidence that this is so. Hence I remain agnostic to a large extent on any supernatural elements.

I'm not saying the natural world doesn't exist. I'm not addressing that question. I'm saying that the viewpoint that "the natural world is all there is" is not the default. It is as much a philosophical claim as supernaturalism. Science is the study of the natural world. Science is not predicated on the natural world being all there is. Whether the natural world is all there is cannot be a scientific question.

[blackstart]

My take on it would be as follows:

Making a decision involves looking at the various alternatives in order to make a choice.

1 We are subject to various influences. as we consider the alternatives(consciously or subconsciously)
2 The range of influences, once they have been resolved (consciously or subconsciously), are the reasons for our choice.
3.We make the choice
4.We act upon it

Your (2) and (3) seem to be the same thing to me. Us making a choice is the same thing as these reasons are the reasons for our choice. To me, there are influencing factors, our consideration of those factors, our choice after that consideration, and our attempt to act on that choice. Determinism says the factors decide our considerations and choices. Free will says the factors don't decide our consideration or our choice.

The reason I think that this is so is that there are only two logical paths for making a choice a) because of a)reasons or b) randomly. Therefore I see the range of influences, once they have been resolved , as the reasons for our choice. If you don't agree then it seems to me that you will have to give some other alternative or additional reason for any choice that we make.

I agree. The difference between determinism and free will, here, is how the influences that become the reasons for our choice are resolved. Determinism says the influences resolve what our "choice" will be. Free will says our free, conscious considerations amidst the influences resolve what our choice is.

I actually prefer the words 'natural world' rather than 'materialism' because I find that the word 'materialism' tends to become a rather limiting concept. I would say that science is predicated on it, and science has achieved enormous successes. I also function as a human being as if I live in a natural world. Hence I would say that the natural world exists in some form which I can relate to. So, no, I have every reason to think that the natural world exists. That does not say, however, that there cannot be other, often called more 'spiritual' worlds, although I am not aware that there is any intersubjective evidence that this is so. Hence I remain agnostic to a large extent on any supernatural elements.

I'm not saying the natural world doesn't exist. I'm not addressing that question. I'm saying that the viewpoint that "the natural world is all there is" is not the default. It is as much a philosophical claim as supernaturalism. Science is the study of the natural world. Science is not predicated on the natural world being all there is. Whether the natural world is all there is cannot be a scientific question.

I quite accept that you won't necessarily agree, but I see the way we make any decisions is the result of the way the brain operates. whether it be a decision to attempt to save someone from drowning by jumping into a river after them, or wearing a pair of sunglasses in order to reduce the glare of the sun. I would also say that the state of the brain, at any given moment, as far as making decisions is concerned, is dependent on such influences as we have already mentioned. The process of making a decision then becomes a process of distillation emanating from these influences, and is therefore a result of these influences. For me, the illusory 'we' cannot choose which preferences to have, just as 'we' cannot choose what we desire at any given moment. it is an amalgam of all those influences that we have previously suggested, so that an overall priority is hopefully established by the brain, and 'we' act upon it. If no priority is established, then we have indecision. If we put this in a sequential setting, then the present moment is dependent on moments past. This is fundamentally a deterministic system relying on cause and effect. The idea that 'free will says the factors don't decide our consideration or our choice' begs the question of what other factors then decide our choice or if no factors actually decide our choice, then how is that different from random choice?


Something we do seem to agree on is that 'the claim that the natural world is all there is' is not a statement that I would endorse also. it is not logical to reject possibilities and supernatural claims are possibilities. I agree that it does not seem to be open to scientific methodology, hence science has little to say on such claims, and they remain simply a matter of belief.

It seems fitting for me to end on a point of agreement. I look forward to any reply you might make and will carefully consider your arguments. However I really don't think we are going to get any further in this discussion so I thank you for your time, your thoughtful comments and questions. I'm quite sure it will remain as a point of scientific and philosophical discussion long into the future as it has in the past.

[William]

Just out of interest...why call it 'free will'? Is there a non-free will?

I know there is an 'against one's will' but therein, it has been shown it is unnecessary to add the word 'free' as if 'against one's free will' was somehow different as a position...