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?

[The Tanager]

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.

I am open-minded, though. I'm interested in the reasoning behind your view so that I can consider whether I should hold that view as well. Of course, if you are correct, then it's not reason that gets any of us to our beliefs.

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?

Including free will as a possibility leaves the question open. Your narrowing of the options to determinism or randomness begs the question against free will. The logical possibilities include determined by our will, determined by factors outside of the will, and randomness. To take one of those three choices out without logical support is begging the question.

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.

What do you mean by this being a "matter of belief"? Are you saying science is the only source for knowledge and all else is belief? Something else?

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.

Even if we don't move on our positions, personal progress can still be made. Thank you for sharing your thoughts respectfully and listening to mine. Feel free to keep this discussion going or not. You don't owe me any responses.

[The Tanager]

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...

Call it free will to distinguish it from a determined will. A determined will is a non-free will. Determinists can believe in the human having a will but would say that will is determined by other factors then themself rather than being free.

[blackstart]

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.

I am open-minded, though. I'm interested in the reasoning behind your view so that I can consider whether I should hold that view as well. Of course, if you are correct, then it's not reason that gets any of us to our beliefs.

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?

I have nothing to add on the main thrust of our conversation. My question still stands.

Including free will as a possibility leaves the question open. Your narrowing of the options to determinism or randomness begs the question against free will. The logical possibilities include determined by our will, determined by factors outside of the will, and randomness. To take one of those three choices out without logical support is begging the question.

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.

What do you mean by this being a "matter of belief"? Are you saying science is the only source for knowledge and all else is belief? Something else?

I'm saying that science deals with and tries to explain the natural world. There are many examples of the supposed supernatural which have been shown to be natural by means of the scientific method. I know of no methodology that has established the evidence for the supernatural, indeed even that the supernatural exists, I am always willing to consider any such methodologies if they are presented to me. That is why I don't reject the supernatural out of hand. It remains a possibility but, until there are clear objective(intersubjective) methods to demonstrate it, then all I'm left with is personal 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.

Even if we don't move on our positions, personal progress can still be made. Thank you for sharing your thoughts respectfully and listening to mine. Feel free to keep this discussion going or not. You don't owe me any responses.

[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...

Call it free will to distinguish it from a determined will. A determined will is a non-free will. Determinists can believe in the human having a will but would say that will is determined by other factors then themself rather than being free.

Thanks for your reply.

Are you willing then to compromise and say that everyone has both, [will and free-will] depending on particular circumstance?

[AgnosticBoy]

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?

In order for free-will to work as some describe it, it would seem that it would have to exist in a vacuum. I view free-will and determinism as being compatible in the sense that we can choose what controls/influences us. Having knowledge of the controlling factors enables us to do that.

[Miles]

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?

In order for free-will to work as some describe it, it would seem that it would have to exist in a vacuum. I view free-will and determinism as being compatible in the sense that we can choose what controls/influences us. Having knowledge of the controlling factors enables us to do that.

So what is the mental process that brings a person to choose A rather than B?


.

[The Tanager]

Thanks for your reply.

Are you willing then to compromise and say that everyone has both, [will and free-will] depending on particular circumstance?

You're welcome, William.

Are you saying these are different things? I'm saying everyone has a will. And that this will is either free (in the libertarian sense, where at least some of a person's decisions are controlled by this will) or determined (where all of the person's decisions are controlled by factors outside of the will). Thus, free-will and determined-will are sub categories of the will, or ways the will can be.

[The Tanager]

I'm saying that science deals with and tries to explain the natural world. There are many examples of the supposed supernatural which have been shown to be natural by means of the scientific method. I know of no methodology that has established the evidence for the supernatural, indeed even that the supernatural exists, I am always willing to consider any such methodologies if they are presented to me. That is why I don't reject the supernatural out of hand. It remains a possibility but, until there are clear objective(intersubjective) methods to demonstrate it, then all I'm left with is personal belief.

A scientific methodology of studying the supernatural cannot be established by the very definition of science: the study of the material world. "Does the supernatural exist?" is not a scientific question but a philosophical one.

I think the Kalam Cosmological Argument provides a very good rational case for the existence of the supernatural. It isn't 100% certain, of course, but neither is science. Science itself rests on philosophical assumptions that aren't any more objectively demonstrated than the conclusions of the Kalam.

[Miles]

I think the Kalam Cosmological Argument provides a very good rational case for the existence of the supernatural.

So what do you see as the two premises and conclusion of the Kalam that provides a very good rational case for the existence of the supernatural?

.

[AgnosticBoy]

So what is the mental process that brings a person to choose A rather than B?


.

You can condition yourself to want/choose a or b. If I was to explain this in terms of cause and effect then I'd say it would be a feedback loop. This mechanism can be used to reinforce or deter behavior.

feedback loop concept has several sources, and there are several different ways to think about it. One way is to think about the meaning of cause and effect. People often think about variable A causing outcome B to happen, and that being the end of it—a straight line from cause to effect. The logic behind feedback processes is that that picture often is too simple. Sometimes variable A causes outcome B, but outcome B then turns around and exerts an influence (directly or indirectly) on variable A, the original cause. This, in turn, causes variable A to make something else happen with respect to outcome B. In this circumstance, there is not a straight line of cause and effect, but a closed loop. Causality occurs all around the loop.

Source: http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/soci ... back-loop/

For example... I know certain overreactive brain activity causes obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).
Let A= Brain activity
B= OCD (obsessive/persistent thoughts and behaviors).
C= target behavior (no OCD).

So I can use B (working with the thoughts/behaviors and changing them) to change A (which leads to neuroplastic changes in the brain) to bring about C. All of this has been experimentally validated by Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz studies on OCD. He terms the process 'self-directed neuroplasticity'.