Will vs free will

[achilles12604]

What is the difference?

[Goat]

TO a large extent, those will limit the choices to be made... however, I don't see how you can say that things are always predetermined. There are some events that are not predictable, and are totally random. For example.. have a perfectly shaped mound, and precisely put a perfectly shaped marble on the top of that mound.. the direction which it will roll off is not able to be predetermined.

But there are no perfectly shaped mounds nor perfectly shaped marbles. Just because the imperfections may be too small for us to measure, the are there. You forgot to mention that this experiment must be done in a vacuum to avoid air currents. Physics recognizes randomness only on the quantum scale, everything else is determined. Since our brains are composed entirely of particles on the classic scale which behave in a deterministic way and particles on the quantum scale that behave randomly within probabilistic limits, the brain must work in the same way. Just because it is way too complex, and non-linear and is affected by so many different influences to be predicted in practice, does not make it non-deterministic. Therefore, we have no free will. Our decisions, our choices are not predictable in any practical sense, but are entirely determined by physiological processes and perhaps random quantum events.

That is a philosphical point you can make.

Now. lets see a way to test it. If you can't, then it is just playing word games.

For all intents and purpsoes we do have a choice that is not predetermined.

Oh buggers. Isn't debating nothing but a bunch of word games to a large extent. I think the foundation laid is quite logical here. Will vs Free Will. If the will is influenced by other sources, then it isn't free in any practical sense now is it? If your genetics say you have an anomaly that will cause cancer, can your will influence it?

That depends. I suspect that a lot of cancer, you can not. The 'spirit might be willing' but the flesh is weak. On the other hand, you might have a genetic disposition towards it, but be able to avoid or delay it. There ARE environmental
factors that influence cancer too. If you eat healthy, stay away from poluted areas, and don't smoke/drink, you might not die of cancer. Or, you could go for fast car, heavy drinking, high cholesterol foods, and kill yourself off with a heart attack before the cancer develops. You can't get away from genetics though. I know one guy whose males in his fathers line all died of heart attacks in their late
40's, early 50's. He took special care of himself, and died of a heart attack at age 50.

[Confused]

TO a large extent, those will limit the choices to be made... however, I don't see how you can say that things are always predetermined. There are some events that are not predictable, and are totally random. For example.. have a perfectly shaped mound, and precisely put a perfectly shaped marble on the top of that mound.. the direction which it will roll off is not able to be predetermined.

But there are no perfectly shaped mounds nor perfectly shaped marbles. Just because the imperfections may be too small for us to measure, the are there. You forgot to mention that this experiment must be done in a vacuum to avoid air currents. Physics recognizes randomness only on the quantum scale, everything else is determined. Since our brains are composed entirely of particles on the classic scale which behave in a deterministic way and particles on the quantum scale that behave randomly within probabilistic limits, the brain must work in the same way. Just because it is way too complex, and non-linear and is affected by so many different influences to be predicted in practice, does not make it non-deterministic. Therefore, we have no free will. Our decisions, our choices are not predictable in any practical sense, but are entirely determined by physiological processes and perhaps random quantum events.

That is a philosphical point you can make.

Now. lets see a way to test it. If you can't, then it is just playing word games.

For all intents and purpsoes we do have a choice that is not predetermined.

Oh buggers. Isn't debating nothing but a bunch of word games to a large extent. I think the foundation laid is quite logical here. Will vs Free Will. If the will is influenced by other sources, then it isn't free in any practical sense now is it? If your genetics say you have an anomaly that will cause cancer, can your will influence it?

That depends. I suspect that a lot of cancer, you can not. The 'spirit might be willing' but the flesh is weak. On the other hand, you might have a genetic disposition towards it, but be able to avoid or delay it. There ARE environmental
factors that influence cancer too. If you eat healthy, stay away from poluted areas, and don't smoke/drink, you might not die of cancer. Or, you could go for fast car, heavy drinking, high cholesterol foods, and kill yourself off with a heart attack before the cancer develops. You can't get away from genetics though. I know one guy whose males in his fathers line all died of heart attacks in their late
40's, early 50's. He took special care of himself, and died of a heart attack at age 50.

So genetic factors as well as environmental factors influence your free will. Correct? Doesn't this just strengthen the platform of determinism? Your story of the male lineage just validates this even more.

[Cathar1950]

As I was reading Mack last few posts a feeling occurred.
I couldn't but help think Mack was right yet I felt both Goat and Confused had a point and they felt right. I couldn't help but think I was missing something here that would somehow bring these ideas together. I would read Mack over a number of times as it kept slipping away and like something out of the corner of my eye and every time I glanced that way it was gone.

Confused and Goat felt right yet Mack seemed obvious.

I have just finished “The Social Animal” by Roy F. Baumeister which had a section on free will and emotions. I found it so interesting I even took notes. Of course it was a library book and I wanted to buy the book. The book has water damage and for the life of me I don't know where it came from but it has rained, snowed and sleeted and I did take it to the cafe a few times. I even wrote the notes at the cafe. My notes are also water damaged, Go figure. But I am now forced to buy the book from the library fro $29.95. I couldn't believe my luck as I was going to buy it from a place on line for $23 something and after postage it would have been more then 29.95 total. I am now finishing up another book by the same author, “Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty”, I will let you know what I can when I am finished, if your interested of course.
Funny story is I didn't realize they were the same author and kept wondering why there were reoccurring ideas.

Enough about me and my good fortune, now back to Baumeister after breakfast.

His main theme is that “Nature built us for culture. The human psychic is thus designed by natural selection to enable us to belong to a culture.” He proposes that culture has influenced nature and rudimentary forms of culture can be found in other species. He provides evidence that culture allows our species to survive and reproduce better by belonging to a culture and that it can be measured in the “cold biological criteria of survival and reproduction”. People live and produce together better then they do alone. We live and act in a world of meaning which is shared and passed on from generation to generation and is a “set of loosely integrated assumptions, open to dispute, debate, and change”. Culture, like other living things, it evolves.
“It is the combining of symbols and ideas, rather then just having a vocabulary, that makes language a powerful tool”.
He explains how a tree's roots are programmed to grow down but when coming to an obstruction
they are programmed to go around. We humans are also programmed by nature with an added twist. We can program or reprogram ourselves with our culture which gives us a greater ability to respond with alternatives or our own programs. He explains how first we edit the choices then we sort them by subjective values. But we still go with the program. He explains how evolution is rather slow to change while culture allows us to respond much more quickly to many alternatives. He explains how many look at free will as being independent of any external cause or impetus as if it was some random event.
He points out that rational thought and freedom are related as it would be useless if you couldn't carry out what you choose to do. “Rational thought without rational action is worthless” (p.299)

At this point you are probably wondering, where is the old man is going with this?
I am trying to get there.
We are evolving (changing and responding) constantly and it looks like choices because they look like we made a choice as we remember.
The choice/response came from many various factors. It was the outcome of all those variable and we change accordingly or didn't seem to change as we project a flow of continuity. I know I am starting to sound crazy or maybe I am just noticing.
I am going to blame Mack for getting me going, this time, as it was his post that got me thinking about it. Yet Confused and Goat make a good point for our [illusion] of choice. How would we live otherwise? We seemed to be forced to make choices and even if we don't choose it is a choice even if they are limited. I can choose to go with a flip of a coin and that choice as well as the flip of the coin are all just some of the many factors that go into my choices.
There is time and creative advance. Things do build upon what has happened and any occasion or experience has never happened before, it is new and something is there that wasn't there before.
It may be determined but it is different. A field of flowers may all grow according to the environment including the soil and weather but each field of flowers is an expression that is going to be different then all the other fields of flowers including what eats them.
Cause and effect are abstractions of the relationship of change after the fact and as Mack pointed out , they fall within the laws of probability. What we have is emergent qualities that change with each determination and redetermine for the next emergent qualities.

I could use some help here as I feel I am not out on a limb but hanging from a branch so any feedback would be appreciated as I am still trying to wrap my poor brain around what I am hunching. Feel free to jump in anyone and help me along.

.

...Physics recognizes randomness only on the quantum scale, everything else is determined. Since our brains are composed entirely of particles on the classic scale which behave in a deterministic way and particles on the quantum scale that behave randomly within probabilistic limits, the brain must work in the same way. Just because it is way too complex, and non-linear and is affected by so many different influences to be predicted in practice, does not make it non-deterministic. Therefore, we have no free will. Our decisions, our choices are not predictable in any practical sense, but are entirely determined by physiological processes and perhaps random quantum events.

Here I tend to agree but suggest each event, choice, or option changes what is determined where meaning, culture and language are also part of the complex and non-linear factors or variables and each occasion creates something that wasn't there before hence creative advance is possible.
I am still working on it.

Emergent properties of what is.
The ideas of design are after the fact not before.
Such notions are looking backwards as if to see the future.
Two different simple types or three atoms form a molecule of water, two H hydrogen and one O oxygen.
It is water and we don't see any thing that makes this happen as it emerged from the properties even if they were cause elements and we know it happens because we have experienced it enough and it is repeatable if your only goal is to make water. Genes seem to do much of the same but the the outcomes are accumulative and have been shaped by existence.

[Goat]

So genetic factors as well as environmental factors influence your free will. Correct? Doesn't this just strengthen the platform of determinism? Your story of the male lineage just validates this even more.

Genetic factor and environmental factors can play an influence. However, it is not
100%. For example, both my parents smoked a lot. My sister smoked. However,I
never did. All the genetic and environmental factors were in place for me to start smoking cigarettes. I did not.

[McCulloch]

For all intents and purposes we do have a choice that is not predetermined.

True, the unpredictability of the human brain makes our choices seem free.

[Cathar1950]

For all intents and purposes we do have a choice that is not predetermined.

True, the unpredictability of the human brain makes our choices seem free.

I think that is what I was trying to say except each unfree choice changes the variables and what ever happens has not happened before and therefore it changes the outcome. What seems like a choice is more of an emergence.
Even as we experence something with our brains it has already happened.
There is always something new under the sun.

[Confused]

So genetic factors as well as environmental factors influence your free will. Correct? Doesn't this just strengthen the platform of determinism? Your story of the male lineage just validates this even more.

Genetic factor and environmental factors can play an influence. However, it is not
100%. For example, both my parents smoked a lot. My sister smoked. However,I
never did. All the genetic and environmental factors were in place for me to start smoking cigarettes. I did not.

I am not aware of a genetic link to smoking cigarettes. Environmental factors, perhaps, but tell me, why did you not start smoking? What was your influence. There is a genetic predisposition to addictive behaviors, but environmental factors influence it as well. Either way, their are factors beyond your control that influence the choices.

I know the road we are heading towards. The nature versus nurture debate. But either way, some factor is influencing your actions. I think McCulloch said it well in regards to the unpredictability of the brains choices make it appear to be free will, but in reality, the influences are already set in stone. You can alter your environment and with some of the advancements in gene therapy, you can even alter some of your genetic influences, but the new influences will just take the place of the old still making it deterministic based on your new environment.

[McCulloch]

Genetic factor and environmental factors can play an influence. However, it is not 100%. For example, both my parents smoked a lot. My sister smoked. However, I never did. All the genetic and environmental factors were in place for me to start smoking cigarettes. I did not.

Then the question is why did you not smoke? You decided not to smoke. What made you decide? Was the decision arbitrary?

[Confused]

For all intents and purposes we do have a choice that is not predetermined.

True, the unpredictability of the human brain makes our choices seem free.

I think that is what I was trying to say except each unfree choice changes the variables and what ever happens has not happened before and therefore it changes the outcome. What seems like a choice is more of an emergence.
Even as we experence something with our brains it has already happened.
There is always something new under the sun.

Evolution plays a large role in our choices as well, you are right. But I think the foundation McCulloch has laid is really the bottom line. Evolution, environment, and genetics really determine our choices. Which choice we make may be unpredictable based on the human mind element. But the choice is still one in which is predetermined based on the 3 factors listed above. I have been searching for one example that might nullify this. And every circumstance I can conceive of only strengthens McCullochs position.

Every choice really is unfree. Unless one can completely discount evolution and genetics as well as current environmental influences, I can find no choice that is really undetermined. It just seems that way because we can't predict what choice our brain will make. But the choice has already been made.

[Cathar1950]

For all intents and purposes we do have a choice that is not predetermined.

True, the unpredictability of the human brain makes our choices seem free.

I think that is what I was trying to say except each unfree choice changes the variables and what ever happens has not happened before and therefore it changes the outcome. What seems like a choice is more of an emergence.
Even as we experence something with our brains it has already happened.
There is always something new under the sun.

Evolution plays a large role in our choices as well, you are right. But I think the foundation McCulloch has laid is really the bottom line. Evolution, environment, and genetics really determine our choices. Which choice we make may be unpredictable based on the human mind element. But the choice is still one in which is predetermined based on the 3 factors listed above. I have been searching for one example that might nullify this. And every circumstance I can conceive of only strengthens McCullochs position.

Every choice really is unfree. Unless one can completely discount evolution and genetics as well as current environmental influences, I can find no choice that is really undetermined. It just seems that way because we can't predict what choice our brain will make. But the choice has already been made.

I find myself at the same conclusions Confused yet none of us would stop making plans.
Even if someone makes plans for me and I chose to follow the plan it is pretty much determined by all your above named factors, including the plan, which is now another determining factor. It seems to work too.
As Baumeister points out our language, which seems to be something nature has programed into our brains, at least its patterns, is structure to see cause and effect and to project it back onto the world even if cause and effect are each part of the whole of causality and are abstraction.
We hold people and ourselves accountable but if we fail to conform to healthy social relationship we get feedback as punishment control or even guilt. But he explains the function of guilt as something that is more effective before then after as not liking guilt is a form of anticipation and we avoid the feeling that has been experienced. We don't want to lose our social bonds.
Baumeister explains that culture with its meanings and our language allows us to go beyond our natural slavery to stimulus and response by opening alternatives do to our “capacity to use meaningful thought and reasoning to determine how to act in a way that will pay off better in the long run...to be able actually to act on the bases of those calculations...rationality and freedom are linked, because rationality is useless if you cannot do what you have decided is best. Rational thought thought without rational action is worthless...Nature designed us the human psyche to be able to act on the bases of its meaningful thoughts (including logic and reasoning, moral rules, symbolism, relation to distal goals)”.p289
What we call free will is “an inner mechanism to allow us to act on the basis of meaning”.
Even if it is determined it is subject to change and growth, it evolves. We can change the odds.
So Mack has something as long as we don't expect 100% certainty. It seems any concept of God's activity would also follow these considerations and conclusions, at least for those that want to have some theological considerations.
It seems to work very well as we look at the success of our species. Of course God can always look back and wonder what our end will be...