Do you believe in free will?

[lindagarrette]

It is so rewarding to observe many of you have given a lot of serious thought to the subject and have a pretty solid understanding of the concept of determinism. When this topic first came up, nearly everyone rebelled. It takes a lot of determination (so to speak) to overcome indoctrination that people are uniquely free from natural laws.

[bumab]

B- I assume you meant cannot in your second sentence.

 

Ha! I did- thanks for catching that. Naturally I screw up typing in the place where it would distort the meaning the most :)

 

It is logically true that without free will there is no such thing as altruism, beauty, creativity, love, selflessness, or even pleasure. Pause on that last one. All of these things would be illusions to differentially benefit our long term survival. I really do think that Rand's view is a stretch. Each of us can think of hundreds of personal examples where these feelings sure seem real, and we like them because they seem real. Liking them would have to be an illusion too. Seems like an awfully complicated illusion.

 

It does sound complicated, basically because it starts to make a deterministic worldview begin to do backflips to cover all facets of the human experience. To accomodate us in a deterministic worldview (no free will) requires many odd things- some undefined emergent property of conciousness, plus that conciousness being unaware of the stimuli that control it, and various other twists to trick us into thinking we're choosing to remain a part of this debate. Why argue about this? What value is there in it? We see a value- do we choose to act on that? Heck- do we "see" value in this at all?

 

It's interesting that the determinism of a rigorous scientific investigation into our own minds seems (to many) to require us to discount so much personal experience.

 

But it does seem most of us are in agreement- free will requires a supernatural explanation, if it does exist.

[Torminious]

Sorry' date=' Torm. It looks like you believe in God to me.[/quote']

 

I do think it likely that there are sentient life which operate differently than ourselves, seemingly devine.

 

And, I beleive that something as yet unexplained and incomprehensible led to the electrical impulses we call thought, and "control" in what we consider to be free will.

 

I also beleive the two concepts are most likely exclusive, and the Gods (if you, or even They prefer the term) probably also discuss causality, and whether their own courses are set by physics, or do they Decide to wander around, and screw up civilizations of lesser beings with their very presence (sorry, momentary rant, better now).

 

Anyway, like I mentioned before, I Prefer to look at is as free will, not because I can set out the formulae for it, but because I don't see it likely to be disproven in my lifetime, and I feel it's the more responsible, if arbitrary, hehe Choice.

 

In the end, if you beleve that you are considering the question, it certainly seems like you are ingaged in free will, and with so much else to work on out there, I figure that's close enough.

[bumab]

In the end, if you beleve that you are considering the question, it certainly seems like you are ingaged in free will, and with so much else to work on out there, I figure that's close enough.

 

I disagree- something this devisive is worthy of deep thought (which is somewhat of an ironic statement in this discussion), since it is either evidence of the supernatural or the greatest illusion in the natural world.

[Fishteacher73]

It is so rewarding to observe many of you have given a lot of serious thought to the subject and have a pretty solid understanding of the concept of determinism. When this topic first came up, nearly everyone rebelled. It takes a lot of determination (so to speak) to overcome indoctrination that people are uniquely free from natural laws.

 

 

Very true, linda. I started as opposing determinism, but found the argument for eventually too compelling...I changed my views. Thats a great thing about this site...

 

I think many people argue against it because it does not seem to be fully testable, or that they feel they have personally have exerted free-will. The defining moment for my shift in acceptence was the question that as biological beings we are chemically driven. At what point would the basic laws of cheistrty (or physics) no longer apply that would allow us to act in a manner that did not follow the pre-set laws of nature?

 

Just as the argument for abiogenisis the odds of something specific happening are quite small. but Every specific outcome has the same chances, so any one is no more "special" than another. Our system is chaotic, but it follows very set rules of interactions. Any very minor variation of in seemingly similar situations can have very differnt end results, but both follow the basic laws.

[Biochemist]

I started as opposing determinism, but found the argument for eventually too compelling...I changed my views.

Me too. In fact, I think I was pretty quickly influenced by the thread you referred me to.

I think many people argue against it because it does not seem to be fully testable...

True, although the issue for me is that we can't actually demonstrate a counterexample. If we can't, then the default is determinsm.

... or that they feel they have personally have exerted free-will.

Again, this is only a conflict if you postulate atheism. I don't think that postulate is required. It is perfectly legitimate within the scientific method to hold apparently-contradictory facts as antimonies. We do it all the time, even in mathematics (e.g., those 3-space shapes that have finite voloume and infinite surface area). It is perfectly reasonable to hold the evidence of free will as one fact (i.e., a reproducible experiment) and the evidence of determinsm as another set of facts, and leave the conflict unresolved.

 

I think the only illegitimate conclusion is that atheism is a more rational explanation than theism for the observed facts. They are at least peers in terms of support via the scientific method.

[Biochemist]

...it is either evidence of the supernatural or the greatest illusion in the natural world.

I agree. This is the crux of the issue.

[bumab]

It is perfectly reasonable to hold the evidence of free will as one fact (i.e., a reproducible experiment) and the evidence of determinsm as another set of facts, and leave the conflict unresolved.

 

I don't understand the way you justify leaving the conflict "unresolved." Are you saying they are not in conflict, because they can co-exist? If so, could you explain how? Or are you going back to option #2 in your previous posts where you appeal to a sort of exemption for intellegent life, as you properly said involves some sort of theism.

[Biochemist]

I don't understand the way you justify leaving the conflict "unresolved." Are you saying they are not in conflict, because they can co-exist? If so, could you explain how? Or are you going back to option #2 in your previous posts where you appeal to a sort of exemption for intellegent life, as you properly said involves some sort of theism.

Sorry I was inarticulate on this, Let me give it another shot.

 

If we accept as a premise that the universe is determinstic, and that there is reproducible evidence that we "apparently" have free will, there are three choices:

 

1) we accept as a postulate that there is no supernatural creator, and then infer that the evidence for free will is an illusion

 

2) we accept as a postulate that there is a supernatiural Creator, and that He elected to exempt free will from the deterministic elements of the universe. In this model, the experimental evidence in support of the existence of free will (and love, beauty, altruism, etc) is accepted at face value

 

3) we accept both determinisn and free will as experimentally verifiable facts, and we don't resolve the apparent conflict arbitrarily by selecting option 1 or 2.

 

Any of the above options is valid under the scientific method. As I said before, to suggest that atheism is less a postulate than theism is (I think) unfounded.

[bumab]

Ah... Thanks for clearing that up for me. I misunderstood your goal.

 

I agree, that given this context, atheism appears to be as much of a "postulate" as theism. However, choosing option 3 doesn't give much satisfaction either, even though it reconciles the two, simply because investigation stops there.

 

I wonder if this will ever be resolved...

[Biochemist]

I wonder if this will ever be resolved...

Well, if option #2 is correct, rumor has it that He is planning a big public demonstration one day.