Is there such a thing as free will?

[SWM]

Do we really have the ability to choose, to make decisions and be autonmous beings,
or are we victims of the universal forces that have directed every action and reaction since the inception of the universe?
 

[Simplyme]

I think in some areas we do but overall I think not nearly as much as we would like to think we have that choice. Between laws and rules and life many of those choices are what I like to call "directed" so I think it becomes far less about free will and more about routine or expectations.

[SWM]

"directed" by what is expected or what is normal, like we are expected to get married and have children, or to earn a living by choosing work in certain predefined an well established roles that kind of thing?

i am sure there are more mundane examples of this kind of "directed" choice, ithink this is leading to what i was getting at with my op. do we really have a choice in anything? does "free will" exist?

[cognitive]

Yes, I believe in "free will " ,however I think we have a limit imposed upon on how and when to use it. sometimes ,the circumstances don't allow us to use it....or ,better said , sometimes we have the ability to choose to give up our free will .

[SWM]

....
I think we have a limit imposed upon on how and when to use it. sometimes ,the circumstances don't allow us to use it....or ,better said , sometimes we have the ability to choose to give up our free will .

you are able to choose (you have free will) to give up free will (to not choose)
thats interesting, can you give an example.

[Grandevil]

"directed" by what is expected or what is normal, like we are expected to get married and have children, or to earn a living by choosing work in certain predefined an well established roles that kind of thing?

i am sure there are more mundane examples of this kind of "directed" choice, ithink this is leading to what i was getting at with my op. do we really have a choice in anything? does "free will" exist?

If there's a fire in your home you are almost 100% likely to vacate the premises. So one might ask if it's really free will if no other option seemed feasible. Someone might say "I could have stayed in the house and burned alive" but the fact remains that they wouldn't.

Free will is a tough idea to work around because there's really no way to prove it one way or the other. Our actions are the product of so many complex processes. What we've done in the past, our goals for the future (both short and long term), our particular personalities and behavioral tendencies all influence how we act but I'm not sure any single one dictates us, it would be hard to met apart how much each individual factor actually influences our decisions.

[AmericanWoman]

I definitely believe in free will.  A pp mentioned the scenario of a house being on fire and people are almost 100% likely to flee the fire.  But what about the slim percentage who stays inside?  What about the parent who runs back into a burning building to save a child (and sometimes perishes in the process)?  What about the "nutcase" who sets himself on fire?  Therein lies the free will.

[cognitive]

you are able to choose (you have free will) to give up free will (to not choose)
thats interesting, can you give an example.

lol...I remember now the story of one of my first acquaintances I met through ICQ few years ago, maybe 9-10 years .
He was a psychologist and had a 30 years marriage with a woman he really loved.
Then he felt in love with his younger assistant ,badly in love .Soon after that ,the assistant pushed him to tell his wife about their affair and eventually to leave his wife.
What he really wanted was to keep them both , as he truly loved both of them. So, finally he told his wife about his new love and let her choose if she wants to remain with him or leave him.
I guess, you can say he gave up his free will and chose not to choose. )))))))))

Now ,seriously ,I was thinking of those situations when people are forced by circumstances to give up their free will , for instant a mother who does not choose to free herself from a controlling spouse because of fear of losing her child who may be very attached to his father , or a man who is not free to choose to quit a job in a company where he is criticized and made fun everyday because of fear of not finding another job .

[SWM]

i think the arguement that comes from science goes; any action is a result of previous events, in fact there is no action all action is a reaction.

even the actions in the example in the above post are not really choices. they are reactions to the circumstances.

[cognitive]

i think the arguement that comes from science goes; any action is a result of previous events, in fact there is no action all action is a reaction.

even the actions in the example in the above post are not really choices. they are reactions to the circumstances.

so do you think that a reaction to a certain circumstance is not an express of exercising free will ? why not?
I would understand that if there will be only one choice for the person ,however even the worst circumstances may reveal several choices . Let's take  the second example, the man in fact has two choices , to quit his job or not . In order to quit his job he must show some traits like risk taking , courage , optimism ( hope that he 'll be able to find another job); by not quitting his job he proves to be quite anxious about future ( obviously he doesn't hope to find another one ) , fear ,cowardice , maybe convenience .
So in my opinion he does have free will .

[SWM]

so do you think that a reaction to a certain circumstance is not an express of exercising free will ? why not?

personally i cannot say for definite wether i believe the deterministic, mechanichal, scientific conception of action or reaction or wether i believe the more liberal view that allows for autonomy. i cannot say for definite wither of them is truer than the other, i can see both arguments.
however i lean towards the latter i would like to beleive that humans have autonomy.

the problem is neither can be proved. we can provide evidence that action causes reaction and we can even provide this evidecne for human behavior. however i am almost certain that the process of decision making, the cognitive process that incorporates emotional process and even the entirely subjective notions of belief and value, canot be proved in the same way as the objective consequences of those decisions.

the scientific argument would say that any exercise of free will is a result of previous experience and thus not free will. just as action is a result of action decision is a result of decision. there is no real choice that takes place. every decision is determined every action is deteremined by previous events.

I would understand that if there will be only one choice for the person ,however even the worst circumstances may reveal several choices .

there cannot be several choices there can be several options but not several choices.

Let's take  the second example, the man in fact has two choices , to quit his job or not .

the man has two options but only one choice, if he were to make tow choices he would need to have more than two options.

In order to quit his job he must show some traits like risk taking , courage , optimism ( hope that he 'll be able to find another job); by not quitting his job he proves to be quite anxious about future ( obviously he doesn't hope to find another one ) , fear ,cowardice , maybe convenience .
So in my opinion he does have free will .

the deterministic scientist would say not. if he stays in his job it is the reaction to previous actions. whether he experiences anxiety, fear, cowardice are the result of deterministic events any seeming choice is not really a choice but a reaction to previous actions.

[corwin137]

http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html

[SWM]

that was excellent, the dynamic between god and the mortal are excellent illustrations of human natures struggle with morality. i never finished reading it all the way through but i will do when i get a  minute.

[corwin137]

Well worth the read I think, as it illustrates really nicely most of the relevant concerns with such things.  It's also really damn funny.

Actually found out about it from the Daniel Dennett/Douglas Hofstadter "The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul".  Collection of essays about consciousness and free will.

[SWM]

Actually found out about it from the Daniel Dennett/Douglas Hofstadter "The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul".  Collection of essays about consciousness and free will.

sounds intersting, is that available online?

[corwin137]

You can get it at Amazon, but it's available in most bookstores too.  Really well worth the read, I'd argue, essential.

Speaking of- has there ever been an essential reading thread around here?

[SWM]

there is! here > good books on psychology

i thought it might be a good topic but no one replied

[Schizo]

My belief firmly rests within my understanding of B.F. Skinners teachings.  Let me reiterate something first MY BELIEFS AND MY UNDERSTANDING of what Skinner wrote about, not necessarily his beliefs or what he taught.

We do not have freewill... point blank.  Choice to me is an illusion created by a lacking comprehension of the world around us, the notion of it empowers and carries us through our existence.


I am not, at this time, going to elaborate on why, but instead ask a question...


Can you imagine for a moment that religion, being the biggest supporter of freewill, could possibly be one of the factors of human existence that causes it to function less fluidly; being such you could also imagine freewill or illusion of, a part of that system which hinders our progression?

Societal Fluidity... no longer can we say "A Peace", for that would be counter intuitive; we know now that peace (or equality) is a falsehood amid complex systems.  No complex system can ever equate and society follows suite, but we can build a tomorrow that "flows" kinda of like super fluidity. 

Kinda of like a better tomorrow. 

= )   




 

[RisingSun]

Freud said, "The third great discovery in human history is the discovery that each individual, ultimately, is not in control even of himself." This view is based on Freud's interpretation of the power and strength of the unconscious mind. Free will assumes a rational actor using his ego conscious mind to freely make decisions for himself. But if the human being is largely controlled by his unconscious mind, which he is not able to control and by definition is not even aware of, it seems unlikely that the individual has any significant control over his thoughts, feelings, emotions, or behavior. Agree?

[FinalLee]

i think the arguement that comes from science goes; any action is a result of previous events, in fact there is no action all action is a reaction.

even the actions in the example in the above post are not really choices. they are reactions to the circumstances.

I go with the both/and option (of course).  There are many things about my life over which I have no control (e.g. genetic predispositions to illness, my gender and place of birth, etc.)

But I also believe that I can choose to respond rather than react to many individual events. 

For instance, I believe that, over the course of my life, I can make choices that are moral rather than immoral.  Sometimes circumstances may dictate in an individual instance that there are no choices I'm happy with (e.g. do I kill an attacker running toward my child with a knife or do I allow the killer to kill my child?).  However, over the course of my entire life, I am not 100% circumscribed with zero choice.

[S. Earl Martin]

Due to limits on our knowledge and physical abilites there is a limit to what we can physically or mentally accomplish, but as far as what we do have the ability to do? Our life is a series of choices that effect not only our own future, but the future of those we interact with. We have free will only to the degree our abilities allow us to have it. Other things are either out of our control or are not comprehended so we do not act on them on a conscious level. If I chose to go to an Italian resturant or if I choice to stay home and fix something here? It is free will. I cannot just wave my hand and make food appear. As far as the law is concerned? I have a choice to obey the law. Or to break the law. If I am caught breaking the law? My actions may curtail my free will to a degree.

[RisingSun]

If I chose to go to an Italian resturant or if I choice to stay home and fix something here? It is free will.

From a genetic perspective, it's possible that if you go to a specific type of restaurant (one that serves dishes with tomatoes, for example) you may have a genetic predisposition to prefer the taste of that food. If such a scenario is correct, then the human being is more like a robot programmed at conception.

[S. Earl Martin]

RisingSun: I would say that tests done on twins seperated at birth would lend credence to that statement. Although the twins did have some differences. So part of our makeup is social and cultural. What is genetic and what is not is unclear.