Free Will and Determinism

[leo7alves]

Hi guys, i created a thread 3 months ago talking about my Existential Crisis. I overcame some doubts and issues I had thanks to this forum and other sites. But I'm still not full recovered, so...

Now i'm questioning free will and determinism.
I was reading a study that neuroscientists says that humans have no free will, and we are just like "computers", that we don't make our own decisions, our brain does. And this made me thinking...

Some people say Determinism is self-destructive, do you agree with that? Our brain is abundantly programmable by experiences and human choices. For those experiences that are not imposed, who does the choosing? Don't we do the choosing in this case?
What neuroscience has really proven? Can we make conscient decisions or not? Are there neuroscientists or naturalists who defend free will?
What about our thoughts, Because if 'determinism' is true, then "I" don't exist?

Sorry if my questions are confusing. But I hope you guys can help-me with this doubts

[B. W.]

Hi guys, i created a thread 3 months ago talking about my Existential Crisis. I overcame some doubts and issues I had thanks to this forum and other sites. But I'm still not full recovered, so...

Now i'm questioning free will and determinism.
I was reading a study that neuroscientists says that humans have no free will, and we are just like "computers", that we don't make our own decisions, our brain does. And this made me thinking...

Some people say Determinism is self-destructive, do you agree with that? Our brain is abundantly programmable by experiences and human choices. For those experiences that are not imposed, who does the choosing? Don't we do the choosing in this case?
What neuroscience has really proven? Can we make conscient decisions or not? Are there neuroscientists or naturalists who defend free will?
What about our thoughts, Because if 'determinism' is true, then "I" don't exist?

Sorry if my questions are confusing. But I hope you guys can help-me with this doubts

Here is a test for determinism or free will often ignored...

Why isn't the whole worlds population not participating on this thread and asking what you are asking


-
-
-

[PaulSacramento]

Free will is simply the act of choosing.
We choose all the time.
It doesn't matter if we have limited choice, lots of choices or no choice ( no such thing really since there is always a choice) because in the end we still choose.
Free will is about exercising the ability to make a choice.
Computers don't choose to do anything other than what they are programmed to do and they can't choose NOT to do what they are programmed to do.
Humans can and suicide is a perfect example.
Humans are NOT hardwired to allow themselves to die or to kill themselves, they are hardwired ( programmed if you will) to survive.

[Philip]

IF you did not have free wiil, then YOU, personally, could not be righteously held accountable by God, for your individual sin - as ALL of your actions would otherwise be determined by Him (as who else could be their cause?).

Name just ONE action option available to ANY individual man that NO human has EVER enacted! Obviously, every POSSIBLE action has been taken by some person, somewhere - whether IT BE good or bad.

[abelcainsbrother]

Hi guys, i created a thread 3 months ago talking about my Existential Crisis. I overcame some doubts and issues I had thanks to this forum and other sites. But I'm still not full recovered, so...

Now i'm questioning free will and determinism.
I was reading a study that neuroscientists says that humans have no free will, and we are just like "computers", that we don't make our own decisions, our brain does. And this made me thinking...

Some people say Determinism is self-destructive, do you agree with that? Our brain is abundantly programmable by experiences and human choices. For those experiences that are not imposed, who does the choosing? Don't we do the choosing in this case?
What neuroscience has really proven? Can we make conscient decisions or not? Are there neuroscientists or naturalists who defend free will?
What about our thoughts, Because if 'determinism' is true, then "I" don't exist?

Sorry if my questions are confusing. But I hope you guys can help-me with this doubts

You excercised your free will when you posted this,you did not have to do it,but you did.You could have decided not to post,but you chose to.The fact that you made a decision to post proves you are not like a computer that only does what it was programmed to do.You are not like a robot controlled by computers telling and making you do things that you have no choice over.So them nuero-scientists have flawed data somewhere and your decision to post or not to post is evidence they are wrong.You also can decide to hurt yourself or not to hurt yourself,it is all up to you and what you decide to do.

[patrick]

Now i'm questioning free will and determinism.
I was reading a study that neuroscientists says that humans have no free will, and we are just like "computers", that we don't make our own decisions, our brain does.

You might want to go back to those studies and consider how they reached this conclusion.

From what I've seen, the real issue is that there are times when we think we aren't responsible for our actions but actually are.

The following article discusses some of the limitations of our understanding of our actions:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/f ... h_0001.pdf

Another case of the absence of experience of will occurs in table turning,
a curious phenomenon discovered in the spiritualist movement in
Europe and America in the mid–nineteenth century (Ansfield and Wegner
1996; Carpenter 1888; Pearsall 1972). To create this effect, a group of
people sit gathered around a table, all with their hands on its surface.
If they are convinced that the table might move as the result of spirit
intervention (or if they are even just hoping for such an effect) and sit patiently
waiting for such movement, it is often found that the table does
start to move after some time (fig. 1.2). It might even move about the
room or begin rotating so quickly that the participants can barely keep
up. Carpenter (1888, 292–293) observed that “all this is done, not
merely without the least consciousness on the part of the performers that
they are exercising any force of their own, but for the most part under the
full conviction that they are not.”
In one exemplary case, the Reverend N. S. Godfrey, his wife, and a
friend one evening in June 1852 placed their hands on a small mahogany
table and found that after forty-five minutes it began to move. With two
family servants and the local schoolmaster as witnesses, the group carried
out experiments and found that the table would move in various ways,
some of which seemed particularly sinister. At one point something
“caused the table to revolve rapidly,” yet then, as Godfrey relates, “a
bible was quietly laid upon the table and it stopped! We were horror
struck!” (1853, 23). Questions were asked of the table, and responses
were given by a leg’s rising and knocking on the floor, and interchanges
ensued that convinced those assembled that there was a devil inhabiting
the table and causing it to move.
The table-turning curiosity was sufficiently celebrated and controversial
to attract the attention of the chemist and physicist Michael Faraday,
who proceeded to test the source of the table movement. He placed force
measurement devices between participants’ hands and the table, and
found that the source of the movement was their hands and not the table
(Faraday 1853). All one needs to do, actually, is to use a dusty table and
observe the direction of the streaks left by participants’ slipping hands.
The streaks run away from their hands in the direction opposite the table
movement (as one would expect if people’s fingers slipped a bit as they
pushed the table) rather than toward the movement (as one would expect
if the table were pulling them along and their fingers were slipping as they
fell behind). Apparently, in attributing the table movement to the spirit,
the participants did not have sufficient experience of will to recognize the
source of their own voluntary actions. Indeed, the Reverend Godfrey disputed
Faraday’s findings vehemently: “[We] imparted the motion, he tells
us, which we did not.”

Note that this is very different from saying that we don't have free will in the first place. It's simply saying that some of the actions we think aren't due to our own behavior actually are.

[1over137]

Talking about computers and programs...
How about artificial neural networks? They are not programmed, they are trained (programmed to be trained then).
It 'chooses' output with certain probability.
We are far from creating such a huge network as in our brain. But anyway, some you would not distinguish from a few year old kid.

[leo7alves]

Thank you all for the answers.
Yesterday I've spent all day just searching and reading stuff about free will and determinism

Here is studies and opinions I have read that made me have this doubts:

http://breakingthefreewillillusion.com/ ... free-will/
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com.br/2 ... art-3.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ps ... lusion-you
http://www.relationshipscoach.co.uk/blo ... ns-for-us/
http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/04/m ... n-decides/

what you think, I can say "Ok, I have free will", but later I get all this intrusive thoughts: "What if you is wrong", "What if you is just a puppet of your brain", "What if your brain decided you to do this, not you". I know it sounds crazy and I may be confusing some things about what determinism really means.
but i'm new to all this information, and we know too much information in short time may just cause confusion, right?

I would like to say two more things:
I have OCD, so It's hard stop thinking about this and it make me anxious, I wish I never read about this damn theory

In profile options we have this option "Do you consider yourself a Christian? Yes or No" . although I've choose"Yes", I'm still wanting to learn more about Christiniaty, because after comparing with other religions it seems the most reliable, as I know many people who changed their lives with the Bible. But having Ocd and Scrupulosity (religious ocd), makes some things harder.

Yesterday I decided to buy Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis, to learn some more, I see it's a very recommended book.

Although I still want to have a conclusion about this Free Will vs Determinism debate.

Again, thank you all.

[Philip]

Leo7: I'm still wanting to learn more about Christianity, because after comparing with other religions it seems the most reliable, as I know many people who changed their lives with the Bible. But having Ocd and Scrupulosity (religious ocd), makes some things harder.

Leo, I am so happy you are searching hard for the truth. Keep in mind, as you compare and contrast religions, that the key/CORE teachings of world religions ALL have many diverse, often contradictory teachings. But Christianity is the ONLY faith that asserts God came to earth and took on the flesh of a man (in the physical form of Jesus Christ), that He taught amazing things - including that He would be killed and raised back to life ((Matthew 16:21; Matthew 12:39-40; (John 2:18-22) - did miracles, suffered greatly, was crucified on a Roman cross for the world's sins, AND He came back to life, appeared to many, said He would one day come back for His followers. Christianity is the ONLY faith, in contrast with vast numbers of false religions, that claims that Jesus was/IS God!

So, while you research and learn, remember, in your quest for the truth of the matter, that concerning Jesus, there can't be MULTIPLE truths - He either is God (as Scripture clearly and redundantly teaches/reveals) or He is not. So, all of the other religions that might have some good moral teachings mixed in with who or what they consider god and how to know him/achieve their version of heaven, they are ALL can't be right, but they all could be (and ARE) wrong. Not to mention that various religions have many core contradictory teachings when compared with each other. Things cannot ALL simultaneously be true. A thing cannot be both true and not true. Christianity is also the only faith that teaches one cannot EARN/do enough good deeds, etc. to obtain salvation/Heaven. Jesus must be accepted through faith that He is Who Scripture teaches Him to be (God!), and that He has the power to save you - that He died and was resurrected for YOU (and for EVERYONE). Christianity is the ONLY faith that has centuries of writings by many authors that have immense historical, archaeological and prophetic confirmation that they are true. ALL of the other faiths besides Christianity teach some type of works-based/enough good deeds/religious practice/devotion to obtain their version of heaven.

We are all here to help with your questions!

[1over137]

Genesis 2:16-17 ESV
"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”"

Yet, we know what Adam and Eve freely chose.

[patrick]

@leo7alves: In general, I think there are many things that we do that are largely on auto-pilot. Have you ever driven a car along a route so many times that you zone out and realize you weren't paying attention for nearly the entire time? In a psychology class I took a while back, this question was raised, and many people could relate to this (though notably a handful never experienced this). So the question becomes, why does this happen?

I think any time we want to 'do' something, even if we know perfectly well what we're doing and how to go about doing it, there's always the actual 'doing' part that has to be done. From what I've seen and studies I've looked at, this becomes increasingly more automatic the more times we do it. Eventually it requires literally no conscious attention at all, even for something that appears to take all our attention (like driving). It's only when we need to make a change in the habit (e.g. stopping for groceries) that we're reliably conscious of what we're doing, and even this can become automatic if done regularly enough times (say, every Thursday).

One could imagine that there are some people out there that run their entire lives on auto-pilot, to the point that even when they are prompted to make changes in their behavior they still aren't really aware of it. But then, what is their conscious experience like? What would happen if, all of the sudden, one day they actually become aware of what they are doing? This does happen to a lesser degree, btw. Some personal development speakers have gotten quite popular speaking a lot about being 'asleep' with the way we live our lives and needing to 'wake up'. What this waking up usually entails is a decrease in habitual behavior as one reflects more on their previously automatic behavior.

What this means for free will, I think, is there's a lot which our brains are already primed to do, so conscious will plays very little actual role in what we're doing. On the other hand, there are moments where everything seems on the line and we're the most conscious that we've ever been as we struggle to decide what to do. Even though our brains may feed us many thoughts about what to do in such a high-intensity situation, ultimately these ideas may well be contradictory. So what decides which part of the brain, which 'thought' ought to govern the action we take?

This is the core nature of the role that consciousness plays. While the individual thoughts that come into conscious awareness are habitual (and thus arguably could be called pre-determined), one still has power to make sense of and override these habits. Now the problem I have with most of the articles that you've presented is they seem to start from a philosophy wherein they try to do away with consciousness and explain everything in terms of the brain. One can certainly do this to a degree, but higher-level properties of human behavior become increasingly more problematic when taking this approach.

This is why psychology has largely moved away from pure behavioral models to cognitive-behavioral models. The rest of science (including most neuroscience) hasn't done so simply because there's been no need to do so. Interestingly, however, this has started to change in the study of physics, as quantum phenomena show behavior that's incredibly problematic for reductive physical approaches in a way eerily similar to the way consciousness is problematic for strict behavioral approaches.

[Audacity]

Here is a test for determinism or free will often ignored...

Why isn't the whole worlds population not participating on this thread and asking what you are asking


-
-
-

I don't understand the test. Just how does your question test for anything, particularly for determinism or free will?

[Jac3510]

Talking about computers and programs...
How about artificial neural networks? They are not programmed, they are trained (programmed to be trained then).
It 'chooses' output with certain probability.
We are far from creating such a huge network as in our brain. But anyway, some you would not distinguish from a few year old kid.

Having an indeterminate effect is a necessary condition of a free will. It is not, however, a sufficient condition. There are at least two other conditions that must be met:

First, the "choice" must be made in what is technically called a judgment. Some effects happen without judgment, as when a stone falls or a plant photosynthesizes. Other things happen with judgment, as when I choose to write this or a sheep runs away from a wolf. That last example shows us the other condition:

Second, the "choice" must be the result of rational deliberation. All rational deliberations are judgments, but not all judgments are rational deliberations. The sheep certainly runs away from a wolf, and there is a loose sense in which this can be called rational. But it is rational only in an analogical sense. That is, we can call it rational because it is similar to something we, as rational beings, do. In point of fact, sheep run out of instinct. Now, neurology tells us that humans have similar instincts. That's what the limbic system is for. But due to the function of the neocortex, we have a rational aspect that such animals do not have. That is, we are not controlled by instincts or training.

To, then, the question of AI, it certainly seems to be the case that AI systems can be indeterminate and so fulfill one of these three conditions for free will. It is not clear, however, that the computer is making any kind of a judgment. It seems much more akin to a rock falling--granting that the rock is simply going through an extremely complex falling algorithm. And further, it does not seem that any such "judgment" (which, again, would be a judgment only by analogy and not really) would be rational. For that which is rational is necessarily related to knowledge, and computer's don't know things (they have no ability to abstract, if you want the technical language).

A popular illustration of some of these issues is Satyr's very well known (both praised and critiqued) Chinese Room thought experiment.