Free Will And Free Choice

[steve_bank]

To me free will and free choice are two different things.

You go to buy a car and you choose one or another. It is a free choice mending no direct coercion.

Free will implies a deeper state of making completely unconditioned choices. I do not think it exists.

When you choose a car you are conditioned by advertising and what others have. You imagine what the car will make you look like.

We are all conditioned starting in the womb. There is genetic conditioning and characteristics.

There is a point at which sex drives over rides choice.

 

[Bronzeage]

If I had free will and free choice, I would wake up ever morning and choose whether to I wanted to travel to work by use of my my jet pack or my rocket boots.

The problem with the will and choice is always the natural limits on either. There are many actions within my abilities I do not want to do. That is my free will. At any point in time, I have limited options, so I don't really have free choice, when the I can't have my desired choice. It might be out of reach, or it might be a fantasy.

 

[DBT]

To me free will and free choice are two different things.

You go to buy a car and you choose one or another. It is a free choice mending no direct coercion.

Free will implies a deeper state of making completely unconditioned choices. I do not think it exists.

When you choose a car you are conditioned by advertising and what others have. You imagine what the car will make you look like.

We are all conditioned starting in the womb. There is genetic conditioning and characteristics.

There is a point at which sex drives over rides choice.

What is chosen depends on a whole wagon train of antecedent causal factors, past experience forming attractions and things to avoid, a desired outcome/cost to benefit ratio forming a set of criteria that determines the decision being made. We have the ability to choose, but that is not the same as 'free will.''

 

[Politesse]

I find the entire notion of free will to be incoherent. What is supposed to be making this "choice"? The brain is a complicated system to be sure but it is inherently responsive - it does nothing "on its own" but is bound to respond to external stimuli somehow, as is the function of any brain in any vertebrate organism. There is no apparatus for creating thoughts or opinions independent of one's surroundings. Derived, adapted, inferrred, or delayed, but never entirely invented. So by what definition of "free" could this process ever be defined?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

To me free will and free choice are two different things.

You go to buy a car and you choose one or another. It is a free choice mending no direct coercion.

Free will implies a deeper state of making completely unconditioned choices. I do not think it exists.

When you choose a car you are conditioned by advertising and what others have. You imagine what the car will make you look like.

We are all conditioned starting in the womb. There is genetic conditioning and characteristics.

There is a point at which sex drives over rides choice.

If a person referring to free will is actually thinking along these lines I can understand their position. Free will is really conditional or conditioned choice, but a free will advocate sees it as unconditional or unconditioned choice. Free will advocates are saying we are able to make choices using knowledge we do not possess.

 

[DBT]

Brain architecture and function is not willed, A decision is an option selected according to a set criteria, something that any species of animal with a sufficiently complex brain can do.

 

[steve_bank]

I find the entire notion of free will to be incoherent. What is supposed to be making this "choice"? The brain is a complicated system to be sure but it is inherently responsive - it does nothing "on its own" but is bound to respond to external stimuli somehow, as is the function of any brain in any vertebrate organism. There is no apparatus for creating thoughts or opinions independent of one's surroundings. Derived, adapted, inferrred, or delayed, but never entirely invented. So by what definition of "free" could this process ever be defined?

Part of the Christian theology is the idea that god gave humans the free will to choose between what god wants and what god does not want.

If there is no free will then god's creation are just automatons programed to obey god....puppets.

As to 'who' makes the choices has a number of traditional angers in non Abrahamic traditions. Do you not know who and what 'you' are?

 

[DBT]

Is there nothing inbetween? Only 'free will' - whatever that is supposed to be - and 'automatons?'

 

[Politesse]

I find the entire notion of free will to be incoherent. What is supposed to be making this "choice"? The brain is a complicated system to be sure but it is inherently responsive - it does nothing "on its own" but is bound to respond to external stimuli somehow, as is the function of any brain in any vertebrate organism. There is no apparatus for creating thoughts or opinions independent of one's surroundings. Derived, adapted, inferrred, or delayed, but never entirely invented. So by what definition of "free" could this process ever be defined?

Part of the Christian theology is the idea that god gave humans the free will to choose between what god wants and what god does not want.

If there is no free will then god's creation are just automatons programed to obey god....puppets.

As to 'who' makes the choices has a number of traditional angers in non Abrahamic traditions. Do you not know who and what 'you' are?

I see you've never met a Calvinist! This has historically been a subject of much debate, within all three of the dominamt Abrahamic traditions in fact. The Bible and Qur'an themselves are ambiguous at best and possibly contradictory, so it comes down to what side one takes in one of the most ancient of theological disputes. If God exists, I don't believe that we have more power than god to control our destiny, no. What would that make of omnipotence?

But you know, this is a predominately atheist forum. I would generally expect the array of opinions among most of the posters here to have more scientific rather than paranormal explanations. Is this a wrong assumption?

I would consider "selfhood" to be an even thornier issue than free will, since you ask.

 

[Politesse]

Is there nothing inbetween? Only 'free will' - whatever that is supposed to be - and 'automatons?'

Well, perhaps you could explain what being half automatic would look like, and what physiological system would accommodate this state?

 

[steve_bank]

I find the entire notion of free will to be incoherent. What is supposed to be making this "choice"? The brain is a complicated system to be sure but it is inherently responsive - it does nothing "on its own" but is bound to respond to external stimuli somehow, as is the function of any brain in any vertebrate organism. There is no apparatus for creating thoughts or opinions independent of one's surroundings. Derived, adapted, inferrred, or delayed, but never entirely invented. So by what definition of "free" could this process ever be defined?

Part of the Christian theology is the idea that god gave humans the free will to choose between what god wants and what god does not want.

If there is no free will then god's creation are just automatons programed to obey god....puppets.

As to 'who' makes the choices has a number of traditional angers in non Abrahamic traditions. Do you not know who and what 'you' are?

I see you've never met a Calvinist! This has historically been a subject of much debate, within all three of the dominamt Abrahamic traditions in fact. The Bible and Qur'an themselves are ambiguous at best and possibly contradictory, so it comes down to what side one takes in one of the most ancient of theological disputes. If God exists, I don't believe that we have more power than god to control our destiny, no. What would that make of omnipotence?

But you know, this is a predominately atheist forum. I would generally expect the array of opinions among most of the posters here to have more scientific rather than paranormal explanations. Is this a wrong assumption?

I would consider "selfhood" to be an even thornier issue than free will, since you ask.

I know about Calvanism. It is generaly an exception.

Do you know who and what you are and makes choices?

You do not appear to be a Christian, what are you?

 

[DBT]

The assumption made by some appears to be: the ability to make decisions/select an option from a set of reliazable alternatives, is an instance of free will. In which case a computer has free will.

 

[steve_bank]

Turing Machine vs Neural Net?

 

[DBT]

Turing Machine vs Neural Net?

Probably any number of possibilities in between. Intelligence, adaptability, learning, etc, are not classed as 'robotic' and may apply to any number of organism that are not 'moral agents' yet are able to select options and carry out actions. Either 'robot' or 'free will' appears to be a false dichotomy.

 

[Treedbear]

...
I would consider "selfhood" to be an even thornier issue than free will, since you ask.

...
Do you know who and what you are and makes choices?
...

You've hit the nail on the proverbial head. We are free to be what we are and no more than what we are. It's seems like that should satisfy everyone across the spectrum of beliefs. The real question becomes "How do I define what I am?" (or what I is, perhaps). Because whenever we talk about the self it's always in terms of the model our brains have conceived to explain the world and our relationship to it. Just the same as every other object we encounter, but much richer and more intimate. To my way of thinking it comes down to "I am what I have", rather than what I do. That is, the things I take ownership of. I don't "think" so much as "I have thoughts". Where they come from is less important than that I have them. The conscious awareness of them is a different, and more difficult, issue. But I'm sure the experience of conscious awareness can be broken down into much simpler and more basic components, even if never explained completely. When we can properly describe what we are we will be able to also realize our full degree of freedom.

 

[DBT]

We have no choice but to be what we are. Even when we try to change. Even when we do change, as inevitably we do. We grow, learn and adapt. We respond, but not on the basis of 'free will.'

 

[steve_bank]

We have no choice but to be what we are. Even when we try to change. Even when we do change, as inevitably we do. We grow, learn and adapt. We respond, but not on the basis of 'free will.'

Nice.

 

[DBT]

Is there nothing inbetween? Only 'free will' - whatever that is supposed to be - and 'automatons?'

Well, perhaps you could explain what being half automatic would look like, and what physiological system would accommodate this state?

The ability to acquire information and respond to it is a matter of brain architecture and senses. Response comes automatically. That is what a brain is evolved to do, to process information and respond. The manner of response may be creative, different each time a similar situation or need arises....creative but determined by the information state of the brain in any given instance in time. That is intelligence, not free will.

 

[fromderinside]

I think what you called intelligence is actually evolutionary fitness. Determination is in the description.

 

[DBT]

I think what you called intelligence is actually evolutionary fitness. Determination is in the description.

Sure, you could say that. But evolutionary fitness may also come in different forms.