If Free Will Isn't Real, We Will Have To Invent It.

[chefranden]

Destined to lie, cheat or steal? New research finds that believing in free will can keep us honest

 

 

In an age where cheating scandals plague all levels of governments and major corporations are brought down by unethical actions, the debate about the origins and nature of how and why decisions are made play into a larger debate about genetic determinism and free will.

 

It is well established that changing people's sense of responsibility can change their behavior. But what would happen if people came to believe that their behavior was the inevitable product of a causal chain beyond their control -- a predetermined fate beyond the reach of free will?

 

In two recent experiments, psychologists Kathleen Vohs of the University of Minnesota and Jonathan Schooler of the University of British Columbia explored the link between fatalistic beliefs and unethical behavior. The results of these experiments are reported in the January issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

 

Vohs and Schooler set out to see if otherwise honest people would cheat and lie if their beliefs in free will were manipulated.

 

The psychologists gave college students a mathematics exam. The math problems appeared on a computer screen, and the subjects were told that a computer glitch would cause the answers to appear on the screen as well. To prevent the answers from showing up, the students had to hit the space bar as soon as the problems appeared.

 

In fact, the scientists were observing to see if the participants surreptitiously used the answers instead of solving the problems honestly on their own. Prior to the math test, Vohs and Schooler used a well-established method to prime the subjects' beliefs regarding free will: some of the students were taught that science disproves the notion of free will and that the illusion of free will was a mere artifact of the brain's biochemistry whereas others got no such indoctrination.

 

The results were clear: those who were induced to have weaker convictions about their power to control their own destiny were more apt to cheat when given the opportunity as compared to those whose beliefs about controlling their own lives were left untouched.

 

Vohs and Schooler then went a step further to see if they could get people to cheat with unmistakable intention and effort. In a second study, the experimenters set up a different deception: they had the subjects take a very difficult cognitive test. Then, the subjects solved a series of problems without supervision and scored themselves. They also "rewarded" themselves $1 for each correct answer; in order to collect, they had to walk across the room and help themselves to money in a manila envelope.

 

The psychologists had previously primed the participants to have their beliefs in free will bolstered or reduced by having them read statements supporting a deterministic stance of human behavior. And the results were just as robust. This study shows that those with a stronger belief in their own free will were less apt to steal money than were those with a weakened belief.

 

Although the results of this study point to a significant value in believing that free will exists, it clearly raises some significant societal questions about personal beliefs and personal behavior.

 

Link to story

[mahjong]

I, myself, have been grappling with my overly sensitive conscience and have been rethinking my own values, ethics and morals.

 

I doubt this article proves or disproves anything, though...

[Jedah]

We needed an experiment to tell us that people who don't believe they are responsible for their own actions are less likely to act responsibly ?

[The-Captain]

I think that by the very fact that we can be aware of a predisposition and still have have the ability to make a choice evinces a degree of free will. By our thoughts and self will we make that reality.

[Ouroboros]

Here's a dilemma: How can we decide to make up that we have free will, if we don't have it to begin with? One could say the myth of free will evolved in the human species, along with language, thought, awareness of surroundings etc, so we really don't chose to believe the myth of free will, but rather, we're predisposed to believe it.

[The-Captain]

You know philosophy better than I do, so for my sake lets start out with a common definition of freewill before we get into this. My definition would be along the lines of the ability to make choices independent of external circumstance (biology, self interest etc.). Not sure if this is a good working definition, it's just what came off the top of my head. What would you say?

 

I don't think we've had this topic for awhile, so it would be worth it to me to discuss a little bit if others are willing.

[Ouroboros]

You know philosophy better than I do, so for my sake lets start out with a common definition of freewill before we get into this. My definition would be along the lines of the ability to make choices independent of external circumstance (biology, self interest etc.). Not sure if this is a good working definition, it's just what came off the top of my head. What would you say?

I think it's as good as any. However, how can anything be independent of external circumstance? If we make a choice that is not based on reason or any background, isn't that pretty much the same as random chance? If I'm preset to like vanilla ice cream, and one day I choose chocolate, did I do it because I "felt" like it (hence dependent on circumstance), or just because I wanted to be different (wanting is a form of dependence which could be based on other emotions, deeper or subconscious reasons), or do I pick chocolate by pure chance without thinking about it (and hence is nothing but a random number generator)? Is the choice of a Free Will agent totally unpredictable for all parties, including the agent?

[Snafutopia]

Here's a dilemma: How can we decide to make up that we have free will, if we don't have it to begin with? One could say the myth of free will evolved in the human species, along with language, thought, awareness of surroundings etc, so we really don't chose to believe the myth of free will, but rather, we're predisposed to believe it.

 

Hi. Why do you call free will a myth?

 

And, is there a way to scientifically test this?

[Snafutopia]

I, myself, have been grappling with my overly sensitive conscience and have been rethinking my own values, ethics and morals.

 

Very interesting topic. And would you care to explain a bit more about what you mean re rethinking your own values etc.? This is something I wonder about, especially in light of recent conversations with some Christians who believe values/ethics/morals are the exclusive domain of ... big surprise ... themselves

[Snafutopia]

"It is well established that changing people's sense of responsibility can change their behavior."

 

 

Can somebody please explain what this means? Thanks!

[BuddyFerris]

Here's a dilemma: How can we decide to make up that we have free will, if we don't have it to begin with? One could say the myth of free will evolved in the human species, along with language, thought, awareness of surroundings etc, so we really don't chose to believe the myth of free will, but rather, we're predisposed to believe it.

Hi. Why do you call free will a myth? And, is there a way to scientifically test this?

Well asked, your Popeness. The short version we're offered by science, at least as I understand it, says our mind (brain) is a computer that has been programmed by genetics and experience and that our next thought is programmatically predictable. Elements of the preceding might be testable. Feel free to try the real test, though. Try living as though you had no free will, that each event were predetermined, that the actions of others were not choices on their part but were rather machine responses on a finite rule set to which they were inexorably bound. ... let me know how you make out on that one. It was a complete bust for me.

Buddy

 

P.S. To be polite, we should wait for Hans to have a chance to respond. He's quite the rationalist and speaks frankly.

[Ouroboros]

Here's a dilemma: How can we decide to make up that we have free will, if we don't have it to begin with? One could say the myth of free will evolved in the human species, along with language, thought, awareness of surroundings etc, so we really don't chose to believe the myth of free will, but rather, we're predisposed to believe it.

 

Hi. Why do you call free will a myth?

 

And, is there a way to scientifically test this?

I would say: that I don't know. I don't know if Free Will exists for sure or not, and it's impossible for us, as of now, to prove either way. We can assume based on our predispositions what we find most likely, but we can't really say with 100% certainty if we do or don't. If the answer was easy, we'd have the answer right now, but we don't, simply because it's not easy for us to answer it.

 

Happy New Year, btw... I'm starting to feel that champagne getting to my head...

 

---

 

Damn, I wrote a new response and got the stupid timeout error. I'll see if I can rewrite it later. Now of course the dogs wants my attention and I need more coffee... DAMN!

 

One word: Quantum Events. Probabilistic, and yet not localized deterministic. A potential answer to free will, in a deterministic world. Because quantum mechanics doesn't follow the our intuitive understanding of nature and is not predictable the same way. Electrical circuits are affected by quantum events, and is a constant challenge for Intel and AMD. That's the reason why they can't shrink CPU's any more. They have reached the borderline where quantum events are influencing the signals. Is it possible quantum events influence our brains too? I think so, which means, our mind is more a machine of statistical behavior than deterministic. I'm more likely to buy a chocolate ice cream, but it's is not necessary that I always will be buying one. Lets say, 1 of 10 times I buy a vanilla, because all zillions of events which lead up to that point, and chemical balance, diet, health, how tired I am, and many other factors, will all boil down to a decision. Impossible to predict, and some of the events in the chain are probably on the quantum level, so we can't really reduce free will to one single formula, there will always be some "black box" in the system.

[The-Captain]

Well asked, your Popeness. The short version we're offered by science, at least as I understand it, says our mind (brain) is a computer that has been programmed by genetics and experience and that our next thought is programmatically predictable. Elements of the preceding might be testable. Feel free to try the real test, though. Try living as though you had no free will, that each event were predetermined, that the actions of others were not choices on their part but were rather machine responses on a finite rule set to which they were inexorably bound. ... let me know how you make out on that one. It was a complete bust for me.

Buddy

 

P.S. To be polite, we should wait for Hans to have a chance to respond. He's quite the rationalist and speaks frankly.

 

That's not exactly the scientific position as I understand it. Consciousness has never been fully explained, while we may be able to see where there is brain activity etc. the question of whether our minds are utterly tangible/intangible or something else has never been laid to rest, and may very well be beyond the scope of scientific observation.

 

I believe what you are referring to is called biological monism and more of a science based philosophical position rather than proven consensus.

 

I'm curious though, what is your take on the matter?

[Snafutopia]

Wow, thanks for taking the time to reply, Buddy, Han, and Doctor. Will take some time to digest! And obviously I need to spend some quality time with the dictionary, as several word/concepts are unfamiliar to me.

 

Buddy, you say:

 

Feel free to try the real test, though. Try living as though you had no free will, that each event were predetermined, that the actions of others were not choices on their part but were rather machine responses on a finite rule set to which they were inexorably bound. ... let me know how you make out on that one. It was a complete bust for me.

 

hmmm ... will try to wrap my brain around that, as the whole concept of predetermination (? whatever the correct word is) is something I never paid much attention to until recently, when a local pastor "came out" as a predeterminationist, lol Rather a shock to his congregation and the topic of much discussion here in the hillbilly version of Stepford. But I get you're talking about predetermined in a genetic/socioanthropological sort of way (?) rather than in a Judeochristianmythologicalish way Which brings me back to hmmm .... 'cause I never thought about that, really.

 

 

HanSolo, you say:

 

our mind is more a machine of statistical behavior than deterministic

 

Ok I think I understand the machine part, but need to read up on determinism, as I have no clue.

 

 

And Doc, you say:

 

biological monism and more of a science based philosophical position rather than proven consensus.

 

"A science based philosophical position"... hmmm again! Could you toss me a couple of examples to help me understand?

 

My take on the whole free will thing? Obviously I've only thought about it in the most simplistic terms, as I assumed that sure, we're all influenced by genetics and social environment and life experience, but we still (lame/flawed generalization in progress) choose behaviors.

 

uh ... wow ... lots to think about. Thank you all for such very interesting replies!

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo, you say:

our mind is more a machine of statistical behavior than deterministic

 

Ok I think I understand the machine part, but need to read up on determinism, as I have no clue.

Think of the Lotto. Most of the time, someone actually do win the highest pot, but can anyone tell beforehand who it will be? Statistically speaking, there's a high chance someone will win, but it's a low chance that it's you, or me, or one specific person. Our behavior is guided by the probabilities of decisions rather than a specific chain of deductible steps. When I have a choice between a vanilla ice cream, and a chocolate fudge, the probability that I will pick the chocolate fudge is higher, because I like it, but it doesn't necessarily mean that I will without a doubt pick it every time. 1 out of 10 times, I pick vanilla, because I was in the mood, which could be contributed to an infinite chain of reasons, and maybe even down to the level of a little quantum event here or there changing the whole predisposition for this particular time to be vanilla instead of fudge. You can't make a program to deduce which choice I would make at a specific moment, but you can make a prediction of what would be the most likely decisions in general--meaning if you test my choice 10 times, 9 of those times I would pick fudge.

[Deva]

My take on this is that "free will" is an illusion. I am sticking by my deterministic position that thoughts, and by extension, actions, are produced in accordance with antecedent causes and therefore cannot be called "free".

 

Sure, we don't operate in ordinary life like everything is determined. If so, what would become of the criminal justice system, for example? No one would have any responsibility for "their" individual actions. We believe in everyday life that we have a choice between this and that. I have heard of studies have done the gap between when the nervous system starts operating and the action is thought about. The nervous system starts acting in advance of the thought. What that means is up for debate, and I know that the free will vs. determinism debate is very complicated philosophically and has not been settled yet.

 

Predestination is a bit different than determinism. Predestination implies some ultimate higher entity that has programmed all our actions in advance from eternity past and we just play it out. Determinism only says there are pre-existing causes and conditions that bring about actions but they are not destined from eternity. There is not a plan. Conditions are constantly changing, and therefore predestination (foreknowledge in advance) would be impossible except for an omniscient, omnipotent figure like God.

[agnosticator]

Wow! There's alot to think about in this thread! I have not read much on the "free will" debate, but as far as I have thought it out, I don't see how there can be free will. Sure, we have wills, and can choose, but not free from the confines of our existence as humans.

 

Wouldn't "the ability to make choices independent of external circumstance" imply the supernatural to truly be external?

 

So the god(s) bestow free will upon humanity as a supernatural gift, according to religionists. The god-man connection makes it so. HAH!

[Ouroboros]

Wouldn't "the ability to make choices independent of external circumstance" imply the supernatural to truly be external?

Are you saying that if "free will" is part of some spiritual/supernatural/soul thing, it's in essence really external to our body/physical-mind?

 

When I referred to internal/external, I was thinking more in the line of internal as the body/brain/mind part, and the external as fast or slow car, lots of money or very little, or famine or abundance of McDonalds. Basically, there are limitations laid upon us by nature, like we can't fly, regardless of how much we want to. We're not birds or fish, so we can't choose to become that (unless through some serious surgery). And internal limitations like you might hate some kind of food because it made you throw up when you were sick as a kid, or you're lactose intolerant, or maybe a certain food doesn't taste good for you. Or maybe you hate going fast, or going on roller-coaster, or maybe got scared by a dog once, so even if you can afford to, and the puppy is extremely cute, you wouldn't for any money in the world buy it.

 

But to see the spiritual mind/supernatural free will as external to the physical/natural is also an interesting view... And it means it could have limitations too, so then it wouldn't really solve the problem of limitations of choice or predispositions. God could have made my spirit-free-will to hate chocolate, and I wouldn't have had any say in it. My free will is then decided by the puppeteer.

[The-Captain]

I suppose the linguists would say that the question cannot be answered because our language isn't up to the task. Any exegesis on the subject usually depends on definitions of freedom etc. that may or may not actually exist.

 

My take is that absolute free will (as in freedom from all conditions and consequence and restraint on choice) doesn't exist, but as far as freedom of will and choice is extended to living physical entities we have it.

[The-Captain]

And Doc, you say:

 

biological monism and more of a science based philosophical position rather than proven consensus.

 

"A science based philosophical position"... hmmm again! Could you toss me a couple of examples to help me understand?

 

Well odds are I don't know what the hell I'm talking about... But what I'm trying to say here is that while scientific observation can look at the workings of the brain or take note of correlations between brain activity, emotions and certain actions etc. that does not account for the whole of human consciousness or thought. So extrapolating from scientific knowledge about the brain and the cognitive process that all consciousness is purely physical, limited to the body and deterministic seems to me like more of an assertion of belief, or a philosophy of the mind theory rather than established scientific fact or consensus.

[agnosticator]

Wouldn't "the ability to make choices independent of external circumstance" imply the supernatural to truly be external?

Are you saying that if "free will" is part of some spiritual/supernatural/soul thing, it's in essence really external to our body/physical-mind?

 

When I referred to internal/external, I was thinking more in the line of internal as the body/brain/mind part, and the external as fast or slow car, lots of money or very little, or famine or abundance of McDonalds. Basically, there are limitations laid upon us by nature, like we can't fly, regardless of how much we want to. We're not birds or fish, so we can't choose to become that (unless through some serious surgery). And internal limitations like you might hate some kind of food because it made you throw up when you were sick as a kid, or you're lactose intolerant, or maybe a certain food doesn't taste good for you. Or maybe you hate going fast, or going on roller-coaster, or maybe got scared by a dog once, so even if you can afford to, and the puppy is extremely cute, you wouldn't for any money in the world buy it.

 

But to see the spiritual mind/supernatural free will as external to the physical/natural is also an interesting view... And it means it could have limitations too, so then it wouldn't really solve the problem of limitations of choice or predispositions. God could have made my spirit-free-will to hate chocolate, and I wouldn't have had any say in it. My free will is then decided by the puppeteer.

 

I now see what you mean as external.

 

Yes, I am seeing a truly "free" will as being possible in the supernatural, because of our limits as humans. There is no free will as I understand many people believe.

 

We would be god's puppets, since we are not gods. Our freedom is an illusion. But, we bear a responsibility for our choices because of cause/effect.

[BuddyFerris]

... Consciousness has never been fully explained, while we may be able to see where there is brain activity etc. the question of whether our minds are utterly tangible/intangible or something else has never been laid to rest, and may very well be beyond the scope of scientific observation.

 

I believe what you are referring to is called biological monism and more of a science based philosophical position rather than proven consensus.

 

I'm curious though, what is your take on the matter?

I concur (seems the appropriate verb for a doctor's conversation. Do you concur, doctor? Yes, I concur.). Feel free to categorize my position as you like, by the way. Go a step or two further with me if you will. Take a look at Han's carefully considered appeal to the more complex description of our mental activities:

One word: Quantum Events. Probabilistic, and yet not localized deterministic. .... Think of the Lotto. Most of the time, someone actually do win the highest pot, but can anyone tell beforehand who it will be? Statistically speaking, there's a high chance someone will win, but it's a low chance that it's you, or me, or one specific person. Our behavior is guided by the probabilities of decisions rather than a specific chain of deductible steps. When I have a choice between a vanilla ice cream, and a chocolate fudge, the probability that I will pick the chocolate fudge is higher, because I like it, but it doesn't necessarily mean that I will without a doubt pick it every time. 1 out of 10 times, I pick vanilla, because I was in the mood, which could be contributed to an infinite chain of reasons, and maybe even down to the level of a little quantum event here or there changing the whole predisposition for this particular time to be vanilla instead of fudge. You can't make a program to deduce which choice I would make at a specific moment, but you can make a prediction of what would be the most likely decisions in general--meaning if you test my choice 10 times, 9 of those times I would pick fudge.

 

Follow it through. No choices belong to you; no choice of subject matter for the books you read, no choice among TV shows or leisure activity, no choice of priorities among issues demanding your attention. All statistical probabilities; less predictable but still deterministic. Others will tell us the program works as well as it does because it's tilted in favor of survival, etc. Balance the implicit conclusions there against your own understanding. It's still too simple, IMO. Just the fact that we sit here and correspond on the subject seems to adequately refute the validity of a deterministic explanation.

 

More to the point perhaps, is the degree of acceptance such a position has among anti-religionists. It's preferable to accept the automation of humanity over the existence of God; an unnecessary concession, at the very least. More realistically, as has been suggested by another here, the acceptance of the deterministic model is closer to a faith-based position than a science based conclusion.

 

Back to what we do know; I am, you are, they are. If we meet, it would probably be by choice. If I buy you a beer, it would probably be by choice. If we were to become friends in spite of our differences, it would probably be an expression of our humanity, not statistics.

 

There seems to be a troublesome parting of the ways between the dependence upon science for all answers and an honest evaluation of our lives.

 

Have a great day.

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

One word: Quantum Events. Probabilistic, and yet not localized deterministic. .... Think of the Lotto. Most of the time, someone actually do win the highest pot, but can anyone tell beforehand who it will be? Statistically speaking, there's a high chance someone will win, but it's a low chance that it's you, or me, or one specific person. Our behavior is guided by the probabilities of decisions rather than a specific chain of deductible steps. When I have a choice between a vanilla ice cream, and a chocolate fudge, the probability that I will pick the chocolate fudge is higher, because I like it, but it doesn't necessarily mean that I will without a doubt pick it every time. 1 out of 10 times, I pick vanilla, because I was in the mood, which could be contributed to an infinite chain of reasons, and maybe even down to the level of a little quantum event here or there changing the whole predisposition for this particular time to be vanilla instead of fudge. You can't make a program to deduce which choice I would make at a specific moment, but you can make a prediction of what would be the most likely decisions in general--meaning if you test my choice 10 times, 9 of those times I would pick fudge.

 

Follow it through. No choices belong to you; no choice of subject matter for the books you read, no choice among TV shows or leisure activity, no choice of priorities among issues demanding your attention.

No, I think that's wrong, because we are that. We are these things. We are part of the Universe. What you're doing is creating a separation between "You" as something that is not the things that exists, and the things that are, and you do so, because you want to be different and special than the existing Universe. You want to be a spirit, and refuse to be a natural being. I feel a connection, a very deep connection, to existence, the world, the universe, and everything. So I don't see the processes, the probability, matter, space, and time, as different than me, but rather, those things make me into me. In a sense I feel sorry for you, because your view requires a constant search of your own identity in the world, but I feel I've found it. I have found my religion. I am, who I am, and I exist, in these things that exist, and all is connected and related. I feel like I'm the Universe knowing itself. What you have is the constant search for something else, and the refusal to acknowledge nature as part of you, and you part of it.

 

All statistical probabilities; less predictable but still deterministic. Others will tell us the program works as well as it does because it's tilted in favor of survival, etc. Balance the implicit conclusions there against your own understanding. It's still too simple, IMO. Just the fact that we sit here and correspond on the subject seems to adequately refute the validity of a deterministic explanation.

Then how do you think? How do you reason? When you reason you build it on previous argument and previous thoughts. When you think you lay things out one (or more) at a time and compare. It's a process. You process information. Each bit of thought is built on a previous thought. We are arguing in this thread and building the thoughts. Meaning, they are items in a sequence of the events leading to this point. I didn't write this particular post two weeks ago out of the blue because my free will wanted to, but because we are in a line of exchanges of ideas. Each idea built on the previous. And the components helping the process getting to this point are based on capability, previous experiences, matter, time, space. I'm sorry, but you can't avoid those things how much you ever want. What you really are arguing is that free will is a magical black box that is neither deterministic nor in-deterministic. In other words, your black box of free will is unexplainable and unreachable. Either free will is decisions made on previous ideas, thoughts, and experience, or it's completely random (i.e. not based on previous ideas, thoughts, or experience), and it can't be somewhere in between, unless it is a combination of the two. But still, those two functions are the only two basic, or core functions that must be in the process of making a decision.

 

But lets say you move your "free will" to the spiritual world, you still would have either deterministic, or not, or a mix. However, this doesn't help anything. To just move the free will to another layer we can't test with natural means, doesn't solve how it works. It would still be based on the same functionality.

 

More to the point perhaps, is the degree of acceptance such a position has among anti-religionists. It's preferable to accept the automation of humanity over the existence of God; an unnecessary concession, at the very least. More realistically, as has been suggested by another here, the acceptance of the deterministic model is closer to a faith-based position than a science based conclusion.

Did you miss the part of quantum events?

 

Unfortunately I wrote a longer post yesterday about how quantum mechanics actually do present a new answer to the free will argument. It adds the part of probabilistic behavior instead of deterministic. It adds chance and randomness, so determinism isn't really as hot in the mind debate today.

 

Back to what we do know; I am, you are, they are. If we meet, it would probably be by choice. If I buy you a beer, it would probably be by choice. If we were to become friends in spite of our differences, it would probably be an expression of our humanity, not statistics.

If we'd became friends it would be because you would have certain characteristics that would match to ideas and experiences I have. This is why match.com and other sites have more success in matching people by making a profile on them first, instead of pure random guesses. Unfortunately, there are research that show that people don't become friends or lovers out of total random choices. Like they say, a 9 marries a 9, and a 5 marries a 5. There are pattern that are statistical about these things. I'm sorry, but you're wrong, friendship is more deterministic than you think.

 

There seems to be a troublesome parting of the ways between the dependence upon science for all answers and an honest evaluation of our lives.

I don't think so. Science is so much more than numbers. In psychology you expand the area of science to include evaluations, behavior analysis, while maintaining the understanding of biological, sociological, and cultural sides. Our discussion right now is a scientific way of trying to find an understanding. So if you refuse to believe in science, then you shouldn't even partake in a debate. Science is in general terms the idea of trying to understand nature and ourselves within the context of this world. If you're trying to make a rift between science and humanity, you have in fact made an intentional separation between what is natural and what is not. You basically are saying, we can only understand humans if we don't use reason or natural means, but unnatural and supernatural means. Or what I'd like to call it, magic. You want to use magic box answers for things you can't understand, only because you want to dream about these fantasy answers. You are an idealist, because you want to find the answers in a dream world rather in the real world.

[The-Captain]

Yep I do concur Buddy

 

No, I think that's wrong, because we are that. We are these things. We are part of the Universe. What you're doing is creating a separation between "You" as something that is not the things that exists, and the things that are, and you do so, because you want to be different and special than the existing Universe. You want to be a spirit, and refuse to be a natural being.

 

Well you're kind of losing me here, is this part of a prior conversation between you two? Anyway I'm not trying o force a dichotomy, while I think that if there is free will humans would be the most inclined to use it due to our higher cognitive capacity, I wouldn't relegate the rest of the universe to being deterministic. In fact the more I learn about our surrounds the less the universe seems like and orderly place bound by laws, to me it looks more like occurrences, relationships, correlations and chaos. I think it was a tenet of Epicureanism that as long as there was chaos in the universe the possibility of free will remained.

 

Then how do you think? How do you reason? When you reason you build it on previous argument and previous thoughts. When you think you lay things out one (or more) at a time and compare. It's a process. You process information. Each bit of thought is built on a previous thought.

 

Well yeah, that is reasonable choice but we still are aware of that prior experience and how it factors into our decision making and the choice remains to say "to hell with it all, I'm going to do this". Though I suppose you could say that choice was arrived at by prior influence and circumstance but the seems more like an argument for the linear nature of time rather than the impossibility of free choice. So repeating myself from the beginning of the thread I think our awareness grants us the capacity for freedom of will, not just clinging to that but it makes sense to me.

 

If we'd became friends it would be because you would have certain characteristics that would match to ideas and experiences I have. This is why match.com and other sites have more success in matching people by making a profile on them first, instead of pure random guesses. Unfortunately, there are research that show that people don't become friends or lovers out of total random choices. Like they say, a 9 marries a 9, and a 5 marries a 5. There are pattern that are statistical about these things. I'm sorry, but you're wrong, friendship is more deterministic than you think.

 

Again that explains proclivities but obviously we are aware of that, the choice still remains to befriend someone who is out of your usual range of characteristics that you look for in a friend. You have the choice to be critical and judgmental of others or to be accepting etc, and yes that does "determine" what kind of people you will gravitate towards but you were still the one that made the choice to be that way.

 

So I'm almost self defeating my argument here, but what I'm coming to is that our free will is related to our awareness. So yes I suppose there is a limit on free will, but why wouldn't there be? We are finite beings after all, point is that as far as free goes in this natural world I think we've got it.

 

 

I don't think so. Science is so much more than numbers. In psychology you expand the area of science to include evaluations, behavior analysis, while maintaining the understanding of biological, sociological, and cultural sides. Our discussion right now is a scientific way of trying to find an understanding. So if you refuse to believe in science, then you shouldn't even partake in a debate. Science is in general terms the idea of trying to understand nature and ourselves within the context of this world. If you're trying to make a rift between science and humanity, you have in fact made an intentional separation between what is natural and what is not. You basically are saying, we can only understand humans if we don't use reason or natural means, but unnatural and supernatural means. Or what I'd like to call it, magic. You want to use magic box answers for things you can't understand, only because you want to dream about these fantasy answers. You are an idealist, because you want to find the answers in a dream world rather in the real world.

 

No argument here, science is simply our understanding of already existent principles it is in and of itself neutral. But determinism is not a scientific law, its simply an inference from scientific data. Could be wrong could be right, but it's still in doubt.

 

Well said though, btw.

[Ouroboros]

Another thing too is that just because something can be explained in natural terms or in math, it doesn't take away its beauty. I don't see any reason to why Free Will, Love, Empathy, and so on, has to be explained using magical pixies, invisible clowns sitting on imaginary thrones waving wands and uttering spells, for things to be what they are. Just because nature is what it is and led to us to exist and eventually causing us to have emotions or the sense of a will, doesn't make it less real or less inspiring. I find it to be the opposite! I find nature to be wonderful, and if I have a God of any kind, I would say it's existence, nature, the universe, all of it, which do exist, and I can test and confirm, it would be that. Why make up some fantasy to explain those things which can be explained with what does exist for real? Why invent magical creatures and beings to explain what we are? It's just what I said earlier, some people find excitement and fondness in understanding the world from real things, while some just can't let go of the childish fantasy world and have to have imaginary friends and creatures to accept their lives. I find that sad. I rather be a mature and grown up person who can see things for what they are, and face it without any lies blocking my view. Religion is all too often nothing but a blindfold to hide reality from the person.