Free will does not exist!

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]
Again, you assume way too much. I believe it is true that certain genes influence us. The son of an alcoholic for example is four times more likely to become an alcoholic, but guess what, there are plenty of son’s of alcoholics who are not alcoholic. Many see the evils of drinking first hand and decide that they are not going to do it. This is ...[text shortened]... ut we are also influenced by nature and nurture. This is about as much as gene theory has shown.

[b]Again, you assume way too much. I believe it is true that certain genes influence us. The son of an alcoholic for example is four times more likely to become an alcoholic, but guess what, there are plenty of son’s of alcoholics who are not alcoholic. Many see the evils of drinking first hand and decide that they are not going to do it. This is free will.[b/]

That son may have some other gene or experience which makes him averse to alcohol. I dont disagree with "seeing the evils of drinking first hand."But this is not free will. This is nature/nurture which i believe prevents a person having free will.

[b]Gene theory is only part of the story. Virtually all psychiatrists agree that both nature and nurture are important in shaping an individual. Even here there are plenty of exceptions. I just read a story on CNN the other day where two brothers turned in their dad after he robbed a bank. This goes against both nature and nurture and demonstrates free will.[b/]

What makes you think that these brothers didn't turn him in as the result of nature/nurture?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am not suggesting determinacy. I believe that the future is indetermined, however this does not justify the free will.

It is true, that at the quantum level there is uncertainty and that it is impossible to measure a particles position and momentum, hence a single outcome of an event cannot be predicted. But this does not support the free will arg ...[text shortened]... sion entailed here, despite how chaotic and complex the brain is. Hence, there can be no free will.

It is true, that at the quantum level there is uncertainty and that it is impossible to measure a particles position and momentum, hence a single outcome of an event cannot be predicted. But this does not support the free will argument because a person is still the result of chemical reactions.

If by person you mean consciousness, then there is still plenty of doubt to go around.

According to quantum mechanics, if event A happens, event B, C or even D may happen as a consequence (as opposed to only B). So a human is just resigned to an infiniute number of outcomes which he is not accoutnable for (because he doesn't choose). There is no decision entailed here, despite how chaotic and complex the brain is. Hence, there can be no free will.

Suppose event b, c, or d, is determined by consciousness. In that case humans would be accountable for their actions.

From what I understand of Quantum mechanics, consciousness shapes the physical, not the other way around. The laws of Newton support your position more than Quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again, you assume way too much. I believe it is true that certain genes influence us. The son of an alcoholic for example is four times more likely to become an alcoholic, but guess what, there are plenty of son’s of alcoholics who are not alcoholic. Many see the evils of drinking first hand and decide that they are not going to do it. This is free will .

What makes you think that these brothers didn't turn him in as the result of nature/nurture?

That son may have some other gene or experience which makes him averse to alcohol. I dont disagree with "seeing the evils of drinking first hand."But this is not free will. This is nature/nurture which i believe prevents a person having free will.

I gave this example because it is not nature/nurture. By deciding not to be an alcoholic because of what it did to his alcoholic parents, the son is resisting nature/nurture and exercising his free will. To say that this must be the result of some other gene is pure speculation. It could just as easily be free will.

What makes you think that these brothers didn't turn him in as the result of nature/nurture?

What makes you think that they did?

I think that the default position has to be that we have free will. We are all capable of making decisions, and we are all held accountable for our actions. It is up to science to prove otherwise, and so far there is more evidence to suggest that we do in fact have free will.

Show me a scientist who will say that because somebody has a certain gene, they have no choice but to become an automechanic.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Given that our consciousness is the product of chemicals and their interactions and influences from the environment, and that our thoughts are dictated by predispositions (as the result of inheritance). Then it is impossible that we can truly make a free decision. Hence, we have no free will.
This also has implications for law. Is a person truly accountab ...[text shortened]... ably all other theists) have been lied to in some way as a consequence.

Anyone disagree?

I'd like to challenge your opening statement: "Given that our consciousness is the product of chemicals and their interactions and influences from the environment...."

First, this is an extremist assumption that consciousness (whatever that is defined as) is strictly a chemical process. I'm currently doing some research on the network behavior of neurons within the brain. I am even exploring the possibility of "consciousness" arising from extremely complex networks of brain cells.
My experience shows:
1. There is no conclusive of even largely-accepted viewpoint that 'consciousness' is strictly a chemical/physical phenomena. We're still trying to figure out the details of how a single neuron works, let alone billions of them within the brain.
2. There is no current way of defining consciousness in terms of physical phenomena.
3. There is speculation that the actions of neurons may be governed my quantum mechanics, rather that classical physics/chemistry. In that case, their actions would not be determined, but governed by probability.

On another point, linking a gene statistically with the frequency of disorders does not prove, by any means, that the gene is the cause of the action. Any psychologist or biologist will tell you this.

Originally posted by yousers

1. There is no conclusive of even largely-accepted viewpoint that 'consciousness' is strictly a chemical/physical phenomena. We're still trying to figure out the details of how a single neuron works, let alone billions of them within the brain.
2. There is no current way of defining consciousness in terms of physical phenomena.
3. There is speculatio ...[text shortened]... that the gene is the cause of the action. Any psychologist or biologist will tell you this.

First of all i never said that genes cause actions. I said they predispose. I acknowledge that nutrition and the environment and etc have an impact on actions and behaviour.
Secondly, if consciousness is not strictly a chemical/physical phenomenon then you are implying the existence of something that transcends the physical/chemical world. Perhaps a soul. However this soul is limited by predispositions and influences from the environment. Hence, its free will is correspondingly limited. If Quantum mechanics is introduced to this model of consciousness then instead of a consciousness being resigned to one action he might be resigned to several. This does not suggest a free will because then your actions are determined by QM. We are still not free agents.

Originally posted by Conrau K
First of all i never said that genes cause actions. I said they predispose. I acknowledge that nutrition and the environment and etc have an impact on actions and behaviour.
Secondly, if consciousness is not strictly a chemical/physical phenomenon then you are implying the existence of something that transcends the physical/chemical world. Perhaps a soul. ...[text shortened]... ggest a free will because then your actions are determined by QM. We are still not free agents.

To imply that genetic 'predispositions' are deterministic (as opposed to free will) is to claim exactly that they encompass or are a part of the cause. That is the only mode of determination. Your claim is not well grounded, since correlation does not imply cause.

I was implying the existence of something we might call a soul. What makes you think that such a thing would be limited by the environment? A completely immaterial body, like a soul, would not be limited by any of the things within the material world.

You make a good point that people are resigned to one of several actions. This is precisely the definition of choice. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that this is not the case; no one is claiming that we are entirely free to create our own reality. We are claiming that there are choices, and we consciously make decisions about them.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Given that our consciousness is the product of chemicals and their interactions and influences from the environment, and that our thoughts are dictated by predispositions (as the result of inheritance). Then it is impossible that we can truly make a free decision. Hence, we have no free will.
This also has implications for law. Is a person truly accountab ...[text shortened]... ably all other theists) have been lied to in some way as a consequence.

Anyone disagree?

Just so I know, how do 'you' know that our consciousness is a product
of chemicals and their interactions and influences from the
environment? I mean after all, couldn't there be something else
involved? Have you ever strung together the right chemicals inside
the proper environment, pushing upon them the correct influences to
cause consciousness? If not your just acknowledging the little you do
know and claiming it is all that is required, not exactly proper science
is it?
Kelly

Originally posted by Conrau K
Given that our consciousness is the product of chemicals and their interactions and influences from the environment, and that our thoughts are dictated by predispositions (as the result of inheritance). Then it is impossible that we can truly make a free decision. Hence, we have no free will.
This also has implications for law. Is a person truly accountab ...[text shortened]... ably all other theists) have been lied to in some way as a consequence.

Anyone disagree?

Please define "free will" in the sense you use it here.

As one of your axioms you state:

Given that our consciousness is the product of chemicals and their interactions and influences from the environment, and that our thoughts are dictated by predispositions (as the result of inheritance).

Could you prove your assumption that our consciousness is only the product of chemical interaction and genetic influence.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Given that our consciousness is the product of chemicals and their interactions and influences from the environment, and that our thoughts are dictated by predispositions (as the result of inheritance). Then it is impossible that we can truly make a free decision. Hence, we have no free will.
This also has implications for law. Is a person truly accountab ...[text shortened]... ably all other theists) have been lied to in some way as a consequence.

Anyone disagree?

What if there is more to consciousness than the make up of
chemicals? Would that mean that all bets are off as far being
able to understand how it is put together? People vsn die, their
body stops being conscious, but the chemical make up is still
there. How do you know what is it that really makes up our
consciousness?
Kelly

Originally posted by yousers
To imply that genetic 'predispositions' are deterministic (as opposed to free will) is to claim exactly that they encompass or are a part of the cause. That is the only mode of determination. Your claim is not well grounded, since correlation does not imply cause.

I was implying the existence of something we might call a soul. What makes you think that ...[text shortened]... ality. We are claiming that there are choices, and we consciously make decisions about them.

First of all. There is a gene which can predispose people to depression. People who have this gene are susceptible to developing depression. This is because the gene translates to a protein which does not perform its function properly in the brain. This gene has been encompassed as part of the cause of depression. Hence, if that person develops depression, and commits suicide, how can they be accountable? There was no choice. If this mental phenomenon can be explained through proteins and genes and congenital occurrneces and the environment, why can't all?

Secondly. According to QM is it possible for me to suddenly appear on Mars if i saunter over to the Milk bar. Its just improbable. This is what i mean by different actions. I didn't want to go Mars, but i ended up there. This same thing can occur (although on a more realistic probability) in the brain. My environment can also prevent me from going to the milk bar. A tree might fall down. A car might crash. Hence, we can't truly consider ourselves as free agents. And i will go so far as to assert we are not free at all.

Originally posted by Halitose
Please define "free will" in the sense you use it here.

As one of your axioms you state:

[b]Given that our consciousness is the product of chemicals and their interactions and influences from the environment, and that our thoughts are dictated by predispositions (as the result of inheritance).

Could you prove your assumption that our consciousness is only the product of chemical interaction and genetic influence.[/b]

Free will- the ability or capacity to make choices.

And no i can't prove that conscioussness is the product of only chemicals and genes. I am not that hubristic. The environment performs a role as well. I suppose the onus is on you to demonstrate where free will occurs because that would require you to show me where a choice cannot be attributed to an occurrence in the brain, an influence in the environment, genetic factors. I have argued enough that consciousness can be destroyed or affected by other chemicals, so hence, it must be the result of chemicals and that genetic predispositions affect consicousness as well hence, consciousness is as well the product of genetic predispositions.

Originally posted by Conrau K
First of all. There is a gene which can predispose people to depression. People who have this gene are susceptible to developing depression. This is because the gene translates to a protein which does not perform its function properly in the brain. This gene has been encompassed as part of the cause of depression. Hence, if that person develops depression, consider ourselves as free agents. And i will go so far as to assert we are not free at all.

Of course we aren't free agents in the narrowest sense of the word -- we are completely restricted by the laws of nature for example. You don't have a choice but to obey gravity. The big question is whether we are free moral agents?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Free will- the ability or capacity to make choices.

And no i can't prove that conscioussness is the product of only chemicals and genes. I am not that hubristic. The environment performs a role as well. I suppose the onus is on you to demonstrate where free will occurs because that would require you to show me where a choice cannot be attributed to an o ...[text shortened]... t consicousness as well hence, consciousness is as well the product of genetic predispositions.

I suppose the onus is on you to demonstrate where free will occurs because that would require you to show me where a choice cannot be attributed to an occurrence in the brain, an influence in the environment, genetic factors.

Fair enough. I prefer to take this problem from a philosophical perspective and as I'm too lazy and rushed I'll plagiarise selections from an essay written for the Ayn Rand Institute's essay contest for graduate students, 1995. *

"...Objectivism makes two observations about the validation of the theory of free will. Rand does not attempt to give a positive proof that our wills are free. Rather, in the first place, she observes that the fact of free will is available to introspection. Each of us can observe that he can focus his consciousness, or relax it. We can pay attention, or not. It would be out of place to ask for a proof of this fact, in the same way that it would be out of place to ask for a proof that trees exist, if you are standing in front of one, looking at it -- not because the fact is unknowable, but because it is known directly, rather than needing to be derived from something else.

Second, Rand argues that it is not possible consistently to deny that one has free will. Every human choice and every evaluation presupposes it. One cannot deliberate about something, unless one thinks it is within one's power to do it or not do it; one also can not say that something 'should' or 'shouldn't' be done, unless it is possible for it to be done or not be done. Consequently, if one is deliberating about whether to believe in free will or not, then one is already committed to its existence. Nor can the determinist tell us that we should accept determinism. Nor can he claim that he is advocating determinism because it is true -- since on his view, he is advocating determinism only because some blind factors beyond his control force him to advocate it. Thus, the determinist's position appears to devolve into incoherence, as soon as he tries to assert it. This is not, strictly, a proof of the freedom of the will, however. What it shows is that, in order to argue about free will (even to deny it), one has to already implicitly know that one has it; therefore, one must have learned it by some means other than argument -- in particular, Rand holds, one learns it by direct observation. "

Another site with some solid arguments is:
http://www.benbest.com/philo/freewill.html

* http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand3.htm

Originally posted by Halitose
"...Objectivism makes two observations about the validation of the theory of free will. Rand does not attempt to give a positive proof that our wills are free. Rather, in the first place, she observes that the fact of free will is available to introspection. Each of us can observe that he can focus his consciousness, or relax it. We can pay attention, or no ...[text shortened]... other than argument -- in particular, Rand holds, one learns it by direct observation."

This is a very good essay.

Originally posted by Halitose


Another site with some solid arguments is:
http://www.benbest.com/philo/freewill.html

This, however, is rather poor. I couldn't find any solid arguments therein. Would you care to outline them for me?

As an additional comment on both, it's striking how clear thought and clear writing go hand in hand. The Ben Best writing is quite poor, as are the ideas he attempts to express.