1. Comment #98298 by bartvdo on December 13, 2007 at 12:53 pm

The question of free will might be philosophical , but is ( i think) mostly a neurological question (toxoplasma comes to mind). I don't think it's a religious question.
But to be honest, whether free will is an illusion or not only matters if we are capable of discerning between the two.
I don't think we can, for the most part, at the moment.

Other Comments by bartvdo

2. Comment #98308 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 1:08 pm

The dertiminist makes the claim that all events are causal, and therefore free will is an illusion. The compatibilist acknowledges free will in so far as people have choice, but otherwise concedes that events are, by and large, caused by others. And the libertarian (not a political libertarian) rejects determinism outright and claims that free will is not an illusion. The compatibilist position seems most appropriate for the non-religious as it ascribes actions that result from psychological states to free will, but 'static' traits, including personality, values, etc., as determined.

Other Comments by ronnieharper

3. Comment #98327 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Is free will important to an atheist? Yes, in the sense that an atheist is also a person. No, in the strict sense, that the existence or non-existence of free will would not invalidate their non-belief in gods.

The absence of free will is, however, devastating to all theists since without it you cannot choose to be evil or good, and therefore deserve neither punishment nor salvation.

Other Comments by rnewson

4. Comment #98355 by Fiziker on December 13, 2007 at 2:04 pm

I agree fully with the statements of rnewson. The lack of free will, at least in the sense needed by theists is a great problem for those you talk of gods ready to punish you for your actions.

I really dislike question, do we have free will? What does one mean by free will!? We are simply atoms (not eliminates but uncuttable particles) interacting in the void. Everything happens based on the laws of physics, without inherent meaning &c. This results in me being able to make decisions. We have free will in that we make decisions--although those decisions are ultimately the result of particle interactions--and we don't have free will in that there are no homunculi inside our heads. There is no real answer because free will has no definite meaning.

Other Comments by Fiziker

5. Comment #98362 by ronnieharper on December 13, 2007 at 2:14 pm

The debate in philosophy, as far as I can tell from current papers, centers around the definition of 'will'. Assigning a biological definition to the concept of the will decidely moves this discussion out of the realm of philosophy and into the realm of behavioral sciences. However, when I made that argument at university, one of my professors became seriously irate and marked me down, claiming that "science and philosophy are not synonomous," whatever that meant to him.

Other Comments by ronnieharper

6. Comment #98390 by USA_Limey on December 13, 2007 at 2:41 pm

I hate these stupid 'debating points' so much I am going to be childish and petulant.

They completely mess up the 'latest visitor comments' section which helps us keep track of responses to the latest articles posted.

So there.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

7. Comment #98398 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 2:47 pm

USA_Limey, I agree, I wish they were in some other section. They also play merry hell with the RSS feed. There was me thinking that 20 new articles had been posted... :)

Other Comments by rnewson

8. Comment #98406 by burkbraun on December 13, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Free will is a fascinating question. Firstly, this is far more of an issue for religious people than it is to atheists. Christianity solves its problem of evil by saying that God has decided, despite his benevolence, to let humans suffer and hang themselves if they so choose- by giving them free will. Some (like 7th day adventists) even think that there is an ongoing wager with Satan (like in the book of Job) where God, for some inexplicable reason, is allowing evil to flourish in the world by way of the free will of humans, as an object lesson in our lack of morals and lack of ability to govern ourselves, only to come back at judgement day to resume running the show again in earnest.

One can see that it is the paradox of a benevolent god overseeing a suffering world that, for religious people, necessitates a special theory of free will.

For rational people, however, free will is also a problem, in a different way. That is, if we are truly mechanistic beings, down to our cognitive and neural processes, then aren't all our thoughts determined in advance? Are we actually making decisions, or do decisions happen to us in a pre-determined way? Is the conscious sensation of making choices a true representation of some de-novo event in the universe?

The answer is no- all mechanistic phenomena have reasons and causes, and the brain is not immune from this logic. This is spelled out in a nice book by Daniel Wegner "The illusion of conscious will". The neurobiology is not crystal clear yet, but it is clear that our sensation of conscious choice follows by a substantial lag the actual mechanism of choice made elsewhere in our brains. Thus our brains make choices, based on experience, on reason, on happenstance... whatever, and then our consciousness is informed of the result, at which point an idea "pops" into our heads.

What this means is that we have free will, insofar as we are not aware of the subconscious processes that lead to all our decisions, or conversely can cite and use reasons for some decisions (however inaccurately rationalized in retrospect). We also have free will in that we take moral responsibility for our actions, even when they are desperately at odds to our more considered desires (addictions like smoking, gambling, eating). But in the end, we do not have free will in the atomic sense that there is an inner homunculus that purely reasons its way to action and represents our instant consciousness of that decision-making.

Other Comments by burkbraun

9. Comment #98439 by Blue Lithium on December 13, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Free will is doing what you want -- nothing more, nothing less. ~ Richard C. Carrier, Sense and Goodness Without God p. 109

Other Comments by Blue Lithium

10. Comment #98454 by stevieb on December 13, 2007 at 4:02 pm

didn't einstein settle this a century ago with relativity? if when you are in time depends on where you are in space, as well as your speed through spacetime, then haven't our choices "already" been made?

Other Comments by stevieb

11. Comment #98457 by ChrisMcL on December 13, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Who says I don't have free will?

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

12. Comment #98468 by Fiziker on December 13, 2007 at 5:10 pm

if when you are in time depends on where you are in space, as well as your speed through spacetime, then haven't our choices "already" been made?

Exactly. That is why this is a simple matter of one's definition of what free will is. The definition that requires the Cartesian Theater (I just heard Dan Dennett use that term for the first time) is incorrect and depending on how else you construct your definition then the answer is yes or maybe.

Other Comments by Fiziker

13. Comment #98477 by Spinoza on December 13, 2007 at 5:54 pm

At this point it's a combo philosophy/neuroscience question.

And it's not looking good for libertarian/incompatiblist free will.

That is, my namesake, Spinoza, was probably right when he said it thusly:

"In the mind there is no absolute, or free will. The mind is determined to this or that volition by a cause, which is likewise determined by another cause, and this again by another, and so ad infinitum."

:)

Other Comments by Spinoza

14. Comment #98479 by polytheist on December 13, 2007 at 5:55 pm

'What is the role of the illusion of free will?'

It has no role whatsoever.

If you were in a courtroom on trial for a crime and you said to the judge 'My braincells made me do it' - You'd be stating the obvious, it wouldn't help your case.

Other Comments by polytheist

15. Comment #98481 by Rational_G on December 13, 2007 at 6:05 pm

I freely hate these debating points.

Other Comments by Rational_G

16. Comment #98494 by automath on December 13, 2007 at 6:58 pm

This so called free will that most experience is little more than a myth.

Other Comments by automath

17. Comment #98712 by serendipity1 on December 14, 2007 at 5:30 am

I'm not sure to what extent free will might meaningfully be said to have a "role" to an atheist or in the context of atheism - it is simply descriptive of a feature of our existence.

I would be much more interested in hearing the religious try to reconcile belief in free will with belief in an omniscient creator. If you believe in an omniscient creator, that creator must, by definition, know the outcome of you exercising your "free will". Therefore, if the outcome is already known, in what sense can you maintain that you have free will?

Other Comments by serendipity1

18. Comment #98741 by bitbutter on December 14, 2007 at 7:15 am

We feel like we're in control, and that we "could have done otherwise" in any given situation. But our intuitions often lead us astray, and this is one of those times.

Like a gunfighter trying to outdraw his shadow we can never be aware of the causes of our thoughts before we think them. In this sense the causes of our thoughts are forever hidden from us, but it's a mistake to conclude that because we never glimpse them, that they are not there.

Free will, as it's most commonly understood (the libertarian interpretation), is idea that we "could have done otherwise" given the same situation. But it's an incoherent concept.

If there was a part of our will that was not caused then its decisions would not reflect our desires, our experience, or our instincts. Whenever this will was active we would, in effect, be slaves to a will unrecognisable as our own.

Compatibilism provides a 'grown-up' redefinition of free will (see Daniel Dennett's book Elbow Room). But I'm inclined to agree with Kant when he said that this redefinition of free will is an act of 'wretched subterfuge'; compatibilist free will is not 'free' at all.

We don't have free will, but that's ok because all we need is a natural, caused, will.

Other Comments by bitbutter

19. Comment #98755 by sidfaiwu on December 14, 2007 at 8:06 am

I'm sure atheists are united on their thoughts about freewill. I, for one, believe freewill is an illusion.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

20. Comment #98855 by Andr3w on December 14, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Freewill is nothing more then a threadbare illusion. However, is civilization possible without certain limitations being placed on freewill?

Other Comments by Andr3w

21. Comment #98872 by Zaphod on December 14, 2007 at 7:37 pm

I agree with Spinoza. The user on this website and the famous philosopher.

Other Comments by Zaphod

22. Comment #98905 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 14, 2007 at 9:43 pm

Time to play Zen master for this response. (Note: I realise you will not win a debate like this; I maintain that the question should be ridiculed.)

Reach out and slap them, and see what they do with their free will.

The world is the way you find it, before you split it up in imaginary divisions like free and not-free. You're still going to have to live your life, so why do it burdened with shackles made out of the moebius strips of unnecessary dichotomies.

Castles in the air: heed the Lord of the Castle! Kneel before His Power!

It has nothing to do with life on earth. That's the whole pointless point of religion.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

23. Comment #106868 by rk12si on January 3, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Dear Dr. Dawkins,

I am a great fan of your book "The Selfish Gene". I really like the idea that we or so called "living things" are just a complicated "non-living thing".

Well, in Buddhism and in Ancient Indian religion there is a concept of "Enlightenment". This basically means to see the truth and most importantly "I" disappears.
This means that till the point of "Enlightenment" the mind creates this fake identity called "I". On enlightenment it is realised that there is no such "I", who has control. But the decisions or choices just happen in the Human body. That is, more like a robot. So basically what Buddhism is saying is what you are saying, that there is no freewill and that only cause and effect exist.

I give you an analogy. Lets take a river that follows through a mountain. The river turns around the mountain because of simple physical laws. But imagine this river had a mind. As the river is flowing it takes a left turn and then a right etc and this mind of river thinks that "I" am taking these turns.

What is your comment on this?

P.S. I really hope there is freewill...perhaps ERP

Other Comments by rk12si

24. Comment #109818 by jwdink on January 9, 2008 at 8:15 pm

I personally like Dennett's stance on free will:

1) Determinism/indeterminism has nothing to do with it.
2) Free will is something that humans are equipped with as an evolved trait.
3) This evolved freedom isn't the same as theistic free will, which unsurprisingly doesn't make much sense anyways. But it's still a variety of free will worth wanting, and something morally significant.

His book "Freedom Evolves" argues for this nicely. But I don't know if this is a simple enough theory to enter into the public consciousness.

Other Comments by jwdink

25. Comment #111762 by keith on January 15, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Automath,

This so called free will that most experience is little more than a myth.

Andr3w,

Freewill is nothing more then a threadbare illusion.

Er...how do you know? If Dennett, Wegner, Blackmore, Chambers et al are still discussing this and can't agree, how is it that you both know the answer so firmly? Have all the experts missed something? Do you have some evidence that they don't? If not and this is just your opinion, how about stating it with a little less certainty?

Other Comments by keith

26. Comment #111844 by thunder2384 on January 15, 2008 at 9:26 pm

The role of freewill(making the initial assumption that it exists) is to me the ability to take the best steps you can to secure your liberty and happiness. That's what I'm trying to do.

Other Comments by thunder2384

27. Comment #112224 by timmur on January 16, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Bitbutter got it right when he said the usual understanding of freewill is incoherent. In order to have freewill in the strong libertarian sense, we'd have to be the cause of ourselves, a logical impossibility. See Galen Strawson's "Luck Swallows Everything" (sorry, I don't have the link handy, but just Google it) for a good overview of the debate and an irrefutable argument against freewill.

Other Comments by timmur

28. Comment #113402 by keith on January 19, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Timmur,

Thanks for the link to 'Luck Swallows Everything'. As you said, it is very good overview of the debate. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it put so well.

Susan Blackmore's view was one that wasn't really elucidated. She is a determinist and also suspects that we don't have free will but that we should take responsibility for our actions anyway, in the same way that I take responsibility for knocking over a vase in a china shop, even if I didn't mean/want to do it. It was still 'me' that did it, even if all my past life and present environment brought me to this fated place and moment. However, Blackmore also wonders if the sheer difficulty of the free will problem doesn't indicate that we are perhaps approaching it from the wrong angle. It's possible that as Strawson states, all the information is in and has been for a long time. However, it could be that for some reason we just can't see the wood for the trees.

Even if there were some almighty being up there with my past, present and future laid out in front of him and even if all my actions are caused by previous actions which in turn were caused by factors (genes, early environment) over which I had no say, my actions remain my actions and my decisions remain my decisions, even if they do turn out to be caused and determined all the way down the line and I am ultimately just a wind-up doll set in motion half a century ago. The person standing in front of that cake shop in the article, wondering whether to buy the cake (£10 is a bit steep for a fucking cake!) or donate the £10 to Oxfam (ditto) has a genuine choice and has genuine free will at that moment, even if he finds himself in a determined universe and his unchosen past caused him to be there at that moment.

By the way, I like Dennett's idea of creating some elbow room for yourself. Some of Strawson's arguments (e.g. that you have no control over whether or not you are the kind of person who could or would even want to achieve some elbow room) only relate to responsibility, not to free will. And like Dennett - really I'm just stealing his ideas and will follow him wherever his mind goes - I believe that we do have free will, even if we don't have absolute free will. It's enough that we have choices and can choose one or other of them. Whether we are determined by our unchosen past (and I'm sure we are) doesn't change that fact.

Having said all that, I will re-read the article, partly because it was so good and partly because I know it refuted, seemingly unanswerably, my claims to free will. I still feel he's missed something...but what?

Other Comments by keith

29. Comment #113758 by Alyosha on January 20, 2008 at 12:57 pm

It could be that our language has developed in part around the way we experience decision making, and that this freewill language has permeated our moral and legal discourse, providing a medium by which we come to agree, when we can, on how to distribute praise and blame. Indeed, the language of praise and blame, which incites people to assume the existence of freewill, might merely be the result of our 'languifying' our emotional responses of gratitude and indignation.

Participation in this language game does not imply that our experiences of decision making are actually experiences of our ultimate freedom of will. It does, however, incite people to make that assumption. When I have pointed out for people that the existence of freewill might be merely assumed, they have had trouble seeing how their corresponding language game could survive. I think they argue for freewill partly because they intuit (right or wrong) that their language tools would be incomplete without the language of freewill.

I think the theist might rebel also because she intuits a connection between the existence of God and that of freewill. After all, for them God is the soul of the universe. God thinks, God decides, God acts. So too we think, decide, and act. If our experience of our decisions is an illusion, if, for example, we are just biological computers unable to predict the results of our own calculations, then there is no part of us that is independent of the physical world and thus there are no metaphysical souls. Without souls, we have little hope for affecting a metaphysical God. What's more, our individual souls, as examples of unmoved movers, have been good evidence for the possibility of the Ultimate Unmoved Mover. And so if we have no freewill, then we have no soul. If we have no soul, then there is less hope of God.

Other Comments by Alyosha

30. Comment #114399 by always_out on January 22, 2008 at 6:42 am

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by the 'role' of free will, I don't think that it has a role except maybe in an evolutionary sense. Free will, or free choice, certainly plays a role in selection. But I think that free will would run counter to any notion of having a creed. Hence, to atheism, if considered as creed, free will would play no role.

I would say that I find free will essential to 'my' atheism, as to each of us individually, because it gives us the opportunity to ask questions and be critical thinkers. And when we see hubris put forth for any reason, free will gives us the opportunity to disagree and confront it.

Other Comments by always_out

31. Comment #115091 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Free will to me means an opportunity to continually improve my understanding of the real world; and act optimally based on that understanding. In short the essence of free will is not about the variety in my behavioral choices, but the level of intelligence that goes into my opinions, decisions and actions.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

32. Comment #115783 by omrsafetyo on January 24, 2008 at 7:12 pm

To me this question is actually much more realistic as secular person.

A Judeo-Christian person really cannot argue that there is free will according to their religion. If God is all-knowing, then there simply is no free will. If there is free will, then God simply is not all knowing. I think we all know how this argument goes, and if not, then simply think critically on the matter, and the logic will come to you.

As an atheist, this question has much more possible answers.

Perhaps there is no free will, and we live in a purely deterministic world.

Perhaps there are varying degrees of free will; an emergent property of the combination of the traits "inherent interest" and "observation capability" - and we just happen to be the agents most successful at avoiding determinism.

Perhaps free will is a built in function of the universe, and order arises as a property of free will.

Any of these options are certainly viable, but I think personally that free will is an emergent property of deterministic learned behaviors. There are obviously inherent, genetically determined "good" and "bad" things. As we become self-aware (and I believe this precedes free will), we learn to interpret which situational outcomes are conducive to desired (good)results. This is the observation capability. As this talent develops, behavior self-modifying agents are capable of adapting their behavior to that which is desired (still mostly deterministic - also known reflexes), OR more importantly, to be plastic based on predictive ponderance; that is: acting rationally to control behavior based on expectations of which actions will produce which outcomes - free will.

Other Comments by omrsafetyo

33. Comment #124034 by rationalchurch on February 8, 2008 at 7:42 am

The term “free will� means absolutely nothing in the first place. Free from what? Something has to account for our decisions. We can’t have something that cannot exist. A will free from all determining factors is not free, it’s impossible. There are reasons why we make decisions which are traceable to what we’ve inherited and to what we experience. We have a purposive will, there is no such thing as a free will; the very term makes no sense.

Other Comments by rationalchurch

34. Comment #125220 by ghost of numf-el on February 11, 2008 at 4:48 am

Atheism itself says nothing about free will. Merely about the lack of an intelligent creator.

Therefore every atheist will have their own answer to the question, and I will not second guess them. All I can do is to give my own answer.

My belief is that there is no God, nor Gods. There is no supreme being. Therefore there is no-one or nothing to pre-determine my day to day existence (with the possible exception of my wife :) ).
i.e. we have free will, because there is no viable option.
Therefore we each have to accept responsibility for our actions and our inactions.

If, however, I am way off the mark, and there is a God, and freewill is only an illusion, then everything I have done wrong is Gods fault. I have followed his plan for me, and I expect to be rewarded for it.

No, not the pits!
But you told me to ........

Other Comments by ghost of numf-el

35. Comment #125748 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 12, 2008 at 1:30 am

the real question is: "what is the role of free will to a theist"
following the premise that god is omnicient and there is nothing he doesnt know, then a person cannot make a decision god didnt know he would make, therefore all decisions are known in advance as well as the decision they would ultimately make, thus that person would have no free will at all, since its all predetermined in god's divine plan.
therefore:
if god is omnicient then man has no free will; if man has free will then god is not omnicient.

atheists have no such hang up, and though there is no single unifying belief amongst atheists, there is one thing they dont believe in...a divine creature who has decided everything that will happen.
other matters vary by philosophical beliefs.

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

36. Comment #133253 by Corey Hill on February 26, 2008 at 1:34 am

Well i dont realy beleve in Free will i think it was just an excuse that mad religous (persons) made up to acount for the fact that not evrey one beleievs. I beleve the chocies we make are determend by the enviroment round us and how geans wich make us. It apears we have free will but it dosent mater what choices we are going to make because it has already happend.

Other Comments by Corey Hill

37. Comment #141959 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 1:21 pm

How else should life be?

We either have free will, or we don't. Whether there is or is not a God, the issue is the same: we either have free will or we do not. Some Christian denominations believe in predestination, as do other religions.

God has either given us free will, or we are born with it despite the non-existence of God. Or, God predestines us, or we are born with our futures mapped out without a God. Whether there is a God can tell us nothing of the likelihood of free will actually existing (unless God shows us what reality is somehow).

Whether or not there is a God, we may only be under the impression that we have free will, when in fact we do not. It sure seems like we have free will. It looks like we do. But then again, as Wittgenstein might have asked, how would it look if we didn't have free will?

It boils down to this - the atheist uses his head to come to a decision of what the universe is like (free will or no free will). A theist uses his head to come to a decision about how God made the universe (free will or no free will). Some atheists may think there is free will, and some might not. Some theists think that God made free will, and some might not.

The difference is that the theist cedes the responsibility to God. The theist then says what he thinks God did (other theists differ). So, the theist thinks that he has some anchor to certainty, when in doubt that certainty is simply an avoidance of the question.

The theist decides which God he wants to follow, and then accepts all that follows from that single choke-point. The atheist takes it on a case-by-case basis.

Other Comments by prospero811

38. Comment #161273 by jpollard on April 15, 2008 at 5:04 am

What is 'Free Will'? That is a very 'relgious' term at best. A Will, that might be free? Excuse me????

Other Comments by jpollard

39. Comment #172708 by DanDare on April 30, 2008 at 12:54 am

To my mind "free will" describes the unfettered working of the mechanisms of my mind. This mechanism exists regardless of whether it is part of a deterministic physics or not. Chaos theory shows that it is unpredictable regardless of having an underlying deterministic physics. Quantum Physics suggests that it does not have a deterministic physics (at least in any "single world" theory of QP.) since quantum fluctuations may work, via the butterfly effect, to produce unpredictable results in the working of my neural network.

Making decisions and holding opinions are not under the direct control of material entities outside of my neural net although chemistry introduced into my body can alter the underlying perceptions and operating mechanism.

Right and wrong are assessments that appear in my neural system and other peoples neural systems may hold me accountable for those assessments.

Other Comments by DanDare

40. Comment #173580 by DanDare on April 30, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Edward DeBono style provocation here, a statement designed to be used for moving forward, not for evaluating.

PO Free Will is that mechanism that allows our single world awareness to choose which of the many quantum alternatives to experience.

Other Comments by DanDare

41. Comment #177733 by SimonPengelly on May 9, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Comment #125748 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 12, 2008 at 1:30 am
the real question is: "what is the role of free will to a theist"
following the premise that god is omnicient and there is nothing he doesnt know, then a person cannot make a decision god didnt know he would make, therefore all decisions are known in advance as well as the decision they would ultimately make, thus that person would have no free will at all, since its all predetermined in god's divine plan. therefore:
if god is omnicient then man has no free will; if man has free will then god is not omnicient.

But science currently tells us that time started when the universe began (carefully avoiding words like 'created'). So, God is presumably independant of the physical universe and hence outside of our constraint of time. The human brain finds it difficult (at least mine does) to understand either infinity or being "outside time" but a logical corollary is that God can be both omniscient and omnipotent whilst enabling free will in humanity that is independant of any pre-destination or 'pre-knowledge' - because they both imply time-constraints.

Other Comments by SimonPengelly

42. Comment #177776 by LouWeeGee on May 9, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Historically, I see the concept of freewill being developed in early Christianity as it tried to establish concepts that set it apart from Roman mythology. In contrast to being the 'play things of the gods', where man had no control, early Christians defined their belief as having freewill. The word simply means the ability to exercise choice. Using their concept of freewill, the early Church proclaimed that one decides to accept Jesus as their savior. As with most patterns in belief thinking, consistency is not required. Once freewill led to belief, one was required to relinquish it and allow the Church to make their choices for them. Freewill also disappears when one is under Satan's spell, as it contradicts the established story pattern in this scenario.

Ironically, Christian freewill/choice was to be predicated on knowledge, specifically knowledge of Jesus Christ. When one obtained the knowledge of Christ, they would exercise their freewill/choice and accept him as their savior. I say ironically, as belief thinking is antithetical to knowledge. Christian freewill, based on knowledge, is only acceptable within the confines of what they determine to be knowledge. Hence, they work so diligently to obfuscate the knowledge we have acquired through scientific inquiry.

As an atheist, I had no freewill/choice in determining who I am. I didn't choose to enjoy reading, or choose my thinking style or patterns. However, knowledge does play a major part in my decision making. The more knowledge, the more choices. The more choices, the less likely one is going to choose to believe in fairytales.

Other Comments by LouWeeGee

43. Comment #177962 by SimonPengelly on May 10, 2008 at 4:29 am

It's clear that our 'decisions' are influenced by our previous experiences, personal characteristics and current circumstances. It's also clear that most people go through the process of using their mind to select between options available at the time and consciously ally themselves at that time with the choice made (even if it is or turns out to have been a bad choice).

So, is that 'choice' totally, 100% illusiory and merely a mechanistic bio-electro-chemical response: or is there an element of the "I" being, to an extent, independent from the physical existence and environs and able (even if the opportunity isn't always taken up) to make a real choice?

In practice, I personally go through life on the basis that "decisions" I make are real; even if heavily influenced by circumstances and background. If it's an illusion, it's a pretty effective one and I can't see that there's any point in going through life rejecting the opportunity to choose. However, if there isn't any free will, I would obviously just do what I had to do (and had to choose!) so there wouldn't be any difference!

Once there is understanding that free will exists, there is a consequent responsibility in using it; which leads to the issue of ethics.

Other Comments by SimonPengelly

44. Comment #184493 by Lemniscate on May 25, 2008 at 1:35 pm

We only think we have free will because we have imaginations, because we can imagine a plausible alternate succession of events to the one that has occurred.

This gives the post-hoc illusion that we could have swayed events on a different course through 'choice' alone, whereas it is the uncontrollable and not fully deterministic laws of physics which have caused the contingent events of our past.

Responsibility is merely an expedient to influence future events favourably, which is not a problematic concept for an atheist like myself, who's just along for the ride while it lasts.

Other Comments by Lemniscate

45. Comment #184499 by SimonPengelly on May 25, 2008 at 1:47 pm

If we only "think" we have free will and it's a "post-hoc illusion", then we're not in a position to influence future events expeditiously or not - we could only follow whatever uncontrolled 'laws' bring about

Other Comments by SimonPengelly

46. Comment #185081 by Reverend Never on May 26, 2008 at 9:53 pm

No "God" to pull our strings...last I checked, I am no beings puppet.

Other Comments by Reverend Never

47. Comment #185277 by SimonPengelly on May 27, 2008 at 10:55 am

Free Will:-
a) don't have
b) have

if 'a' then 'no problem, no choice, no discussion, no influence - fully-stringed'
else if 'b' then live life with choices
else error(syntax, meaning or logic)

But we can't have free will if there are only 'laws' of how matter and energy inter-relate. The only possible source of free will is of something not bound by those 'laws' that has "cut the strings".

Other Comments by SimonPengelly

48. Comment #186421 by CodeFingers on May 30, 2008 at 9:14 am

I have always thought of free will in terms of being able to make choices within our minds that can (but not necessarily do) affect our subsequent thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. I can choose to keep writing this post or to cancel it, for example.

Suppose that everything is deterministic, that everything that exists and everything that is happening in the universe was determined by the initial configuration of whatever became the universe at the time of or immediately after the Big Bang. Under that assumption, even the neurological processes that result in our emotions of angst about whether or not we may have free will, our thoughts and resultant discussions about whether we have free will and our feelings that we do have free will are all a result of what was predetermined by the configuration of the universe way before our existence in combination with all of the natural laws that govern it.

When I imagine how much knowledge would be required in order to predict what the future holds based on the idea of the universe being deterministic, omniscience is the only word I could use to describe it. Chaos theory shows how unpredictable even deterministic systems can be. Therefore, in the absence of our omniscience and in the presence of so much unpredictability even within the confines of our individual brains, I choose to see myself as having free will, even if all my choices are predetermined.

The omniscience/unpredictability combo along with the complexity of the human nervous system also make it extremely difficult for me to imagine that a control could be created for an experiment that would prove a human's decisions are predetermined.

Other Comments by CodeFingers

49. Comment #186534 by SimonPengelly on May 30, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Complexity and randomness certainly make it difficult for us to prove things - but don't affect the basic concept.

If we don't have free will, we just do and think what we have to; if we do have free will it can't have come from a system of cause-effect interactions that can be scientifically determined (it must derive from elswhere).

Choosing to see ourselves as having free will isn't an option. We either have it or we don't.

Other Comments by SimonPengelly

50. Comment #187469 by VincentStasik on June 2, 2008 at 7:34 am

An interesting idea that I have pondered and have been unable to answer: If we, as humans, are able to create a free willed or conscious computer, and then turn off that computer, is that consciousness afforded the same opportunity of transcendence by the world religions?

There are many issues revolving around a self conscious computer, but in this instance, I am specifically interested in the religious implications of such consciousness. If this free thinking computer chooses to accept the idea of god, will that computer be permitted, by human created religion, the affor mentioned ability of transcendence? In advertently I believe this question and its answers will add to the debate on abortion.

My understanding is that free will is required to profess ones beliefs and therefore be accepted or given the ability to trancend after death, specifically, because theists argue god gave us this ability. Will this be granted to a free willed conscious artificial intellegence?

This is a question I would like to be asked in debates by Professor Dawkins. The few christians I have asked have given one of two answers, "I don't know" or "Artificial intellegence is man made and therefore cannot be permitted to heavin."

Hopefully this is a question worth spreading and an idea worth debating.

Other Comments by VincentStasik