Free Will: a concept at the core of philosophy since the good ol' Socrates days (remember them?). In Western Philosophy it was introduced by the old Soc man, elaborated on by Aristotle (The Philosopher, as Aquinas called him), and sealed into Christian theology by Thomas Aquinas himself. Free Will basically refers to the idea that people have the ability (the right? the mandate?) to control the twin steeds of desire and passion (as Plato would have it), to turn away from sin (as Christianity would have it), or to overcome our moral history (as Nietzche would have it). It's ingrained in our culture and in our mindset--indeed it may be foundational to the very idea of making a decision.

Along the way, however, there were always detractors, and none in our modern world have been so influential as the great psychologists. "Free Will? Hah!" says Freud. "Who are you to choose," he might say, "when you are so driven by your drives--a drive for sex, a drive for aggression, a drive for death?" "Free Will? No way!" says BF Skinner. "You are nothing more than the sum total of your actions, actions which are completely conditioned by learning through association or through punishment and reward." Cognitive psychologists argue that our brains are nothing more than sophisticated computers, taking in immeasurable amounts of data, punching some numbers, and throwing out some output that just seems "human." And psychology textbooks around the world hold that psychology, that is, the study of human thought, behavior, and emotion is a science and thus humans, like all other objects of scientific inquiry follow laws of nature (not free thinking human "wills"). Human behavior is thus empirically knowable, predictable, and controllable.

So what do you say? Do you freely date that cutie from your science class? Or is it because (s)he unconsciously reminds you of your parents?

You're free to decide. Or are you?

Well, I certainly like to belive that I have free will, its a comforting tought, but beyond that I'm not to certain. I would say yes, that we do have free will, for, as a whole, we react differently to the same situation presented to us, even if one outcome is favorable. I think its the feeling that we can react differently that makes "free thought" and thus equating to "free will".

I think free will does exist.

psycholopher you know freud better...

If we truly are a slave to our passions and subconscious impulses, why is it that two people, who are biologically only 2% different, will come up with different approaches to solving the same problem? Heck you can expand the test field and I'd be willign to wager if you do it with a group of five, assuming none of them see the other solving the problem that each person would come up with a slightly different solution to the problem.

What would Frued say about that? is it because of Free will that we decide how to solve that problem? Or are the impulses and drives that drive us that different in each of us to allow that many different solutions to the same problem?

The differences occur because no two people have exactly the same biological, environmental, sociological, AND psychological history.

The drives might be conceived of something like a very basic source of energy, which take their shape according to those very biological, environmental, sociological, and psychological influences. So no two people do the same thing. But that doesn't mean that they're FREE to do anything.

I mean think about it. You can probably trace most of your decisions back to some desire/drive. And in fact, you probably can NOT will yourself to do something that you have absolutely no desire to do.

This gives me an interesting idea. I do most certainly believe in free will, largely because of what lack of free will would entail, especially pertaining to my religious beliefs. But I largely agree with you about being slaves to our drives. We are bound to our earthly desires, we are "slaves to sin", as the Bible says. And by our own power we cannot escape these drives. One of the biggest reasons why people don't want to become Christians is that they don't want to completely give up their lives to God. They want to be free. Yet the Bible tells us that we can only be truly free in Jesus. Perhaps by our own power we cannot escape our earthly drives, we are bound to the flesh, as it were. Only through God, who transcends logic, is "free will", or freedom from sin, possible.

I feel that our thoughts and actions are determined by a strange mix of free will and response to the drives. First, the will is a mysterious thing to begin with. I can will myself to dart my eyes from left to right, but I can also tell myself to do so without willing it. It is obvious that a good portion of our conscious lives are carried out without willful intent--breathing, for example. Do we will the things that we think about? I don't think so exactly. But to an extent we can. If I'm thinking about my second grade teacher when I'm sleeping with my girlfriend, I can sort of will myself to focus on my girlfriend. I'm not completely a slave to my thoughts/drives.

Nevin argues that we are completely slave to sin, and that we find freedom in God. There are parallels to this oddly enough in Freud (the famous atheist) and Buddhism (the famous atheistic religion). Let's say God is truth, which many believe. Well Freud would argue actually that there is a sense of freedom, or at least the FEELING of "liberty" when one digs into the unconscious to discover the source of enslavement. Likewise, Buddhism advocates an awareness of attachments in order to become detached from all that enslaves us. In both these traditions, it seems that the truth truly sets us free.

In a way, freedom and determinism co-arise and are co-dependent on each other. They are useful for each other. Imagine if nothing was determined for you--if you had to will yourself to breathe, will yourself to think, will yourself to look around, will yourself to scratch when you had an itch, will yourself every second of every day. It would be chaotic. That some actions/thoughts are "taken care of," as it were, allows us to spend precious energy choosing and willing things that are much more important. Free will in this sense arises from all that is determined. Conversely, I think, free will at times can cause other things to be determined. For example, I am facing the decision either to jump off the bridge into the water, or to stay on the land. If I choose to jump off the water, a path is suddenly determined. I cannot in mid-air suddenly will myself to walk to the store and buy a bathing suit.

In this sense, I personally have always found the free will/determinism debate a bit boring in philosophy. But... I thought I'd bring it up anyway:)

I have no free will, I forced to fight american pigs, by there sickening attacts on free people

Uncalled for spam. Do not do it again.

If we agree with the matrix we have free will. We have already made the choices and we are here to understand why we made them. No one can see past the choice they dont understand

And what do you use for the basis of this thought? Why do you hold this to be true?

That is simply the philosiphy of the matrix. Not my point of view. Free will is an option invented by those in power to blind those who are not

Yes, I know. But what makes you belive that to be true? Because it was in a pop culture movie? No, of course not, but what makes you belive it, and why?

I find it more believable than any other religion. I do not believe in the film, but the theory

But....why, and on what basis?

Listen, we've estalbished that you belive that, cool. No need to beat a dead horse, I ask you why do you do that, why do you belive that? What in your life has made you belive that? Why, why, why.

I have no real basis, just have no basis for believing any religion, they just do, or they were brain washed by the pope

Actually, on the matter of relgion, or lack there of, most people have reasoning behind it. If you don't belive it, chat with Nevin about it.

Stating what you said is just a way to brush aside what you stated, you have no basis for your ideas. Thats fine, but just say it :rolleyes:

I'd like to believe that I have free will, and that I'm not being completely dictated by some outer force in inner desire. I think the fact that we can override some of our predetermined actions establishes the fact that one some level, we have free will. Psycholopher gave the example of the predetermination to scratch and itch. We can, for whatever reason, choose to ignore the itch, thereby imposing our will on the preset action.

That being said, our free will can't defy the laws of gravity. Psycholopher was correct in saying once we leap off a bridge we cant will ourselves back up to go purchase swimwear. We dont have the willpower to alter physics.

I believe in free will up to a point. We are driven by our unconsious thoughts in some part, though. Some of the time we can override these urges and some times we can't. Like if we get really really mad at someone and attempt to kill him. Part may have been trying to hold back but was overwelmed by anger.

Is anger in this case "willing" the action?

Meh, I'm still a beliver than anger and fear and most other emotions can be kept in check. If you act on your anger, that is somthing that you are doing.

Henry David Therou said that "Man is the artificer of his own happiness". I do belive that hits the full range of emotions, not just happiness.

And what of something like heroin addiction, which typically requires some physiological treatment (someone locking them in a room, methadone maintenance treatment). Would you say that even heroin addicts are perfectly free to stop whenever they want?

People do stop don't they?

I would not dare to say it is easy, but via strong will power (and possibly help from others) people can kick things like that. Someone who is hooked on drugs can kick it.

However, we must understand that alot of people in anyt "negitive situation" (i.e. drugs, abusive relationships, etc) do get somthing out of that. Well, come to think of it, not nessecary a negitive situation, all situations, but yea. Attention, pity, happiness, they get somthing, even if they do not wish to admit.

I do belive we should aid people who require, but no matter what aid we give people, it is, in the end, them that overcome somthing. Not us. Not us and them. Them.

It's interesting that we're talking about addiction.

First of all, not all people recover from addiction. Many die from it. So no, in the history of the war of the will against the drug, the drug often wins.

As for those that do recover, I agree that fundamentally it is up to the person to stop. However, I worked with addicts for about 5 months and it was quite interesting to hear how often they say that they were/are "powerless" to the drug.

In fact, according to those who are successful in conquering addiction, overcoming the drug is not a matter of will. And when one tries to beat the drug with will power alone, they will almost always fail.

AA and similar 12-step programs provide one of the most successful models to overcoming addiction. Let's look at a couple of the 12 suggested steps.

12 Steps

So even in this model, the will is not the key. Submission of the will to a greater power is.

Well then, I better not get addicted then eh? The whole submission thing was never my style, everything I've had to face thus far I've done through will power and the like.

Granted I've never been addicted to a hard drug, but all I can do is speak from personal XP.

No, better not to :)

Fair enough. That's all we can ask of anyone really.

Actually, I think we may have a problem here. How do we define "free will"?

I mean, most people would say the ability to make your own choices, but what does that mean?

Can free will mean that, when I reach a point where a decision must be made, it is decided through a completely random process, like rolling some dice? Say 1-3 means yes, 4-6 means no; but that can vary slightly based upon pre-existing emotional conditions or states, but there's still always a bit of randomness.

Or is that still not free will, because we're bound to whatever random-number-generator is in our head? Does free will mean something more, an ability to escape pure chance, to evaluate our choices? But what does that mean?

What is a choice?

You're exactly getting at the question originally posed.

Even if emotions and other internal forces can be ignored, what does it mean that a choice is "freely" made? Obviously, SOMETHING is making a choice, which means that the choice as a cause. If the cause is our "will," then what exactly is the "will" other than the brain? And is not the brain subject to biological/neurological phenomenon that it cannot control?

I'm a sociobiological determinist.

Free will exists on no level. I feel that the laws of physics mixed with our biology dictate our actions and thoughts. Physics comes into play enviornmentally. As you experience life those experiences get saved biologically and influence the equation. I think that we are only fooling ourselves by thinking that we have any real control over what we do.

I'm having a bit of trouble verbalizing my reasons. With time and maybe some questions I'll have it all down.

So if A murders B, would you say that "A" is not really in control of his/her actions?

Just what does it mean to be in control? For example, are you in control if no outside chemical influences are had? Your brain, etc. is still working just differently then before. Would we say someone who acts or thinks that way all of the time is out of control? Do you just need to think and act in order to qualify as being in control? I would go with the latter and so yes, the person would be in control.


I also went on to say something else but couldn't quite think enough to get it working so it's being left out.

Your quote.

I misstated what I wanted to say at that time.

Well psycholopher, I have read the begining post & my conclusion is that I don't personally give a sh** enough about the question to form a conclusion. Make of that what you will.

I'd be adpt to make from that statement that the idea of freedom isn't that important to you. Not in the deeper sense.

But is the statement proof of free will in itself?

Not at all.

On the one hand I chose not to bother considering the question. On the other I may have been conditioned not to engage it. Its actually unprovable which is why I chose that thought in the end because I wasn't in the mood for circular discussion.

You mean the electrical impulses and chemical solutions aren't at least strong evidence for the case which is determinism? I'd say it is provable that free will doesn't exist for we exist within the strict confines which are the laws of physics. Now, whether they are as we think they are or not is another matter entirely. What we do know though is that within the universe is a form of order.

I'd hardly say that determinism is proven. And even it was, why should that be motivation to believe it? In the sociobiological view of life, our beliefs have little to do with whatever happens to be true. You don't believe in determinism because it's true, you believe it because of the monistic "selfish gene" which is telling you that, for some reason or other, such a belief will help you propagate your genetic material. Perhaps such a belief gives you a feeling of intellectual superiority over indeterminists, which gives you a sense of self-confidence that helps you in your life. Whatever the case, your belief has nothing to do with it being true. If truth is irrelevant to belief, what does it matter whether the evidence supports it or not?

Then please provide us with some reasonable doubts for discussion.

Here's a question that doesn't exactly prove it but is something to think about nonetheless. If things aren't predetermined then why is it so damn easy to predict human behavior and come up with the same general reasons for why people act or respond as they do?

The answer is simply dependant on what you want out of life and out of society in general.

Assuming that truths aren't relative, yes this would be the case and I haven't argued otherwise.

Truth is only irrelevant to belief if you personally don't require some grain of truth to find it likable to a degree in which you want to think of it as being true. However in the case of my own views I clearly care what the truth is for my views have changed quite a bit over the years. It's simply a matter of why one cares about truth. So I ask, how is it relevent to this discussion?