Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

I agree with you last point, Len, regarding Alan's 'souls' theory and also I accept that in day-to-day living we operate as if our choices are free in terms of, say, choosing 'x' rather 'y' in getting through the events of each day.

However, I'm not sure that beyond viable mundane choices 'free will' isn't an illusory oxymoron of sorts, since 'free' implies no constraints and yet naturalism imposes some by default, and 'will' operates within those constraints relating to my current and preceding circumstances and my future options and of course the impact of external factors outwith my control.

In that sense I'm not sure I really have 'free will' in that constraints apply whether I like it or not and I am exposed to events and influences I can't control and may not even recognise or fully appreciate.

Gordon, no matter what events and influences prompt you to act in a certain way, you are never obliged to follow them ... you are always able to do otherwise if you decide so. That is free will.

The ability of choice of action is an evolved quality which must have enhanced our chance of survival and reproduction in some way in the past.

[torridon]

There can be no halfway house in this.  Either events are totally controlled by scientific determinism, in which case there can be no freedom of choice, or there is something which can have influence from outside the laws of science.  It is not just a matter of constraints, which implies boundaries, but total control over which nothing but the laws of science can dictate.

Either things are deterministic or they aren't but neither way affords the notion free will in the way you use it. A determined choice is not free, and a random choice is not purposeful.  By invoking souls and other realms of reality you are merely trying to sidestep the core logic problem of your position. Even if a decision is made by a magic green pixie who lives in another realm and ignores all laws of nature, a choice is still a choice and it is something that expresses a preference.  Your core problem is that a choice is something that cannot be free by its very nature. A choice is a consequence of a preference. If you then retort that we can choose what preferences to have in the first place (which we can't), then that is itself a choice which implies a prior preference. Infinite regress.

[Stranger]

You have missed my earlier postings which postulated that the quantum events which are perceived to have no apparent cause could be caused by something which is not detectable by current science.  So could human will, or God's will, have control over quantum events?  There is currently no way of proving this of course, but it is a possibility.

That doesn't make a jot of difference - even if something else (non-material, non-scientific) is making the choice and communicating it through quantum events or just magic. Whatever makes the choice has to do it somehow.

Just making it non-material and freeing from science doesn't change that at all.

In order to defend your assertion that it can't be done by the brain, you need to define how a free choice is made. What is the underlying process?

[Leonard James]

There can be no halfway house in this.  Either events are totally controlled by scientific determinism, in which case there can be no freedom of choice, or there is something which can have influence from outside the laws of science.  It is not just a matter of constraints, which implies boundaries, but total control over which nothing but the laws of science can dictate.

Alan, you are ignoring the power of evolution, which has produced free will. Genetic mutations and re-combinations are random, following no rules (as far as I know). Natural selection then decides those which are favourable for survival and reproduction.

The ability to observe and assess a situation, and then act on it one way or another must have arisen somewhere in our ancestry, and been selcted for because it had survival value.

[Stranger]

Gordon, no matter what events and influences prompt you to act in a certain way, you are never obliged to follow them ... you are always able to do otherwise if you decide so. That is free will.

Yes but the bit of you that decides to "do otherwise" still makes that decision somehow. You can't have a choice that is both undermined and not random.

Look, we are free to make choices in any number of ways. We can carefully balance advantages and disadvantages, we can examine our emotions and our values, consult our memories and experience, or we can act on a whim. We have evolved to be very sophisticated decision makers. For that reason I take the compatibilist view that we have (as Dennett puts it) the only form of free will worth wanting.

Nevertheless, if we take a "god's eye view", we are a system that takes inputs and produces outputs. The ingredients that go into the system can only be the initial conditions (genetics, or what sort of soul popped off the end of god's production line that day), subsequent experience and (probably) a random (or pseudo-random) element. There is nothing else - those things together produce the outputs (our actions).

That doesn't mean that we don't act according to who we are and using all the ways mentioned above. It's just that down in the intractable complexity of our brains (or souls, because that makes no difference) it is all determined or random.

Recommend book on the subject: Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting by Daniel Dennett

[Leonard James]

Yes but the bit of you that decides to "do otherwise" still makes that decision somehow. You can't have a choice that is both undermined and not random.

The usual reason that we make a decision is that we think it best in the given circumstances. The point is that we don't have to act that way, we have the free will to do otherwise.

[Stranger]

The usual reason that we make a decision is that we think it best in the given circumstances. The point is that we don't have to act that way, we have the free will to do otherwise.

You have to make a decision somehow; coming to the conclusion that "we think it best" has to happen somehow; our choice to "do otherwise" has to be arrived at somehow.

Decision making isn't magic. Again: you can't have a choice that is not determined and not random - it's a contradiction.

[Gordon]

Gordon, no matter what events and influences prompt you to act in a certain way, you are never obliged to follow them ... you are always able to do otherwise if you decide so. That is free will.

I think in day-to-day terms the choices we make, where there is more than one option, may well feel like free will in a practical sense but I'm uncertain that it really is. Not only are these choices constrained, such in being limited by the prevailing circumstances, by the actions of others or events we can't control, I'm not even sure that when I think I'm choosing freely there aren't some factors that influencing my impression that I'm exercising 'free will'.

Like everyone else I work on the basis that I am in getting through the day, but I'm not convinced that 'free will' isn't an oxymoron.

[Leonard James]

You have to make a decision somehow; coming to the conclusion that "we think it best" has to happen somehow; our choice to "do otherwise" has to be arrived at somehow.

Decision making isn't magic. Again: you can't have a choice that is not determined and not random - it's a contradiction.

We arrive at a decision by assessing the situation, and deciding which is the best option. It is not a foregone conclusion, but it is our own decision, even though it may well be the wrong one.

[Leonard James]

I think in day-to-day terms the choices we make, where there is more than one option, may well feel like free will in a practical sense but I'm uncertain that it really is. Not only are these choices constrained, such in being limited by the prevailing circumstances, by the actions of others or events we can't control, I'm not even sure that when I think I'm choosing freely there aren't some factors that influencing my impression that I'm exercising 'free will'.

Like everyone else I work on the basis that I am in getting through the day, but I'm not convinced that 'free will' isn't an oxymoron.

As it has no bearing on normal life, it is a moot point.

[Stranger]

We arrive at a decision by assessing the situation, and deciding which is the best option.

Yes.

It is not a foregone conclusion, but it is our own decision, even though it may well be the wrong one.

To the extent it is random, it is not "our own decision".

To the extent it isn't (in principle) a forgone conclusion, it is random.

[Leonard James]

Yes.

To the extent it is random, it is not "our own decision".

To the extent it isn't (in principle) a forgone conclusion, it is random.

How can it be random if it is the result of our assessment of the situation? If we decide to do something it is because we have thought about it, so it can't be a random action.

[Stranger]

I'm not even sure that when I think I'm choosing freely there aren't some factors that influencing my impression that I'm exercising 'free will'.

This is where the popular conception of free will breaks down. There is one huge and unavoidable factor that influences (determines) every single decision you make: it's called "you" and it is made up of your initial state (genetics) and all the subsequent experiences of life.

Would it be better to be 'free' of that?

[Leonard James]

This is where the popular conception of free will breaks down. There is one huge and unavoidable factor that influences (determines) every single decision you make: it's called "you" and it is made up of your initial state (genetics) and all the subsequent experiences of life.

Would it be better to be 'free' of that?

We are free of it ... nothing obliges us to take the decision we think is the right we one.

[Stranger]

How can it be random if it is the result of our assessment of the situation? If we decide to do something it is because we have thought about it, so it can't be a random action.

I didn't say it was random (or determined):-

To the extent it is random, it is not "our own decision".

To the extent it isn't (in principle) a forgone conclusion, it is random.

There are only randomness and determinism - choice has to be made up of some combination of them.

Randomness can't (as you said) be the "result of our assessment of the situation", so our assessment of the situation must be deterministic (albeit in an intractably complex way).

[Leonard James]

I didn't say it was random (or determined):-

There are only randomness and determinism - choice has to be made up of some combination of them.

Randomness can't (as you said) be the "result of our assessment of the situation", so our assessment of the situation must be deterministic (albeit in an intractably complex way).

I'm afraid such convoluted reasoning is beyond me. 

[Stranger]

We are free of it ... nothing obliges us to take the decision we think is the right we one.

No, we aren't. If you decide to make the decision to do what you don't think is "right", that is still you making that decision.

If you decide to flip a coin, that is still you making that decision.

You are trying to exclude everything from the you that makes the choice, if you do that there is nothing left that can make a choice.

You is a part of reality - the decision process happens inside it and it has to work somehow - it isn't magic.

[Leonard James]

No, we aren't. If you decide to make the decision to do what you don't think is "right", that is still you making that decision.

If you decide to flip a coin, that is still you making that decision.

You are trying to exclude everything from the you that makes the choice, if you do that there is nothing left that can make a choice.

You is a part of reality - the decision process happens inside it and it has to work somehow - it isn't magic.

Of course, but I can still choose one way or another.

[Stranger]

Of course, but I can still choose one way or another.

Yes - but the "I" in that sentence is an intractably complex decision making entity that, when we get down to basics, can only be a combination of deterministic and (pseudo-)random processes.

[Alan Burns]

Your core problem is that a choice is something that cannot be free by its very nature. A choice is a consequence of a preference. If you then retort that we can choose what preferences to have in the first place (which we can't), then that is itself a choice which implies a prior preference. Infinite regress.

What I mean by free will is that the originating event of a conscious choice is free from the constraints of deterministic chemical activity.  It has a cause which derives from the conscious will of the person.  You may well say that conscious will is entirely defined by materialistic science, but this will be an assumption because there is no scientific definition of human awareness.

[Stranger]

What I mean by free will is that the originating event of a conscious choice is free from the constraints of deterministic chemical activity.  It has a cause which derives from the conscious will of the person.  You may well say that conscious will is entirely defined by materialistic science, but this will be an assumption because there is no scientific definition of human awareness.

It has nothing at all to do with the constraints of "deterministic chemical activity" or "materialistic science", it's the constraints of logic that are your problem.

A decision that is not determined and is not random is a logical contradiction.

[Alan Burns]

Yes - but the "I" in that sentence is an intractably complex decision making entity that, when we get down to basics, can only be a combination of deterministic and (pseudo-)random processes.

A conscious choice is neither deterministic nor random but driven by the conscious free will of the person.

[Alan Burns]

Alan, you are ignoring the power of evolution, which has produced free will. Genetic mutations and re-combinations are random, following no rules (as far as I know). Natural selection then decides those which are favourable for survival and reproduction.

The ability to observe and assess a situation, and then act on it one way or another must have arisen somewhere in our ancestry, and been selcted for because it had survival value.

I fully agree with you, Len, that we have the ability to consciously choose which way to act.   But if we are totally comprised of what the evolutionary process can produce, we are limited by the constraints of scientific laws, which in effect determine which way we can act.  For our conscious self to have the freedom to choose, we need to look beyond the limitations of the laws of science.  You are halfway there Len.  I am sure you can go the extra step to realise that you have something within you which is not constrained by science.  You have the freedom to control your own thoughts and actions.

[Stranger]

A conscious choice is neither deterministic nor random...

That's logically impossible.

...but driven by the conscious will of the person.

The concscious will can only be a combination of deterministic or random.

[Alan Burns]

The conscious will can only be a combination of deterministic or random.

But the big question is this:
Is it scientifically determined or is it spiritually determined?