"Free Will"

[fccool]

This post should be as uncomfortable for me to write as for most people to read here, but I think it should be an important one for you to plow through when thinking about theological and religious issues, and it really has to do with human biology and the nature of this physical world, regardless of the "quantum uncertainty" position that can be injected here, because it doesn't fix this issue in any way.

So, here's the breakdown, and hopefully you can follow:

1)  Humans are physical beings that live in physical reality governed by physical laws
2)  At the higher-level of complexity, the physical reality seems to follow the common cause-effect laws.   There are no "uncaused events" at the higher level of organization of physical matter and energy, even if it may seem so at the lowest level.
3)  The patters at the higher level don't dictate what happens at the lowest level.   It seems to be the opposite.   The low level functionality seems to drive the higher level functionality of complex matter.

4) Human brain seems to be made of physical matter, and so is everything else comprising human beings

So, the above is decent enough foundation for the below, and plentiful science seems to confirm it:

1)  Our brain is a multi-level bio-computer that carries certain amount of pre-programmed material that functions independently of conscious activity

2)  It may be a surprise to people here, but our conscious brain is likewise formed by a series of "computational activity" of which conscious thought is a byproduct

3)  It seems that we are a result of our brain activity, and therefore our experience is more akin to watching a "film" of our existence, while believing that our conscious being is actively controlling and participating in choices and decisions, thus driving our being forward

4)  In reality, and scientific research seems to confirm it,  our conscious human experience is more like a roller-coaster ride, with added bonus of belief that whenever the coaster makes a turn, our conscious brain makes it look like it's not really running a program, but making at times arbitrary choices.

5)  In reality, choice is an illusion of complexity and acknowledgement of alternatives, yet the majority of our decisions are not made on conscious level, and our consciousness is a byproduct of computational (subconscious tasks), thus can't be the cause, but instead is a result.


I know it may be hard to digest and a very unsettling thought for some, but you don't have to think hard to realize that it's true.   I can demonstrate it very easily.

1)  Humans are born with pre-programmed mind when it comes to some basic subconscious function and instincts.   Wasn't our choice.
2)  We learn by injecting external information, that our brain structures as "connected tunnels" of neural pathways.   Not our choice.   It's something that happens as a result "pre-programmed" mind takes in and evaluates the environment as it develops and grows.
3)  These pre-established neural pathways end up interpreting our reality and dictating our conscious thought works relative to these established pathways.  Again, not our choice, although it may begin to seem so, when our mind informs us of the alternatives.
4)  The only way for establishing new information would be re-arranging the neural pathways, which generally happens through intake of information which is computed against the existing set.  Again, not our choice, because these "decisions", or computational activities work through established paradigms of subconscious processes.

5)  As hard for you to believe it, you are not in control of the above processes.   It's something that happens whether you like it or not,  a lot of times when you are not even aware of it consciously.
6)  Thus, "free will" is merely a product of the conscious awareness of the "undecided" alternatives as informed by our brain.

7)  We tend to think that conscious activity drives the subconscious, but do a little research and you'll see that scientific research doesn't support it.  When you consciously acknowledge to move your hand, your brain has already decided to do so for you prior.  When you consciously acknowledge that you'd like to say something, your brain has already decided that for you.  When you read something, you read it through the establish neural pathways of constrained semantic meaning, and you are unable to do so otherwise.   When you decide how to act in any given situation, these decisions are subconsciously per-computed for you based on your brain evaluating the environment and computing it against the established paradigm set in your brain.  You are not able to decide against what your brain decides for you as the valid choice.

The real question of substance here, is there any actual choices that you make as a human being based on your conscious and "unconstrained" evaluation of the alternatives, and the answer is "no".   You simply can't.

Let me explain. 

Let's say that you come across a difficult decision where you have to choose between A or B.   Believe it or not, but that choice has already been made based on pre-existing layers of "experience data" that inform your brain how to act in that situation, even when your brain has to make an educated probability guess.   If we trace your brain activity required to make such decision, it all boils down to pre-existing data that informs your brain how to act.  Even if you choose to throw a dice, such choice is determined by the pre-existing layers of snapshots in your brain as an example of what you should do in this situation, and is by no means driven by a conscious decision.  



 

[Wingnut]

Our eternal life depends on making the right choice through "free will".  Thus I choose Jesus.  The mechanism behind this choice, I don't think anyone on this planet can explain.  How the brain works is currently a mystery.

So for as long as I am under the delusion that I have free choice, I continue to choose Jesus.  I also choose to love Him, worship Him, be grateful to Him...

Edited October 6, 2015 by Tom Wetmore
Quote removed...

[jbal7]

I won't lie, this is a little beyond my specialty. I'm not a biologist or a doctor, but I can tell you this. You claimed "science" says this or that. Sciences says I came from a primoradial ooze and then evolved from an ape. Dosent mean I believe it. If our choices are based ONLY by previous expirence or pre existing layers; then why did Eve choose to eat the fruit? She had no previous expirence in this, she had never even sinned. Besides before that her and Adams choices were in harmony with God's will. If your post is true wouldn't she would have based her decision on all those previous expirences of obeying God?  Instead she did something that had never been done, at least not on Earth. Look at it this way, ALL her previous choices up until that point had been good ones. If we're basing that our choices on made on pre existing layers why did she do something so contrary to her previous pre existing layers?  

[phkrause]

Exactly jballew7 great post

[LoneRanger]

It seems you are making a distinction between "you"  and "your brain".  This distinction needs to be better established/documented, because as I see it, "I" am "my brain".  Without the brain one does not exist/??/...

So to imply that "I" try to make decisions contrary to "my brain" does not compute, because the one is the other.

Also, it seems you are assuming that "free choice" applies, or should apply to, ABSOLUTELY EVERY ASPECT of existence. If you can demonstrate that "free choice" does not apply to "situation A" then we have not "free choice" at all.  I, for one, would reject that premise.

Of course, like jballew7 said, ...this is [also] a little beyond my [expertise]. But curious, none the less.

 

Edited October 21, 2015 by Tom Wetmore
paraphrasing short quote of previous poster's comment...

[jbal7]

[fccool]

LoneRanger,

I make a distinction because "you"... and "your perception of you" is a product, or a function of the brain, and not the brain itself.   We make a distinction between computer and software.  Yes, technically "software" isn't really that soft, since it implies some altered state of hardware, but nevertheless there's an obvious distinction.

In the same manner, what constitutes "you" would be the function of the brain, and not the brain itself.

I'm not sure where I've assumed that free choice applies to absolutely every aspect of our existence.   It can't.   I argue that "free choice" doesn't apply to any aspect of our existence.   You'd have to demonstrate a single situation in our existence where a free choice concept applies and not pre-determined by chain of events that form that choice.   In short, you are a person who you are, and your actions are driven by your desires and expression of your character, which has been formed over a lifetime of education, and re-education.

I'll give you an example.   Let's say that you say, I knew a person who decided to quit smoking.  Obviously that constitutes free choice.   He clearly had a decision to make over a habit, and he made a choice, which constitutes an expression of free will.

"Free will" is a semantic trick, because it really tries to communicate that choice wasn't forced in some way.   But choice is a decision after a form of consideration.   And consideration process depends on pre-existing information as a form of education and understanding.    If existing information blocks any additional information, like what jballw7 is doing with saying that he doesn't really care about what science demonstrates, then there isn't really a choice.   In that person's mind he already decided.

In terms of the smoker who quit smoking, the decision has already been made by the "weight" of the "programmed values" that determine the outcome.   If you look at computers, these get to make choices all the time.   You wouldn't say that a computer has free will.   Computer goes through certain pre-existing logic, and spits out the decision that was pre-determined by pre-existing programming.   I'm sure that's not how you picture free will, but that's very similar to how our brain works.   It follows a program.

[jbal7]

I agree that we are made up by our past experiences and choices. However all I was saying is that I don't feel that those experiences Have to direct our choices. We may choose to rely on them. Learning from previous mistakes but I feel like we have a choice to do something completely contrary to everything we've ever done. Also, another point was that just because a scientist says something and that it's published in a scholarly paper dosent make it true. I'm not bashing science either, i love science. With respect I assume your getting your information from articles or teachers or something published. Have you done experiments on the brain? Or an autopsy? Connected electrodes to the head to obtain measurments? Maybe you have, I don't know. I'm just saying just because they say it dosent make it true. I bet their are other scientist well credited that have an alternative theroy. Like I said I'm not an expert and maybe I'm wrong, I'm not well versed on the physiology of the brain. Thank you for posting this. It's an interesting read

[fccool]

If those experience don't necessarily direct our choices, then what other mechanism is there?   We don't just make arbitrary choices, right?  Our brain is a solidified collection of experiences that constitutes our character and who we are.   These choices don't just fly out unfiltered, bypassing who we are.  Those experiences is how we learn things, and in term inform and direct our choices.   So, how can we act in accordance of who we are not?  That seems to be a philosophical contradiction, before we even get to scientific evidence of it.

[LoneRanger]

Sorry, fccool, but after reading and re-reading, thinking and re-thinking, you post, I have arrived at this conclusion: [What you are saying doesn't] make any sense at all [to me].

Edited October 21, 2015 by Tom Wetmore
Edited to soften ad hominem tone...

[Aliensanctuary]

I tend to agree with FC because our consciousness is more complex than meets the eye and that our decisions tend to be based on our many layers of experience. What really interests me is the possibility of the manipulation of our choices by external, as yet, undiscovered forces, likely telepathic. Do the forces of good and evil, such as "angels" and "demons" have the ability to influence our decisions based upon our susceptibility and inclination towards good or evil?

[Tom Wetmore]

It is the little things that count. We make choices on big things. But what drives such important choices is the accumulation of countless choices on many small things, related or not, that mold and form our will to decide at that momentous occasion.  Yes, it is inevitable that the person who  turns left a thousand times at the fork in the road is  going to "automatically" go left under the pressure of a "new" choice when the way is supposedly obscured and uncertain.  But what sort of choice does the person make who suddenly wakes up and devices to stop just going with the flow and turns and states swimming against the current of life, his heredity, his preprogrammed instincts?  To say that never happens makes it hard to explain the truly surprising and unexpected choices we make. Somethings can only be explained by free will.  Otherwise we are biological robots.

[jbal7]

Yes! Well said, Tom Wetmore How could we be forced to go one way Every time? I agree most of the time we act in our typical nature but the option to go against grain has to be there. Maybe I'm ignorant or in denial, but I believe in free will.

Edited October 18, 2015 by jballew7

[Tom Wetmore]

This is an intriguing topic, really.  If there is no free will, much of what we believe as Christians is perhaps meaningless.  And really the whole premise of this sub forum is fundamentally impossible.  Some have already attacked the idea that we can't have any original tho it's since there is nothing new under the sun, etc.  But I think we really need to analyze this more closely.  Think about it.  The process of thinking about it, brainstorming, creativity, invention, etc. is hard to see as all preprogrammed.

While indeed we are creatures of habit and learning is a process that builds on prior knowledge and experience.  But the fact that we can relearn and correct mistakes and break habits tends to undermine the premise that we are unable to choose freely.  Encountering completely new facts and circumstances and master the situation and create new experiences suggest a deeper level of cognition at work that isn't completely robotic.  Creativity and inventiveness to improve existing functions and realities of life also suggest that the human mind contains something beyond super computer processes that build on prior learning, experience, data, etc.  I think that creativity alone is a significant evidence of free will. 

But to me, the quest for artificial intelligence provides the strongest evidence that humans have something not technologically achievable. Free will?  The ability to create surprising and completely new things different from anything else ever known to mankind requires something more than super computing and preprogrammed responses to all data contained in the brain.  There is an element that technology is simply not able to replicate, even in the most advanced artificial intelligence.  Human intelligence creates AI and AI will always be artificial and cannot create beyond what it contains. Humans can.

[CoAspen]

While I agree with the above closing statement, there is the idea of 'self awareness' that floats around in the field of AI. That is the idea that AI could possibly learn to makes decisions based on new info gathered and change in place programming or cause the AI to be conflicted. We make changes in our thinking based on the continuing input of data and make a decision on future action. We can change or not change, what I see as 'free choice'. If AI could get to that level of decision making....then, is it not 'free choice'?

Considering the advances in science in my limited lifetime, I'm not sure I would rule out AI at some point in time being able to make those type of decisions, being artificial or not.

My ....thoughts....

 

 

 

[debbym]

Our will is strengthened with exercise, but we cannot free our will from what we have applied it to when we have willed to sin.  It is the supernatural grace and work of the Holy Spirit to inform us and free our will from service to selfishness when we become willing to place our will into the service of unselfishness.

Being a collaborator with God, we exercise our will to do His will when he frees it from sin, after he has enlightened us.  Then we may give up our desire to sin because we do not want it anymore.  And then our will is free to serve God.  And remains free to sin if we will to.

There is only an illusion of freedom of the will when we are slaves to sin.  It is merely...  which form is sin will we slide to "choose".  We are no longer free to  praise God or serve God or do His good Will.

[joeb]

By all metrics that you use, fccool, I should be an athiest/agnostic who hates Christianity, Ellen White, the SDA church, and all Christians.  However, I am not like that at all.  I see Christianity as the answer to all the world's problems.  I see Ellen White as a messenger from God.  I see the SDA church as a church set up by God, and I see Christians as a force for good in the world. 

I was abused by a family that claimed to be SDA Christians.  To this day I have no relationship with any of my family and that is because of their choice to view me as someone not worthy of any respect.  I was abused by those who used Ellen White as their justifcation for abusing me in many instances.  And, my abuse was often justified as the will of God because I wasn't like my family in temperament.  All of those things should make me bitter against everything that I hold dear in life.  The only possible explanation for that is free will.  I chose to research all these things myself.  To find out the truth about them for myself.  

In the world's view, which ignores the power of God, of course the only thing that matters is past experience.  It cannot, and does not want to, account for the miracle of God's grace which gives to every man the choice to follow God and be truly free, or the choice to follow the devil and be in bondage.  Since the entire world is in bondage to the devil it is no wonder they think free will is a myth.

[jbal7]

Joeb, I agree with post. Your overcoming the abuse is a great example of freewill. However I'm sorry to hear of your rough times. Glad to see you made it through the darkness and into the light.  I'm also glad that you don't bash the sda religion as a whole because those sda's wronged you.

[fccool]

I think there's a lot of confusion and discussion that boils down to misunderstanding what a free will is.

As I've mentioned before, a mere choice between two or more options does not constitute free will.    Computers choose things all of the time, and you could make a case that no-one really forces them to choose things either.  No one holds a gun to them and says "you choose this and not this".   They merely follow through the deterministic programming that ends up with a selection that was pre-determined by that programming.   The reason why there is no free will with computers, because there simply isn't a mechanism for computer to initiate unconstrained decisions.

With humans, you have a similar issue.   You guys simply state here that you have free will, because you chose God against odds, or because humans can create things.   BUT again, that's not what free will is.   Free will implies choices that are not constrained by external forces.

In order to say that we have free will, one must say how such feat is possible for a brain that operates in a realm of physical forces, and largely depends on chemistry and physics to function.

Sure, the appearance of free will is a necessary condition for our experience, but it doesn't however mean that your will is free and you could have decided otherwise.  

If you think that free will is a viable reality, then you would have to explain how it could be possible and what mechanism of the brain could deliver such an option.

 

[Tom Wetmore]

I think you are correct that a major obstacle to this discussion is a lack of understanding of really what free will is.  But that I think that is quite universally and all inclusive to all participants here.  The struggle is not helped by the apparent attempt to impose an individualized definition to fit ones own theoretical objective in the discussion while failing to give open minded consideration to other possibilities  as being at least partially just as plausible.  

To move meaningfully toward understanding one needs to dispense with the arrogance of not considering the possibility of being wrong.

[fccool]

 

I'm not quite sure that it would be a fair description of my approach to the subject.   I'm very well interested in both semantic meaning of this subject, as well as the implication of either case.  I'm likewise very interested in being proven wrong, especially since I very much prefer the idea of us being in charge of our decisions.  Unfortunately, very much with certain view here there's a rather backwards approach.  It goes by the lines of -  If X is real, then it would be devastating to Y, therefore I can't possibly accept it... and I don't think it's an honest approach to reality of any subject matter.

As I've mentioned,  if there is a mechanism for free will I would be very much interested to know what you guys think it is.  Sure, because you can't provide a viable mechanism... doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist.   BUT, given what we know about causal nature of our reality there seems to be evidence that points in a direction that would indicate that we are a product of a deterministic brain, which is comprised of deterministic molecular mechanisms driven by chemistry and physics.   In fact, I think the alternative would be that we are able to somehow bend the laws of causality by some unexplained mechanism that we invoke magically when we decide.   I'm merely asking what that mechanism would be?

[Tom Wetmore]

I think perhaps therein is the essential problem.  I don't think we understand how the brain works enough to even be able to define what freedom of choice, or free will, if you prefer or what mechanism is even involved.  There is a universe of things between our ears about which we really have but the most rudimentary understanding.  I am not prepared based on the current evidence to make any firm conclusion of where the boundaries are between what may well be the product of some physiological deterministic process in the brain and what remains more than a little mysterious as to why people do some really surprising and out of the ordinary things that defy any known rubric of rationality or predictability.

[fccool]

Tom, you are committing a couple fallacies in your thought process here.   I'm not saying it to shut you down, but merely because I thought you may be interested to know it.

1)  There are different levels of understanding, and especially experimental understanding.   For example, at the basic level, you can understand that if you press a red button on your remote... it will turn on a TV.   That's a macro-functional understanding.   If you didn't know anything else about the inner-workings of the TV, you can deduce that there are mechanisms inside that perform that basic function and that it's not some invisible force that does it for you and merely coincides with you pressing the button.   There's a cause-effect paradigm that can be tested.

Then, there's schematic understanding for people who put the TV together.  They understand that what individual parts may do and how these function, even though they don't understand the deeper physical mechanisms behind these parts.

Then, there are physicists that understand the ratio-based applied physics behind the inner-workings of transistors, LED lighting and etc.   But, they wouldn't completely understand the underlying reality behind mechanisms that drive these functions.

At every step there is some basic understanding and deduction that can be made when it comes to certain cause-effect relationship of how TV works.   A person who presses a button on the remote can't claim that a magical gnomes light up his TV screen, simply because observations from reality make such conclusion highly unintuitive. 

Thus you are making a composition fallacy here.   Just because we don't know how individual parts and some deeper inner-workings of the brain function,  we know quite a bit about how brain works.    We already able to decode the signals coming from visual and auditory parts of the brain and re-reproduce them visually and audibly back into images and sounds.   There are numerous discoveries have been made about how our brains relate and store information, and how they recall these.   We don't completely understand, but we have a fairly good overarching understanding.

2)   Just because we don't understand something completely, doesn't make any room for the alternative conclusion that doesn't logically flow out of what we generally observe to be hiding in the dark recesses of our lack of understanding.   That's not how we live our lives generally.    We generally side with things that we do know, instead of conclusions based on what we don't know.   Making a conclusion based on what we don't know is called an argument from ignorance fallacy.  

For example, to take the SNL example... yes, we've landed on the surface of the Moon, and it's not made of green cheese, but we didn't dig to find out, therefore there's no conclusive proof that the moon isn't made of green cheese.  Therefore, the moon is merely a green cheese encrusted in rock!

 

What I'm pointing to is that the general idea of "free will" is both scientifically and philosophically counter-intuitive.   We may pragmatically hold people accountable for their actions, just like we see a broken car to be undesirable and in need of some fix... but morally, one would have to be able to argue conclusively instead of out of ignorance and lack of knowledge.   We can't simply state "X is right, because we don't know that it can't be right", because such presupposition thinking will continually retreat to the recesses of our knowledge, and that's not how we tend to make our decisions and evaluations of any given proposition.

I just think that one has to be able to provide better defense for one's belief than "We don't really know, therefore I can safely hold on to what we don't know yet".

[JoeMo]

This is an interesting topic.  I just spent some time googling "free will and biology" and "physiology of free will"  There are many biologists and psychologists that support fc's theses.  Many of them pointed to the relationship between the basal ganglia and free will. I am not even a base ameteur (much less an expert) on physiology, phsychology, and/ot neurology, so I won't even pretend to regurgitate what these articles said (Ididn't understand most of them); but there seems to be considerable clinical evidence that supports fc's premise.  I'm not saying I swallow it hook line and sinker; but I can't totally dismiss it as "heresy", either. Like others have stated, we are complex beyond understanding.

[BobRyan]

I saw the "Free Will" title and thought I would just scan the thread to make sure no Bible texts were included - sure enough ... all is as designed.  But it might make a good topic for one of the other forums where Bible texts are allowed..

 

something to think about  --