• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Free Will perhaps not dead?

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I've yet to see a viable definition of the term 'free will'. But it is an interesting article. I had seen that 'action potential' argument used (I didn't think it really went that far), so it is interesting to see it debunked.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked

Even if this is hardly the only aspect that has seemingly condemned Free Will, I have always been suspicious of such evidence, since we just do not know enough about the workings of the brain yet.

Comments?

I think such studies are worthwhile to learn why humans make the choices they do, but I tend to see "Free Will" as an exclusively religious notion. "Free Will" is essentially used as a justification for God to send people to Hell. That's mainly why I don't believe in it.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I've yet to see a viable definition of the term 'free will'.
This.

The term "free will" is quite vague. On the one hand, it can be used as a placeholder for all that we don't know about human motivation. That's a lot, we do not know much about why we choose what we do, especially the stupid and destructive choices we are so prone to make.

On the other hand, it seems that the primary use of the term is to plaster over the Problem of Evil. Why won't God talk to everyone? Why is there so much suffering and idiocy in the world if God is omnimax and benevolent? Free will is a conveniently vague term that can give the illusion of having answers to such questions, when in fact you don't.
Tom
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked

Even if this is hardly the only aspect that has seemingly condemned Free Will, I have always been suspicious of such evidence, since we just do not know enough about the workings of the brain yet.

Comments?

This is why the wise man doesn't believe every popularized notion supposedly based on science.
I'm glad that scientists and philosophers are going discuss the meaning of free will more deeply. Maybe they can come to a deeper understanding of what consciousness is while they are at it.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked

Even if this is hardly the only aspect that has seemingly condemned Free Will, I have always been suspicious of such evidence, since we just do not know enough about the workings of the brain yet.

Comments?
The experiment has nothing to do with free will, or philosophy in general.

Free will is self-determination. It is often mistaken as some thing inside of us (a "self") that determines what we do, but that's just a realist interpretation. "Self' is none other than the things we do. Since it is not some thing inside of us making us do things (which would be determination, not self-determination), it is not contradicted by things outside of us making us do things (experimenters).
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Of course you were completely free to post or not post that OP.

As soon as I saw it I knew I had to - so probably not. Always willing to poke people in the eye. :D

I'm mostly a believer in free will actually - well at least to the extent of having a belief that I do have control over my own behaviour. The brain timings I have always been a little suspicious about but my knowledge (and my ability) has left the matter up in the air. Likewise, the philosophical proofs of determinism also don't convince me entirely - and where too I lack the ability to know for sure.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
The experiment has nothing to do with free will, or philosophy in general.

Free will is self-determination. It is often mistaken as some thing inside of us (a "self") that determines what we do, but that's just a realist interpretation. "Self' is none other than the things we do. Since it is not some thing inside of us making us do things (which would be determination, not self-determination), it is not contradicted by things outside of us making us do things (experimenters).

The brain timings were used as an argument that events happened before we consciously knew about them though. Which some seemed to use against free will.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
As soon as I saw it I knew I had to - so probably not. Always willing to poke people in the eye. :D

I'm mostly a believer in free will actually - well at least to the extent of having a belief that I do have control over my own behaviour. The brain timings I have always been a little suspicious about but my knowledge (and my ability) has left the matter up in the air. Likewise, the philosophical proofs of determinism also don't convince me entirely - and where too I lack the ability to know for sure.

I am quite happy knowing that i can turn left, right or walk straight ahead when i go out of the front door.

Sure, sometimes its to go the shop. I turn left, others i will just walk where my feet take me
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
One thing I find surprising is how people debate about "free will" without actually defining it. In my experience, everybody "knows" what it means, unless you can get them to think about it.

The only notion of "free will" that I think makes any sense at all is compatibilism but a surprising number of people refuse to accept that it counts.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Which is also not contradicting free will.

It may not be, but as per the article, few of us having any interest in such matters will not have come across this as an argument against free will:

Today, the notion that our brains make choices before we are even aware of them will now pop up in cocktail-party conversation or in a review of Black Mirror. It’s covered by mainstream journalism outlets, including This American Life, Radiolab, and this magazine. Libet’s work is frequently brought up by popular intellectuals such as Sam Harris and Yuval Noah Harari to argue that science has proved humans are not the authors of their actions.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
It may not be, but as per the article, few of us having any interest in such matters will not have come across this as an argument against free will:

Today, the notion that our brains make choices before we are even aware of them will now pop up in cocktail-party conversation or in a review of Black Mirror. It’s covered by mainstream journalism outlets, including This American Life, Radiolab, and this magazine. Libet’s work is frequently brought up by popular intellectuals such as Sam Harris and Yuval Noah Harari to argue that science has proved humans are not the authors of their actions.
Is there some significance in that choice (all choice, by the way) happens unconsciously? It's still self-determination.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Is there some significance in that choice (all choice, by the way) happens unconsciously? It's still self-determination.

Sure, why not?
The unconscious is still part of you. The decisions made by the unconscious you may not be aware of but it is still you.

Consciousness is only a small part of the brain. Still this conscious part thinks it is in charge. Realistically I think our conscious awareness has only limited control over our choices whereas actually we have the unconscious self making most of our choices for us.

Free will, the ability to decide between alternate courses of actions. Maybe the the unconscious mind is simply making the majority of these choices for us. Only the choices that need special attention rise to the level of conscious awareness.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Sure, why not?
The unconscious is still part of you. The decisions made by the unconscious you may not be aware of but it is still you.

Consciousness is only a small part of the brain. Still this conscious part thinks it is in charge. Realistically I think our conscious awareness has only limited control over our choices whereas actually we have the unconscious self making most of our choices for us.

Free will, the ability to decide between alternate courses of actions. Maybe the the unconscious mind is simply making the majority of these choices for us. Only the choices that need special attention rise to the level of conscious awareness.
Consciousness is a state, not a thing (unconsciousness doubly so). There's no thing "the unconsciousness" that "makes choices for us," that's the language of determinism (something acts upon "self") and the thinking of realism (unconsciousness exists objectively).

Free will is nothing more controversial than us doing things.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Consciousness is a state, not a thing (unconsciousness doubly so). There's no thing "the unconsciousness" that "makes choices for us," that's the language of determinism (something acts upon "self") and the thinking of realism (unconsciousness exists objectively).

How would you know. It's about 95% of the brain acting, doing things you are not consciously aware of.

Contrary to what most of us would like to believe, decision-making may be a process handled to a large extent by unconscious mental activity. A team of scientists has unraveled how the brain actually unconsciously prepares our decisions. Even several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain.
Decision-making May Be Surprisingly Unconscious Activity
 
Last edited:
Top