The free will argument

[9-10ths_Penguin]

how so?

Because computers decide things. That's really all they do.

Whether we're talking about your computer deciding which pixels on your screen should be which colours, or a car's powertrain control module deciding which gear the car should be in, or a plane's autopilot deciding what the throttle setting should be, all computers do is make decisions based on the information they're receiving.

 

[leroy]

If an omnipotent god already knows what you're gonna choose, I'd say that your choice, while it "feels" free, is actually not free--the sense of freedom is illusory. But I suppose whether it is really free or not depends on your definition of "free will." I always thought free will meant having the power to change your fate or the future, which, if a god exists, by definition cannot exist because the future already exists in the mind of God.

I know that this is a common objection, but it really doesn't follow.


How do you go from
Premise 1 God knows what you are going to do

Premise 2, premise 3 etc..... ?

Therefore free will is not real

 

[leroy]

Because computers decide things. That's really all they do.

Whether we're talking about your computer deciding which pixels on your screen should be which colours, or a car's powertrain control module deciding which gear the car should be in, or a plane's autopilot deciding what the throttle setting should be, all computers do is make decisions based on the information they're receiving.

Again computers are fully contained by codes, algorithms etc....

 

[leroy]

I have reason to believe that creatures with free will exist, but there is absolutely zero verifiable evidence that some god being is requires for creatures to have free will.

Ok granted, you don't need God necessarily to explain free will, but you need a metaphysical (non material) entity that may or may not be God...... agree?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again computers are fully contained by codes, algorithms etc....

Kinda sorta. I'm not sure I would call a neural net a code or algorithm.

... but that's irrelevant. Computers (often) decide things based on algorithms; therefore they do make decisions.

Edit: in any case, while I'm not exactly sure what you meant by "the capacity to decide," it sounds like whatever you intended doesn't match my understanding. I'm taking back what I said earlier when ai said that your second statement is true. I'll have to wait and see what it is you mean by "decide" before I make any judgements.

(Other than my judgement that the argument in the OP is a confused mess)

 

[epronovost]

Again computers are fully contained by codes, algorithms etc....

What makes you say so?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok granted, you don't need God necessarily to explain free will, but you need a metaphysical (non material) entity that may or may not be God...... agree?

Why would that necessarily be so?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I know that this is a common objection, but it really doesn't follow.


How do you go from
Premise 1 God knows what you are going to do

Premise 2, premise 3 etc..... ?

Therefore free will is not real

Again, depends on how you define free will. If the future exists in the mind of God, you can't control the future, so by most definitions, you don't have free will.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Ok granted, you don't need God necessarily to explain free will, but you need a metaphysical (non material) entity that may or may not be God...... agree?

Sorry, but I don't see that at all. What makes free will dependent upon some metaphysical entity?

 

[leroy]

Again, depends on how you define free will. If the future exists in the mind of God, you can't control the future, so by most definitions, you don't have free will.

Free will is simply the hability to make choices, desciding X despite having the ability to have chosen Y

So how does God's omnipresent existance undermines free will.... Develop your argument

 

[leroy]

Sorry, but I don't see that at all. What makes free will dependent upon some metaphysical entity?

1 Because if matter is all there is, choices would be fully determined by electrical impulses in our brain

2 And these electrical impulses are deterministic (or perhaps random)

So from 1 and 2 it follows (at least inductivley) that if matter is all there is choices would be deterministic (or random)

Do you grant 1 and 2?

 

[leroy]

Kinda sorta. I'm not sure I would call a neural net a code or algorithm.

... but that's irrelevant. Computers (often) decide things based on algorithms; therefore they do make decisions.

Edit: in any case, while I'm not exactly sure what you meant by "the capacity to decide," it sounds like whatever you intended doesn't match my understanding. I'm taking back what I said earlier when ai said that your second statement is true. I'll have to wait and see what it is you mean by "decide" before I make any judgements.

(Other than my judgement that the argument in the OP is a confused mess)

Descide simply means that you could have chosen otherwise, you had de ability to chose X eventhough you choose Y..... Is the definition clear?

 

[Thief]

I think the proof was demonstrated in the garden of Eden

and the test was simple

tell the specimens......leave the tree of knowledge alone
partake and you die

they CHOSE to know
even as death would be the pending result

they passed the test

the garden had served it's purpose and was dismantled
the specimens were released into the environment

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Descide simply means that you could have chosen otherwise,

It does? News to me.

you had de ability to chose X eventhough you choose Y..... Is the definition clear?

How do you tell the difference between something someone couldn't do and something they could do but didn't?

 

[Willamena]

Premise 1 if God doesn't exist there wouldn't be creatures with free will

Premise 2 there are creatures with free will

Therefore God exists


So if you are an Atheist, agnostic, non theist etc. Which premise would you deny 1 or 2?

1. If God doesn't exist, there would not be chocolate pudding.

2. There is chocolate pudding.

It's indisputable.

 

[Aupmanyav]

it cannot explain....the way you WILL dream
or why

Why does science needs to investigate them? It is a automatic memory reorganization exercise, very much akin to defragmentation of a computer disk, which the brain has determined by your usage of it - something like what Google bots do to provide you a better search result.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And hopefully you would agree that it’s rational to accept truths on the basis of history, morality, logic, personal experiences etc.

Whatever history, supposed morality, logic and personal experience say, is always subject to check. As for history, it is very difficult to find truth. We do not even know if Buddha and Jesus existed for sure.

 

[viole]

people like @shunyadragon and @Polymath257 made a similar point


Free will can be defined as the ability to make choices, so if your decision to eat a healthy salad rather than a burger was not 100% constrained by your molecules, electric impulses, the environment, advertisements, etc. you can say that you freely decided to eat that salad. And other way to put it is that you could have chosen differently given the same circumstances. … is there any question on what I mean by free will?

The argument would for premise 1 be:

1 If the material world is all there is then your “choices” will be fully dependent on material stuff like electric impulses, the position of your neurons, molecules in your body etc.

2 material stuff like electric impulses in your brain are fully determined by the laws of nature

Therefore your choices would fully determined by the laws of nature.


So please explain your points of disagreement ¿do you grant that electric impulses in your brain are fully determined by the deterministic (or random) laws of nature? yes or no Do you grant that decisions are fully determined by those electric impulses in your brain (+other material deterministic or random stuff) yes or no


Reed more…

Jerry A. Coyne: You Don't Have Free Will

I am just contesting that this entails the existence of a God. Whether we have (libertarian) free will or not, is the second premise, not the first. I am still at the first, even though I agree that it is easier, and therefore less fun, to kill the second.

For instance, even if I do not believe it for a second, it is theoretically possible that consciousness transcends physics as we know it today. That would make it possible, at least in principle, since we know not a lot of how brains create conscious thought, to define true freedom of choice, but yet still in the context of a godless Universe.

So, again, let us assume that my choices are not determined by the laws of nature as we know them today, whatever they are, how do you go from that to the existence of a God? Does natural indetermination of my choice of food entails the existence of a conscious creator of the Universe? How so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ratiocinator]

The computer doesn’t make choices, given the algorithm, and the position of the keyboard, the computer would necessarily make “that” specific move.

Yes, the way it made the choice was by using an algorithm, that doesn't change the fact that it did make a choice.

Yes, that is my point, as a “non-theist” you are forced to take that view…..if matter is determinist (or perhaps random according to some interpretations of quantum mechanics) why would human brains be different.

But if we are more than just matter (as theist would sometimes say) then at least the door is open to the possibility that we might be capable of things that go beyond what matter can do. (free will being one example)

It's got nothing to do with theism, atheism, or matter. The thought experiment made no reference to whether human minds were limited to brain activity or were entirely composed of matter. The logic stands regardless. When faced with a choice in a specific set of circumstances and state of mind (including nature, nurture and entire history of experience up to that exact moment), either we can only make one choice (determinism) or any difference that is possible can have nothing to do with either our state of mind, the person we are, or the circumstances, so it must be random. Gods, souls, or any other non-matter aspect to minds (should they exist) make no difference whatsoever.

 

[leroy]

It does? News to me.


How do you tell the difference between something someone couldn't do and something they could do but didn't?

As I said before, I would appeal to personal experience, it feels as if I have free will it feels as if I could have chosen otherwise, and there is not an argument against it.


Therefore I am justified in believing in free will.


This is the same type of logic that you would use if I ask you "how do you know that you are in a real physical world, and not in the Matrix?"