Debate: Do We Have Free Will?

Are we the true authors of our actions - or are we guided by a preordained fate? From the days of Greek philosophers to the present, the notion of free will and the question of whether humans can make their own choices is as captivating as ever. Those who think that free will exists consider it foundational to a rules-based society since it holds individuals accountable for their actions. Those who don’t believe in it argue everything that happens to us, and our actions and choices, is determined by prior existing conditions. Though we may feel in control of our actions, they are influenced by factors outside of our control, like upbringing, societal pressures, and biological predispositions.
With this background, we now debate the question: Do We Have Free Will?
Arguing Yes: Roy Baumeister, Social Psychologist, Author of “Free Will and Consciousness: How Might They Work”
Arguing No: Robert Sapolsky, Neuroscientist; Professor at Stanford University
Nayeema Raza, Journalist at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator.
#opentodebate #debate #opentodebate #freewill #biology #action #morality #physics #economy #recession
===================================
Subscribe: / @opentodebateorg
Official site: opentodebate.org/
Open to Debate Twitter: / opentodebateorg
Open to Debate Facebook: / beopentodebate
===================================
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Unresolved: The Iran Threat"
• Unresolved: The Iran T...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~

[@OpentoDebate]

Explore the latest insights and debater editorials on the question: Do We Have Free Will? Read it here: opentodebate.org/newsletter-do-we-have-free-will/ Sign up for our newsletters: opentodebate.org/newsletter/

[@mitchkahle314]

Two standard pillars of modern physics-entropy and uncertainty-preclude all possibility of consciously exercising "free will" to make physical changes to past or future events, thus "free will" is a physical impossibility. That said, the illusion of "free will" is useful to humans in attempting to make sense of the things we do and the things that happen to us.

[@LordAlderaan]

Exactly! We don't have free will, we experience free will.

[@brainmoleculemarketing801]

No need for advanced physics, just basic high school biology, starting with genomics... How do we "know" anything is "useful," measure that, etc? Just pop culture myths of our era and everyday language word salad....zzzzzzzzz Gods/spirits/daemons used to control behavior - now it's the "mind" - whatever that is.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

@@LordAlderaan 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: INTRODUCTORY PREMISE: Just as the autonomous beating of one’s heart is governed by one’s genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction, as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), EACH and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and our environmental milieu. This lesson is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the authors of our own thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few humans extant who are “spiritually” enlightened, or at least, who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. STANDARD DEFINITIONS: Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already completed, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. In order to make it perfectly clear, if, for example, one is handed a restaurant menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally as desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any given point in time, or to be hair-splitting, even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! Of course, those who believe in free-will will find this last assertion to be preposterous, countering thus: “Clearly, we are not claiming that humans have absolute freedom of volition, but merely that, in many circumstances, when given the opportunity, we can make choices between two or more options.” However, even this statement is patently untrue, and can easily be dismissed by those in the know. So, in both of the above examples, there is a pre-existing preference for one particular dish or pet. Even if one liked cats and dogs “EQUALLY”, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice would not be truly independent, but based entirely upon one’s genetic sequence, plus one’s up-to-date conditioning. Actual equality is non-existent in the macro-phenomenal sphere. If one was to somehow return to the time when any particular decision was made, the exact same decision would again be made, as all the circumstances would be identical! FREEDOM OF CHOICE: The most common argument against fatalism or determinism is that humans, unlike other animals, have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which of the two birds to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and one’s conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of this book, in order to understand that existence is essentially MONISTIC. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how actions performed in the present are the result of chains of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). Thus, in practice, it could be said that the notions of determinism and causation are synonymous concepts. At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect, since the genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception unto death, and over which there is no control. At the risk of being repetitive, it must be emphasized that that a person (whether a human person or a non-human person) making a choice of any kind is not to be equated with freedom of volition, because those choices were themselves determined by the genetic sequence and the unique up-to-date conditioning of the person in question, as will be fully explicated below. Unfortunately, no matter how many times this fact is asserted and explained, many free-will proponents seemingly “become deaf”. If you, the reader, upon reaching the end of this chapter, still believe in free-will, it is suggested that you read it SEVERAL TIMES, and dwell on its points over a length of time (especially this paragraph). ACADEMIC STUDIES: University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent field of enquiry, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. I contend, however, that indeterminacy is a purely philosophical conundrum. I am highly-sceptical in relation to freedom of volition being either demonstrated or disproven by neuroscience, because even if free-will was proven by cognitive science, it would not take into account the ultimate cause of that free-will existing in the first place. The origin of that supposed freedom of volition would need to be established. RANDOMNESS IS IMPOSSIBLE: If any particular volitional act was not caused by the sum of all antecedent states of being, then the only alternative explanation would be due to true RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists construe that subatomic particles can arbitrarily move in space, but true stochasticity is problematic in any possible universe, what to speak of in a closed, deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that the collision of two motor vehicles was the result of pure chance (hence the term “accident”), physicists are unable to see that the seeming unpredictability of quantum events are, in fact, determined by a force hitherto undiscovered by the material sciences. It is a known fact of logic that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software programme is able to make the “decision” to generate a number capriciously. Any number generated will be a consequence of human programming, which in turn, is the result of genetic programming, etc. True randomness implies that there were no determinants whatever in the making of a conscious decision or in the execution of an act of will. Some sceptics (that is, disbelievers in determinism) have cited Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as conclusive proof that free-will exists. However, most (if not all) such sceptics are simply displaying their own abject ignorance of quantum mechanics, because the uncertainty principle has naught to do with the determined-random dichotomy, but merely states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known. Even if quantum physicists eventually prove beyond any doubt whatsoever, that quantum indeterminacy is factual (for which they will be required to explain the origin of such stochasticity, which seems inconceivable), it will not demonstrate that human choices and decisions will be random (or “free”, to use a more vague term). That would be akin to stating: “One of the electrons in my left foot suddenly decided to spin clockwise, and so, I resolved to skip breakfast this morning.” How LUDICROUS!! Cont...

[@brainmoleculemarketing801]

How behavior happens is an emerging, technical topic fo professionals in biology/physiology/animal behavior/neurology/genomics. It has nothing to do with personal opinions, pop culture myths/semantics and "philosophy" - whatever that is. Interesting folks hold forth on this topic and do not know the literature, research and new knowledge about how animal behavior happens - we are just animals.

[@draymatthews]

I agree with Sapolsky's position. To hold otherwise is nothing more than woo-wooism justifying the status quo as it basically states that we should continue doing things as we always have. This presents a continuing threat to an orderly society. For instance, jurors are required to find a specific "state of mind" that requires "free will" to find guilt in criminal cases. To do this, they have to know everything down to neurotransmitters and the connectivity of every neuron in the circuit causing the behavior. Of course, should they be able to do that they should be able to tell us the information or modulation missing in that network which means they know what must happen to change that behavior. The criminal justice system is based on punishment, not rehabilitation. Thus, it never addresses the underlying problem and this explains the problem with recidivism. There is another glaring problem with upholding the status quo. It seems to say that we all could have done otherwise. This means that the person doing the judging should always reach the correct decision. This is easy to disprove. In U.S. v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41, at 52 (1978) the Supreme Court addressed the issue of punishment, sentencing, and incarceration in light of the evidence showing a deterministic Universe. It cited: See also United States v. Moore, 484 F.2d 1284, 1288 (CA4 1973) (Craven, J., concurring). The Scott rationale rests not only on the realism of the psychological pressures on a defendant in the dock -- which we can grant -- but also on a deterministic view of human conduct that is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system. A "universal and persistent" foundation stone in our system of law, and particularly in our approach to punishment, sentencing, and incarceration, is the "belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil." Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 342 U. S. 250 (1952). See also Blocker v. United States, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 41, 53, 288 F.2d 853, 865 (1961) (opinion concurring in result). Given that long-accepted view of the "ability and duty of the normal individual to choose," we must conclude that the defendant's readiness to lie under oath -- especially when, as here, the trial court finds the lie to be flagrant -- may be deemed probative of his prospects for rehabilitation. Now, the Supreme Court's decision in Grayson (above) that “a deterministic view of human conduct [is] inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system” is a rather brazen statement. However, it is rather easy to take the Grayson opinion and make a statement as to what "free will" requires when it comes to lawful behavior. So, can we prove that “free will to choose a course of action” does not exist?” No, but we don't need to as the citation, supra, contains wording that can be modified to produce a legal definition of human use of free will in their course of action. A "universal and persistent" foundation stone in our system of law, and particularly in our approach to punishment, sentencing, and incarceration, is the belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil." To do so, we just take the words, “Freedom of human will require an ability and duty of individuals to choose between good and evil.” Now, “good and evil” have religious connotations and have nothing to do with the law so we modify those words to “confine one's conduct within the parameters of lawful behavior.” To test if judges and justices are using “free will” in their decision-making, we just change the word “human' to “judges and justices.” Then we have a statement, “Do judges and justice use 'free will' in their judicial decision-making to confine their conduct within the limits of lawful behavior?” To get the noise out, we confine the decision-making to the question answered. One other factor to consider; their decisions must be unified as using “free will” in decision-making when they reach different conclusions would be meaningless. Either the law means one conclusion or it doesn't. The opinions cannot be scattered all over the place stating many conclusions as would make the test -and free will- meaningless. The test does not reveal if the decision is the actual product of “free will” as it could be a unified opinion based on biases of all involved. In fact, when you run the test of human use of free will in their decision-making on judges and justices, you find they fail miserably. For instance, find a major case involving numerous judges and justices, note all dissents and concurrences on different grounds and you'll find they are not making "free will" decisions and fail miserably. I used the Trump Muslim Ban cases but you can follow any case through the courts. Finally, if you look at DNA, you find that we all have a difference in the position of our bases. These differences mean we have different molecules produced by that DNA. And, that we are an evolving species. Secondly, when we are born, we may have propensities but we have to learn everything as all we can do is emit a weak infant cry and suck on tits. Even crying and sucking on tits require learning to be efficient. We can't sit up, roll over, walk or crawl or anything else. Everything must be learned. Moreover, how we learn is from our environment and environments vary immensely. If we want to reduce the effect of crime on society, we must look to the environment and correct the flaws there. Maintaining the status quo is not an answer.

[@armanshaghi]

Great conversation, thank you IQ2 / Open to Debate for hosting this, excellent moderation too

[@robertholland8283]

Great, awesome debate.

[@robertbaher3454]

Great debate. I've followed Robert Sapolsky for several years now, and mostly agree with his thoughts. However, the idea of the continuum of choices put forth by Roy Baumeister seems to have merit.

[@Sadri778]

This was a great debate. More plz especially of these 2 amazing scientists

[@robertholland8283]

#AndIQuote Explore both sides of the issue.

[@robertholland8283]

#AndIQuote With enough quantity you affect quality.

[@robertholland8283]

#AndIQuote To explain is to not forgive.

[@bag761st7]

You have free will until you don't. You have free will to operate until nature, laws, or cause-and-effect come into play. Freewill is not absolute.

[@justanothernick3984]

On the moral argument, I side with Sapolsky. On the choices argument, I side with Nexus Void who argues free will is on a spectrum with competing "wills".

[@robertholland8283]

#AndIQuote That's like reviewing the last three minutes of a movie.

[@kln4863]

Freedom with responsibility goes hand-in-hand.The only way we can have true freedom is with responsibility and to take accountability for our own actions whether it's right or wrong. Morality needs to be involved with the freedom that we have in this world and the 10 commandments in the Bible is our core value system that needs to be in place for freedom to truly exist. And If we disagree with this, our life will diminish and we will destroy ourselves because sin leads to death and death leads to non existence so if we want to exist. In this world. We need to respect the world, respect our creator who created us. Our creator gave us the 10 commandments so that we could live a righteous life that only our creator can give us. If we want to have everlasting life we need to follow the 10 commandments in the Bible because we know inside ourselves that this is right and if we don't agree with this then we are deceiving ourselves and denying what is the truth?

[@robertholland8283]

#AndIQuote You made yourself. (Biology)

[@brainmoleculemarketing801]

Read the book. Learn something about your brain/body behavior - or not. No one reads anymore. Not their "choice" either....

[@roberttalada5196]

I read.

[@wlinden]

We have to believe that we have free will. We have no choice.

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

Congratulations! You proffered the all-pervasive strawman argument against freedom of volition.

[@dannyferguson9415]

I get the temptation of the no choice view. It is a way to rationalize a way around guilt and regret/ remorse. A war criminals dream come true.

[@jonas6120]

And I get the temptation of the choice view. It is a way to rationalise one's moral intuitions, creating room for judgement, blame and condemnation - and most importantly creating the opportunity of understanding evil as the result of evil people choosing to do evil things. A Pharisee's dream come true.

[@dannyferguson9415]

Do you believe people are good or evil? @@jonas6120

[@TheMisterGriswold]

No.