Free Will (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Saturday, September 04, 2010, 12:17 (5193 days ago) @ David Turell

Romansh has defined free will as: "the ability to act or to make choices independently of the environment or of the universe." I have pointed out that this definition excludes even the possibility that our actions and choices may be determined by factors within ourselves that are beyond our conscious control.-DAVID: Your inference is correct. We are influenced by our learned background of events throughout our lives, but with that background in place, my choices of action or thought are my choices. We can nit pick back to my genetics for influences, but ultimately, I choose my actions or thoughts. We develop our personalities which become our choice makers.-I hesitate to enter your very own field of medicine, but is it not true that there are certain brain and glandular disorders that can drastically affect or change people's personalities (and hence their actions and choices)? Although I believe the cause of schizophrenia is still unknown, would you say schizophrenics are able to choose all their thoughts? If diseases, disorders, narcotics and medications can affect the brain and thus affect behaviour, how can we totally dismiss the possibility that our genetic inheritance is directly responsible for at least certain aspects of our conduct? Romansh has quoted Pinker, who claims that 40%-50% of our behavioural traits might be ascribed to genetics (which we cannot change). I don't know how he can be so precise, but I don't know how you can be so precise either.-Romansh disagrees with my interpretation, and thinks "this definition leads us (well it did me) to doubt the very existence of the self."-Once again, I think you're trying to argue on two different levels at once. The first level is purely semantic. You introduced the term "free will" into our discussion on intelligence, and have now said what you mean by it. Your definition presupposes the existence of the environment and of the universe, while the ability to act or make choices clearly presupposes the existence of individual human beings. If the environment and the universe might make our decisions dependent, how can you argue that the given, uncontrollable elements of human beings are not just as capable of doing so? My own definition (1 September at 14.42) is "the conscious ability to make decisions independently of constraints beyond one's own control". No-one has taken a blind bit of notice (I feel a strange kinship with Cassandra!) but I don't think it's THAT bad. At least tell me what's wrong with it.-The second stage of the argument is whether you believe free will ... according to your definition ... is possible or not. This is where I'm going to have to try and decipher your cryptic statement. I hope you'll correct me if I fail to read your mind, but I suspect this is another example of your preoccupation with boundaries (that is not meant negatively). What I think you're saying is that human beings can't be separated from their environment and the universe, and therefore we can't separate the self. It's the mystic "All is One". Consequently there can be no such thing as free will. The Strawson quote ... again please correct me if I'm wrong ... suggests that eventually all our thoughts must go back to something we can't control, which is a bit like saying we don't know what governs our subconscious (though I don't want to be drawn into a discussion on boundaries between conscious and subconscious). Some religious people might argue that it's God, while the rest of us must at present be content with the answer "we don't know". This is also my answer to the question of the existence or extent of our "free will". However, as is now becoming habitual in our discussions, I have to say that on a pragmatic level, I feel that I have an individual self and I feel that I have a free will, and even if reason may suggest otherwise, I know from experience that reason is not always the best guide.