# Free will - looking for explanation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2005, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508 "2005-01-31T01:46:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JasonFin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/4af34b/32.png) [@JasonFin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JasonFin)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/41 "2005-01-31T22:03:55Z")
My recommendation is to deny the concept of free will at a deeper level. It doesn’t matter whether physics is deterministic or indeterministic or even whether or not humans have immaterial souls; the concept of free will is itself incoherent. It could not be had by any possible being in any possible world. The crucial question: To what degree are a person’s actions determined by the state of his or her mind? This state includes but is not limited to a person’s nature, personality, preferences, knowledge, skills, and memories. These, I assume, can be agreed to exist whatever the actual metaphysical basis of human consciousness. To the extent that human actions are predictable, we predict them based on our knowledge of the mental states of the actors. This is evidence, should any be required, that the mental states of human beings affect their actions. In other words, mental states partly determine human behavior. To the extent that such states determine a person’s behavior, this behavior is not free, for _to that extent_ it could not possibly have been otherwise. To the extent that such states do not determine a person’s behavior, this behavior is meaningless, for _to that extent_ it is independent of everything that determines who that person is. Is free will the ability to perform meaningless actions? This is intended as a rhetorical argument rather than a strictly logical one, for its conceptual incoherence makes free will difficult to describe in logical terms. I can see places to quibble with my reasoning, but this is essentially the argument that changed my mind on the issue. The primary counterargument I have encountered is that there is some fundamental property of human _agency_ that cannot be subsumed under nature, personality, preferences, knowledge, skills, memories, or anything else along those descriptive lines. I can only reply that whatever remains behind when everything of importance has been stripped away must be of minimal worth. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/42 "2005-01-31T22:33:21Z")
An excellent analysis, JasonFin, with excellent questions and comments. One problem, however, is that if you declare freewill to be an incoherent concept in se, then it is not logical for you to oppose it. It amounts to a substantive denial of a positive ontological proposition. In other words, if it can be denied, then it must at least be coherent. ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/43 "2005-01-31T23:59:56Z")
Free will is pure metaphysics, it’s entirely specious. How would you know whether you voluntarily made a decision or the sum total of all causitive events to date simply resulted in you making that decision? “Free will” as a concept is an unsupported extension of self-consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/44 "2005-02-01T00:19:32Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Therein lies one of the problems with denying the existence of human volition. You cannot claim that there is no free will, yet simultaneously cast blame on people for choosing to act in an evil way. At least, not if one wishes to adopt a consistent worldview. Actually, that’s my worldview. That’s why I’d rather not think too much about this issue. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/45 "2005-02-01T00:25:55Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > . > > Deterrence alone is woefully inadequate for determining why we get righteously upset at people for the actions that they perform. Indeed, while the need for deterrence may help determine WHICH actions we choose to condemn, it does not justify getting angry at the perpetrator of those acts. After all, if that person has no free will – no ability to make moral choices whatsoever – then only a moron would choose to cast moral blame on that individual. > . Actually, this isn’t really a problem. If you assume that you don’t have free will, then you can’t choose not to be upset, either. Anyway, the fact that in this case, casting blame is nonsentical isn’t an argument in favor of free will. Not any more than saying “it would be nicer if good people were rewarded in an afterlife” is a sound argument in favor of the existence of an afterlife. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/46 "2005-02-01T00:36:12Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I don’t understand your point either; it’s as if you’re saying that _we_ can’t make choices because of the actions determined by _our brains_, as if ‘we’ and ‘our brains’ are two totally separate things. They are not - the choices that ‘our brains’ make are the result of a huge network of vastly interacting electrochemical variables, which in turn are linked conditionally to a large array of sense data and memory - ‘we’ _are_ the result of all that mess of variables; when ‘our brains’ make a choice, ‘we’ make a choice. that’s generally the way I like to view this issue. We’re the decision making process, the chemical reactions, etc… However, it’s not fully satisfying because we’re acustomed to think that we _control_ this process. And we don’t. We’re merely the predetermined process itself. ---
**Author:** ![JasonFin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/4af34b/32.png) [@JasonFin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JasonFin)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/47 "2005-02-01T02:06:14Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > An excellent analysis, JasonFin, with excellent questions and comments. One problem, however, is that if you declare freewill to be an incoherent concept in se, then it is not logical for you to oppose it. It amounts to a substantive denial of a positive ontological proposition. In other words, if it can be denied, then it must at least be coherent. I did not attempt with my previous post to accurately reflect my opinion about free will. It was, as I noted, intended as a rough sketch of a rhetorical argument intended to convince people to question their understanding of the concept of free will. As you correctly note, it is unreasonable to substantively deny a proposition that is incoherent in the logical sense. If given a proposed precise definition of free will, I will of course accept it, deny it, or forbear judgment for the present. My position, **for which I do not maintain that I have, at this point, attempted to provide an effective argument,** is that free will, as generally understood either by philosophers historically or by the general public, is not a _ **natural kind.** _ By this, I mean that the truth or falsehood of statements such as **“human beings have free will and inanimate objects do not”** will hinge in an extremely sensitive way on the precise definitions of certain words used to explain just what “free will” is. This means free will cannot be usefully understood as a meaningful entity in itself unless properties crucial to its public meaning are first stripped away. I suspect this is because free will relies fundamentally on normativity, which is itself extremely problematic. This conceptual unnaturalness is a different property from nonexistence as a matter of fact, from impossibility, or from logical incoherence. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/48 "2005-02-01T23:31:31Z")
JasonFin: While I do not disagree with what you have posted, it is my experience that most people have not had the experience with philosophical/analytical thought of this nature to jump right to the heart of the matter. That is why I wouldn’t rule out the simple example that relies on physics, it’s an easier first step. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/49 "2005-02-02T11:49:17Z")
> [@2 click twiddle flare](#): > > Hi, > > Im hoping to get a little help in this thread. > I want an easy way to explain why free will is an illusion. For people that dont agree/understand this please do not post in this, as i do not want this to be a debated in this thread. > > My dilemma is, whenever i try to explain to someone that we are able to make different choices, but this is governered by the brain we have, through genetics, and what is learned by circumstance. i get replies such as “But i can choose to be bad or good, its up to me!” - therefore illustrating they have missed the point entirely. I try and combat this buy saying things such as “Yes, i am aware we are able to make different choices, but ultimately the final choice must be made by the means you have to make the choice, i.e your brain, which will make different choices base on its chemical balances, neural pathways etc, which is why people have different personalities” or something to that effect… which i realise is not very clear and causes more confusion. > > The ultimate point that i am trying to illustrate when talking to someone about this is: > In the chrisitian religion, people beleive we are created by god, we sinned and therefore are dammed, unless we accept jesus as our saviour. However if you understand why we do not have free will, we operate only by the means which we can. Then it would be god who is responsible for creating as with a brain/soul which was capable and even willing to sin. Which obviously leads to the conclusion that god is an unfair sadist, or the whole theory of god is flawed. > If someone has an easy way to explain this concept please share 🙂 I would look at free will this way. If I want to go to the movies, and my Father says," You can go to the movies if you want to, but I do not want you to go,so if you do go Iwill punish you, maybe kill you". So it would mean either we have to do things the father’s way. If there is a consequence for doing our will it is not free. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/50 "2005-02-02T12:06:53Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I would look at free will this way. If I want to go to the movies, and my Father says," You can go to the movies if you want to, but I do not want you to go,so if you do go Iwill punish you, maybe kill you". So it would mean either we have to do things the father’s way. If there is a consequence for doing our will it is not free. > > Monavis A poor way to look at the issue, in my opinion. Every human praxis has a consequence: some are good, some are bad, and some are neutral. The choice of whether to risk and bear the consequence is a part of the freedom. At any rate, I believe that the issue of a materialistic freewill is moot — trivial at best. It is moral freewill that matters. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/51 "2005-02-02T16:59:35Z")
> [@Dr. Love](#): > > . . . it deals with compatibilism, rather than the hard determinist view that **2 click twiddle flare** is looking for. Thanks very much for introducing the term to me, but isn’t **compatibilism** consistent with hard determinism? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/52 "2005-02-02T21:16:33Z")
Consistant in what way? Both compatiblism and hard determinism agree that the universe (and human nature) are deterministic, but compatibilism says that we have free will (or that free will and determinism are compatible), while hard determinism says that free will is incompatible with determinism. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/53 "2005-02-02T22:10:24Z")
You are right by definition, I learn. My idea of the only tenable way of conceiving free will led me to a different conclusion. I just can’t get my head around the conception of free will as being outside causation. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/54 "2005-02-02T23:02:03Z")
Would you mind running that one by me again? I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re saying. Your conception of free will was already compatibilist, and you were just unaware of the term? ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/55 "2005-02-02T23:19:42Z")
I’ll try. My conception of hard determinism is that everything is caused, and given the current state, only one result is possible. The only coherent meaning I can give to “free will” is that we can do what we want. Given these definitions, they’re compatible. Now I realize that something more is generally meant by “free will”, but frankly I can’t make sense of it. I can choose chocolate over vanilla, but I can’t choose to prefer vanilla - I really like chocolate better. Can you help me? ---
**Author:** ![EvanS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@EvanS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EvanS)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/56 "2005-02-03T06:13:15Z")
Sorry guy, but there’s no way to simply communicate that one doesn’t have free will. That’s because you do have free will, but it’s constrained. You can choose, but your choices are only \*partially \* determined by culture, heredity, and similar factors; there’s still that bio-computer that lets you take a bunch of data and arrive at different decisions at different times. What you gotta do to get your point across is modify your delivery to: “your supposedly ‘free’ will isn’t as free as we think; it’s constrained by a number of factors.” People have an easier time accepting non-absolutes. Remember, even Freedom isn’t free… NoYB ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2005, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/57 "2005-02-03T14:17:35Z")
Well. I wasn’t trying so much to get a point across as understand one. It seems to me that the only interpretation of “free will” that is incompatible with hard determinism is one that is on its face impossible. Even “that bio-computer that lets you take a bunch of data and arrive at different decisions at different times” is constrained by the laws of physics. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/58 "2005-02-04T12:21:46Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > A poor way to look at the issue, in my opinion. Every human praxis has a consequence: some are good, some are bad, and some are neutral. The choice of whether to risk and bear the consequence is a part of the freedom. At any rate, I believe that the issue of a materialistic freewill is moot — trivial at best. It is moral freewill that matters. Moral or Materailistic,If we choose differently than What God wills there is a punishment for not following what is believed to be God’s will. So, the only choice we have, would be to do what God wants us to do, or suffer the consequences! Monavis ---
**Author:** ![EvanS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@EvanS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EvanS)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/59 "2005-02-04T18:34:22Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Moral or Materailistic,If we choose differently than What God wills there is a punishment for not following what is believed to be God’s will. So, the only choice we have, would be to do what God wants us to do, or suffer the consequences! > > Monavis Yeah, but God wants us to have, and use, free will! ---
**Author:** ![prisoner6655321](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@prisoner6655321](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/prisoner6655321)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2005, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508/60 "2005-02-05T10:11:16Z")
The question of free-will is actually a pretty highly debated issue amongst certain Christians. **2 click twiddle flare** , you might want to look into Calvinism. I think you might find some answers there. Just to get you started… (if you’ll forgive a bit of googling) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism) [http://www.noble-minded.org/calvinism.html](http://www.noble-minded.org/calvinism.html) [http://www.bible-truth.org/election.htm](http://www.bible-truth.org/election.htm) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-will-looking-for-explanation/287508.md?page=4)