It’s obvious that we make choices. No one is disputing that. But being presented with a choice and then choosing does not require the concept of free will. The computer you’re viewing this with is making hundreds of thousands of choices every second (in the form of conditional branch instructions) yet I doubt you’d say that your computer has free will.

When we make choices, we make them for reasons. Regarding your “I want a drink of water” choice. Where does the original desire come from? It comes from somewhere in your brain, and remember – most neural activity occurs without conscious awareness. There is a reason, quite possibly unknown to your conscious mind, for the original desire coming into your brain. Maybe your body needed water and so your peripheral nervous system sent signals to your brain saying “hey, you’re thirsty – drink some water”. Or maybe you weren’t thirsty, but saw a glass nearby and thought of drinking water. Or maybe a random quantum fluctuation occurred in a single neuron deep in your brain, and a complex cascade of activity took place, all leading to the more or less random choice “I’m going to drink a glass of water”.

When I say we aren’t free, it’s not a statement of wishy-washy philosophical mumbo-jumbo. It’s a fact of the physical world we live in – as long as we are bound by the laws of physics (or any laws) we are not free. We are autonomous, but we are bound by physical laws just like everything else in this material realm.

Existence of any sort, whether here in this material realm or elsewhere in an immaterial realm, requires lawfulness. Without lawfulness (the binding of cause to effect), nothing can happen. Is nothingness freedom? Maybe.

I don’t understand why people link absence of free will to determinism. Determinism obviously implies no free will, but non-deterministic systems, such as quantum mechanical systems, are nonetheless lawful. We can’t predict particular quantum events, but we can very accurately predict probabilities. So even in a non-deterministic environment, macroscopic effects can be traced back to quantum causes.

You say that you can make choices to do X, even when you don’t need to do X. It’s not a question of feeling a need or desire. The question to ask is “Why did I do X?” Your answer, which is completely inadequate, is “I just decided to”. What caused you to “just decide” to do X? Why X instead of Y or Z?

What neural process constitutes “just deciding to” do something? If there is an associated neural process, then how can you claim to have free will? Neurons respond lawfully and mindlessly to their local electrochemical environment, not to the “free will” of “you”.

If, on the other hand, you claim that there isn’t a neuronal basis for your decisions, then what is the basis?

you tell me..
you're the one interpreting that "I decided to" is inadequate, according to you.
explain to me what probabalistic interpretation has anything to do with decision-making,
which is inevitably a contruct of the prefrontal cortex (obviously, computers don't have a prefrontal cortex).
I never said it doesn't have a neuronal basis, I just said there's no evidence to show that the reason is subconscious.
consciousness itself has a neuronal basis.

Conscious or subconscious – doesn’t matter. If you agree that there is a neuronal basis for the decisions and choices we make, and if you agree that neurons do not themselves have free will but rather strictly conform to the laws of physics, then it logically follows that decisions and choices we make strictly conform to the laws of physics.

If our decisions and choices strictly conform to the laws of physics, how is that “free will”?

we can discuss the occurrance of signal transduction from the glutaminergic system as it pertains to decision-making, if you wish...but precisely explain what quantum physics has to do with it.
neurons do have random-signaling, but this is due to depolarization patterns, ion-channel gating, and signal attenuation.




in that context, it isn't free; but you are free to make decisions that observe said laws.

The difference between what a science, and what psychology, does appears to boil down to knowable and unknowable variables. With a scientific endeavour the variables fall into a few distinct classes: the one(s) being tested, the ones controlled or set to specific values, and those which are thought to be inconsequential but could conceivably be tested--psychological experiments are plagued with variables that can not be set, or tested in any conceivable way. e.g., It is impossible to know if a subject or control can `see through' a test and manipulate their response in a way designed to influence the outcome simply because there is no way to see a person's thoughts.

Without quantum mechanical phenomena, what you call “random-signaling” is in fact “pseudo-random-signaling”. I have no idea if quantum phenomena occur in the brain. The reason I brought it up was to indicate that if truly random phenomena occur in the brain (or elsewhere) then those phenomena must have a quantum mechanical basis. Classical physics is deterministic. Quantum physics is not.


What other context is there?

well...how about astral projection?
the ability to project consciousness (yes, that does exist). how do the laws of physics apply to that aspect of consciousness, aside from the aforementioned neurological processes?

Ha! A materialist defending free will and astral projection (at least I always assumed you were a materialist) and a non-materialist defending a neurochemical basis for behavior and denying free will!

I’m a strong believer in the “primacy of consciousness” paradigm, so I’m open to the possibility of other realms of existence (remember about 200 posts ago I was defending believers in an afterlife?). If astral projection is real, then it’s part of a lawful realm. If hyperspace is real, then hyperspace is lawful. If an afterlife is real, then the afterlife is lawful. The laws of cause and effect in these other realms must be very different from those that we understand, but they are laws nonetheless. And where there are laws, there is no free will.

Can you describe a “context” that is not lawful?

anarchy

I’m not sure if your one word response is an answer to the question or a comment about the state of this thread. If I assume it was an answer to the question:

A realm where everything that can happen is happening all at once?

Where’s the free will in that?

Hmm, something is not right here, maybe your link between probability and non-deterministic behaviour... quantum mechanics determines the probability of an event occurring.

Isn't that what I said?

There are only RANDOM events and DETERMINED events (or processes), and...I've never heard of ANY OTHER KIND of phenomenon at play. Even though quantum events will occur as a function of statistics, they are RANDOM regarding EXACTLY what will happen: A coin will come up heads or tails with 0.5 probability, but whether it comes up heads or tails on any one toss is RANDOM (if you pretend that you can't analyze the, in fact, completely deterministic events of the toss, of course).

If anyone knows of an event or process that is NEITHER random NOR determined, I'd be very eager to hear about it.

I never solely equated materialism with pre-programming, nor did I call you specifically a materialist. Everyone is conditioned from the moment of their birth, spiritualists as well as materialist and any conscious being in this three dimensional reality. It is a nature of the matrix in which we live. That is the paradigm we are taught to believe, and is the function of our existence as far as we can tell.

My argument is that we can circumvent that programming, especially in the Now, where 'cause' can originate and effects expand outward from there. I dunnno, it seems pretty simple to me in that state of being that meditation can confer. In the present moment, there is no past to determine what outcome will come next. Of course you can survivie as pure being, you just aren't going to do much but sit there, but I suspect it is possible and has been accomplished by some of those figures from history who are said to have done so...

Of course I may sound like a new age brainwashed person, but that has absolutely nothing to do with who I am, and is instead the determined perspective of the 'other'. We only know what we know, and it is difficult (yet entirely possible) to step out of the roles that have been created for us since our birth. Knowing the factors leading to the present moment, one is able to choose whether to allow those factors to determine the next course of action or not, in essence allowing nothing to be the guiding force for movement into the future.

The Ego is deterministic...Being is free.

The determining factor to existence is Love, and like a flower will bud one moment to the next forever unfolding. But, we are free to express that love by being whatever kind of flower we choose, and once chosen we are not stuck in that particular mould, but instead can choose to be another type altogether if that suits our experiential needs.

You can create new versions of yourself anytime you choose, all it takes is presence and intent.

And in fact this is one of the primary reasons I reject raw materialism and determinism.

Benzyme...first I agree with you. You do will it. But if you think that our will, and our mind is all tied to the brian then wouldn't everything just be a giant downhill run on entropy? I mean one neural signal leading to another, to yet another, to yet another...until the point in time when the current decision was made via a cascade of neurons firing?

Also I used to also say psychology was a non science because they didn't have rigorous proofs, but in essence psychology is at the same place science was a few hundred years ago. They make observations based on mostly limited sample sizes and then they refine their hypothesis...it is science, but not robust and rigorous like say chemistry or physics, etc. But science it is.

Interesting ideas all around.

Is a deep meditative state of simple “being” a state where one can exercise will? It seems to me that in such a state one enters into “no will”.

It also seems to me that it is precisely the ego that clings to the idea of “free will”. What purpose does a belief in free will serve? To those who believe in free will, I ask you to try to imagine existence without it. What would be different?

You also said, "...non-deterministic systems, such as quantum mechanical systems...macroscopic effects can be traced back to quantum causes". How can it be that events in the apparently deterministic macroscopic world of cause and effect can be traced back to the non-deterministic quantum world. If that was truly so then the macroscopic world should also be non-deterministic, but since it isn't (as demonstrated by countless scientific experiments), either macroscopic events can't be traced back to the quantum world or the quantum world isn't non-deterministic.

To me it also appears as if there is no will, for there is nothing. But nothing is the emanitation of everything, so an infinity of possibilities can be manifested from nothing without any predetermining factors.

Everything would be different, we would solely be biolgical robots without any uniqueness or ability to explore the experience of manifestation...

Well, a simple example of quantum phenomena affecting a macroscopic system is a Geiger counter. The “pings” of a Geiger counter, which are easily observable macroscopic effects (and non-deterministic), are traceable back to non-deterministic quantum phenomena – radioactive decay.

I don’t understand this. Are you saying that our behavior would be different without free will? Would we feel differently? Would we act differently? Would our love and appreciation of life be in any way diminished? I honestly don’t see how things would be different.

Isn’t it anthropocentric to assign free will to human beings, yet not assign it to, for example, a flower? Or a cloud?

Everything happens as it happens. The universe eternally unfolds, and we are a part of that eternal unfolding. There is a mysterious joy that comes with knowing this. The concept of “free will” stands in opposition to this unfolding – it suggests that we can be contrary to or resist the eternal unfolding. It separates us from the unity of existence. There is no free will because there is no need for free will. The universe has no need for it.