Freedom of choice and neuroscience

[marta]

@beaglelady

wonder what the no-free-will people say and do when the are victims of a crime

Since no one can be judged for their actions as they had no choice(according to them) we should educate rather than punish. I do wonder whether they would actually stick to that, should anything awful happen to them or their loved ones.

[Terry_Sampson]

@MarkD

Some of us are on a quest for freedom from choice.

@marta

I’m intrigued by what do you mean by that.

My guess? MarkD’s gettin’ old and tired of making choices; he’s lookin’ for a way to slack off. From one OF to another: “There’s no rest for the weary (or the wicked).”

@marta

my initial interpretation is that choice is an external thing, like a menu in a restaurant for example, and will is internal, as in what goes on in our heads.

Hmm, … I hadn’t thought of that.

@marta

After all we always hear about people doing things against their WILL, and surely everyone of us experienced that themselves.

Not me. I can vaguely remember doing things that would have preferred not doing, but I can’t remember ever doing something against my will

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Terry_Sampson

From one OF to another

Hmm … O F … old F. Oh yeah, you mean old fellow. But it’s sort of true. I quite enjoy getting recommendations for books, movies and what to order to eat. Research is just one more thing to do … except when it comes to potential new plants for the garden obviously.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Terry_Sampson

…gettin’ old and tired of making choices

I hear that! On the other hand, I should be more thankful that I have choices.

[beaglelady]

@marta

Since no one can be judged for their actions as they had no choice(according to them) we should educate rather than punish. I do wonder whether they would actually stick to that, should anything awful happen to them or their loved ones.

but will education lead to better choices?

[Ralphie (ralph benson)]

I have heard someone saying that even if you decide something subconsciously, it is still YOU, therefore that’s not an argument against free will. Is that what you were trying to say?

Yep

[Terry_Sampson]

Allow me to be silly.

• Since all of us here in Biologos-land are rational and reasonable, and–given our rationality and reasonableness–each of us is ALWAYS consistent and occasionally coherent, it is appropriate to conclude that I, a devout and committed Determinist and anti-free-willer, must–to be consistent–believe no one is responsible for anything they do and, therefore, should not be held accountable for any offense or harm done. Whereas, free-willers–to be consistent–should what??? Punish culprits according to their offenses and crimes and accept responsibility for their own contributions to their personal unhappiness or misery???

Seems to me that, in a consistently deterministic society, there’s no room for punishment and in a consistently free will society, there’s no room for mercy, no?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Yes to the former (no room for punishment), but why the latter (no room for mercy)? (As a God-is-omnitemporal Calvinist, I am in neither camp. )

[Terry_Sampson]

@Dale

I am in neither camp

Which, I surmise, would explain your inability to recognize some characteristic of consistent free-willingness from the instant that it appears to the instant it is enacted. Help me out: I did ask “Whereas, free-willers–to be consistent–should what???”. Can a consistent free-willer, as the author of his or her own thoughts from beginning to end, and chooser of the choices chosen ever evade ultimate responsibility for deeds which he or she has conceived and carried out? You thunk it; you did it. You get the praise, you get the blame? No?

[Ralphie (ralph benson)]

I think some decisions are generated on a subconscious level, perhaps so that we don’t lose touch with what is directly before us demanding our attention.
If I am considering killing someone, I think my conscience will battle my subconscious to be heard in the present tense as a decision is under consideration. How much is my assent to my subconscious thoughts a factor in major moral issues verses the toothpaste I will select?
I think the dynamics change the weightier the decision is.
Also, my subconscious, if it has any regard for me, probably takes into consideration how deeply I will regret making a decision that is contrary to my conscious self.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Terry_Sampson

[Dale’s] inability to recognize some characteristic of consistent free-willingness from the instant that it appears to the instant it is enacted… Help me out…

Help me out with an example of my inability. I am talking about our relationship to God who actively intervenes ‘timefully’ in providence. Through no ‘choice’ of our own, except possibly to have prayed. But God gets the credit, thank you.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Maybe I am talking about being childlike before God and not sweating it. How do you obsess in a childlike manner? You can be obedient and enjoy, or disobedient and not. Yes, we have free will, but Father providentially supplies. The omnitemporal God’s instantaneous and dynamic relationship to us in sequential time means Judas was responsible but “at the same time” was

…doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

[Terry_Sampson]

@Dale

Help me out with an example of my inability.

• I began my exercise in silliness with:
  • The assumption that everyone here in Biologos-land are rational and reasonable, and–given our rationality and reasonableness–each of us is ALWAYS consistent and occasionally coherent.
• Then, given that assumption, I proposed that it’s appropriate to conclude that I, a devout and committed Determinist and anti-free-willer, must–to be consistent–believe no one is responsible for anything they do and, therefore, should not be held accountable for any offense or harm done.
• Nota Bene: My exercise in silliness began with “The assumption” and got as far as “any offense or harm done.”
• Following that portion of my exercise, I asked: “Whereas free-willers–to be consistent–should what???”, which I thought was an invitation to anyone who could, to come up with a silly claim of free-willer consistentcy,
• “Punish culprits according to their offenses and crimes and accept responsibility for their own contributions to their personal unhappiness or misery???” was the best silliness that I could come up with.
• I concluded my “being silly” post with: “Seems to me that, in a consistently deterministic society, there’s no room for punishment and in a consistently free will society, there’s no room for mercy, no?”
• You agreed with the first but not the latter (although I’m not sure whether you were agreeing that the first was silly, but not the second; or that there’s no room for punishment in a consistently deterministic society, but not that there’s no room for mercy in a consistently free will society.)
• What!!!??? Would you seriously fault me for hollering, calling the cops, or kicking the butt of someone who offends or harms me just because that would be behavior that is not consistent with my Deterministic and anti-free will principles? Are you nuts? Just because I’m a Determinist and an anti-free willer does not oblige me to be consistent just because you think I should be consistent and holding someone responsible and accountable is inconsistent with believing in Determinism and being anti-free will. That’s sillier than anything I said in my silly post which raises the bar of silliness. But your failure to come up with something equally silly to say about consistentcy in free will remains: either you could have come up with something and wouldn’t say it or you’re unable to come up with something silly to claim about free-willingness. I figured you’re unable.
• P.S.

@Dale

Help me out with an example of my inability. I am talking about our relationship to God who actively intervenes ‘timefully’ in providence.

Are you seriously going to try to reason your way out of being silly?

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Terry_Sampson

Seems to me that, in a consistently deterministic society, there’s no room for punishment and in a consistently free will society, there’s no room for mercy, no?

No. Nothing about free will is guaranteed and I don’t see how mercy is ruled out when a high degree of free will is not a given. Bad luck in upbringing, education or circumstances can curtail ones available freedom of choice. Regardless - in my opinion - choice and will never were the private domain of waking consciousness. It’s fine in an advisement capacity when becoming tiger food isn’t immediately likely. But rely on it exclusively? Not a good idea to attempt so much processing with such a narrow band width faculty.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I’m not being any more silly than you are being rude – considerably less, in fact. I am saying that yes we absolutely have free will and yes God is absolutely sovereign and ‘deterministic’. It has to do with God’s omnitemporality.

 

@Terry_Sampson

Would you seriously fault me for hollering, calling the cops, or…

I implied no such thing. Your presumption is excessive.

[Terry_Sampson]

@Dale

I implied no such thing. Your presumption is excessive.

???

• I wrote: “Seems to me that, in a consistently deterministic society, there’s no room for punishment and in a consistently free will society, there’s no room for mercy, no?”
• You responded: “Yes to the former (no room for punishment),”
• I take it, then, that you agree with my self-acknowledged “silly” assertion: that in a consistently deterministic society, there’s no room for punishment. If not, I do not understand your “yes”. However, if your “yes” means that you do agree that in a consistently deterministic society, there’s no room for punishment, then. IMO, I think that’s as silly as I intended the claim to be. The concept of “a consistently deterministic society” is as unrealistic as the “idea of a consistently free will society” in 2021. I have difficulty trying to imagine either one lasting very long.
• I’m sorry that you think I’ve been rude; I wasn’t intentionally trying to be. I began my post with a warning: “Allow me to be silly”, I tried to maintain my silliness throughout my post; and you appear to have tried to be serious. Silliness and seriousness don’t mix well in my experience. Interjecting considerations of God into the conversation compounds problems significantly, and that’s why I didn’t mention Him.
• The challenge that I’ve encountered, as a Determinist, is the suggestion that my position is indefensible and to prove it I’m told that to be a consistent Determinist I shouldn’t raise a fuss if my dog is killed in front of me, my wife is brutally raped and murdered in my presence, everything we own is taken from me, etc., etc. Would I raise a fuss? Yes, I would, I say. Ahaa! I’m told: I must not be a consistent Determinist.
• However, IMO, a consistent free will position is equally indefensible. Free will arises ex nihilo; if it doesn’t, it’s not perfectly free will. Don’t believe it? You must not be a consistent Free Willer.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Terry_Sampson

You must not be a consistent Free Willer.

No, you just don’t understand my position with respect to our free will, God’s sovereignty, his omnitemporality and his inscrutability. There is a paradox there we are not going to get our heads around, no matter how many bullet points you make.

ETA: It lets me be a ‘Free Willer’ and a ‘Determinist’ concurrently, as in “at the same time”.

[Terry_Sampson]

@Dale

No, you just don’t understand my position with respect to our free will, God’s sovereignty, his omnitemporality and his inscrutability. There is a paradox there we are not going to get our heads around, no matter how many bullet points you make.

FYI: My bullet points are for me. They help me keep track of my thoughts. If they don’t do anything for you, ignore them.

As for “your position”, you’re still ignoring what I call “consistent Free Will” and replacing my understanding of it with your position. If I wanted to know what your position is, I’d have asked.
My position on Determinism begins with bits of stuff moving through space. Different sets of the bits do different things: Some circle other sets, like planets circling stars and solar systems circling in galaxies. Other sets sit at their computers and post messages to each other.

So, do any one of those bits have free will? I think not. Anybody who thinks that each of the smallest bits moving through space has free will is welcome to try to explain to me how that works. But if none of the smallest bits has free will, how many are needed to give rise to or exercise free will? God is no less sovereign and inscrutable in my Cosmos than He is in yours.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Terry_Sampson

Other sets sit at their computers…

I sit with my iPad in the chair that I inherited from my dad.

 

@Terry_Sampson

If I wanted to know what your position is, I’d have asked.

Sorry to disappoint. I was talking about reality.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Altair

Do you think people have freedom of choice? Free will is a complex concept, so I decided to narrow it down a bit. Our behavior is limited, our actions have reasons, we probably cannot call our actions completely free. But can we even choose something? for example, to kill or not to kill, to steal or not to steal, to help the poor or not to help, whom to marry? is there freedom here? what does neuroscience say about this? Thank you

Neuroscience has little to say about big moral decision making, apart from that there are hard and morally pre-wired parts of the brain that are conditioned by experience to affect them. Such decisions aren’t affected in the immediate; the fact that experiments show that we have made up our minds before we consciously know it in both morally neutral and not situations doesn’t show that there is no mahout on top of the elephant. But unless the elephant is chilled, the mahout has no chance to influence its charge and usually ends up justifying it ‘Woah! No!!! AAAAARGH! Yes! Good boy. That’s it. Phew.’. Later the mahout can mull, introspect, review, counsel and the elephant will overhear.