,/cite>We have choices and we make choices. My fate is not predetermined – except death, but not the how or why.
William, I was reading about something that most people aren’t aware of (I wasn’t until yesterday) that the first and only time in American history, there was universal childcare. It was during WWII. It only lasted a few short years, but those children who experienced this made better choices as adults and were more likely to complete a college degree. Mamas got out of the house more and around more adults, not having to stay at home 24/7 tending to the stress that comes with raising children pretty much alone. This not only had a positive effect on the mother’s well being and outlook, but also her children.
The CDC did an extensive study on adverse childhood experiences, and it definitely had a significant influence on the choices these children made as they grew into adulthood. It played a major role in determining risk taking, substance abuse, heath and time of death.
I totally agree we have influences. I dont doubt that one little bit. I firmly believe that many influences carry very much weight in everything we do.
But are they impossible to overcome? It may even be rare to overcome, but i dont think that’s the point.
I agree that even with a choice, we are not fully aware of all the choices available or all the potential outcomes.
But if we’re defining freewill as zero influence and perfect knowledge of all possibilities and potential outcomes, then I guess I’d say that freewill does not exist, even though i find that definition to be far too strict.
If that is the case, I will rephrase my position to be: we have the ability to act or not act, and to speak or not speak, even while still heavily influenced by multiple factors – in other words, our futures are not pre-written.
“would I kill or try to kill as freely outside of combat. absolutely not. But then, even when i was willing to kill in combat, i wasnt willing to torture.”
William, I suggest that when you have time, watch Philip Zimbardo’s lecture. Why did those all American, kid-next-store soldiers torture? I say you should count yourself fortunate that conditions were not right in your environment for such antisocial behavior.
We are far more influenced by our environment that people are willing to admit because we want to think we are in control. As Zimbardo stated, civilization is but a thin veneer — it’s not the “bad” apples, it’s the environment.
“We are far more influenced by our environment that people are willing to admit because we want to think we are in control. As Zimbardo stated, civilization is but a thin veneer — it’s not the “bad” apples, it’s the environment.”
true, and it may be because I thought long an hard about such situation before I ever joined. It could also be because i sat through base level psychology course in college that went over things like this as they related to Nazi’s and WWII germans.
But in high school sports, i didnt haze younger guys even when peers and those older thought it was a good idea.
I can tell you that i would have tortured or even humiliated prisoners of war, because I have made my determination. I am quite used to going against popular opinion and find little appealing about receiving acceptance from those i do not respect.
of course, my tendency has always been to take the opposite approach to those around me, so maybe i’m hardwired to be abrasive and argumentative.
I think that despite environment and despite natural tendencies, we have the abilities to overcome those and that we have the capabilities to free ourselves from those bonds.
it may be hard to do so. it easier to take path of least resistance, but it can usually be rewarding to take the path of great resistance. are you saying that people are pre-wired to take whichever path they are on?
that a person who is born with a short temper, who works to over come that and does, didn’t really over come anything but only changed as what was mandated by his influences?
To me, I find that i influence myself at times…
do we even disagree?
do you think I’m wrong here:
If that is the case, I will rephrase my position to be: we have the ability to act or not act, and to speak or not speak, even while still heavily influenced by multiple factors – in other words, our futures are not pre-written.
“A few years ago, economist Bill Harbaugh of the University of Oregon wanted to know what rational calculations play into people’s charitable giving choices. He and psychologist colleague Ulrich Mayr presented subjects with opportunities to donate to a food bank from a fund of $100. An fMRI scanner recorded what areas of their brains were activated as they chose.
When subjects decided to donate their money, Harbaugh and Mayr found, brain areas involved in processing rewards lit up more than they did when the decision to donate was not their own, but was instead dictated by the experimenters.
One such area was the nucleus accumbens, which contains neurons that release the pleasure chemical dopamine. This area “keeps track of rewards, whatever kind they are,” Harbaugh says. Some subjects, whom he calls “egoists,” showed less such activity at the prospect of seeing their money go to charity. Those he calls “altruists” showed more. The results, he says, suggest that at least for some people, giving money to others provides an intrinsic reward that is neurologically similar to ingesting an addictive drug.”
tendencies can influence choices, but I do not think they dictate actions.
acting toward a tendencies may be like taking the path of least resistance. acting in spite of a tendency may be like taking the road less traveled – why would that negate freedom of choice, freewill, etc?
does having tendencies and influences mean that there is no choice?
I think that despite environment and despite natural tendencies, we have the abilities to overcome those and that we have the capabilities to free ourselves from those bonds.
it may be hard to do so. it easier to take path of least resistance, but it can usually be rewarding to take the path of great resistance. are you saying that people are pre-wired to take whichever path they are on?
William and Ruth, my personal opinion, based on years of research, is that it is intrinsic to be prosocial, and that selflessness yields both mental and physical rewards whether one is conscience of it or not. But ultimately, selflessness translates to selfishness. I do agree that we can rewire (trains) our brains to be more altruistic, empathic and compassionate, even to the point where it looks like we are self-sacrificial.
But my point in all this is why? Why are we doing so?
When I went through my deconversion, I became aware that my desire to serve god and love others was based on factors related to my own well being whether I was conscious of it or not at the time of my belief. But there was even more motivation in the fact that anticipation of a reward, i.e., heaven, is very rewarding neurologically speaking. So believers who purport that they are good because of their god are not aware that they are “good” because they are selfish, but I don’t mean to indicate that this kind of selfishness is negative.
William, you chose to not go along with the crowd because doing what you thought was right was more rewarding than being acknowledged by the “in crowd”.
Ruth you chose to make sacrifices, but are you saying there was zero reward for you in this behavior? When you made these sacrifices, was it for the reason of knowing it was (in your mind) the right thing to do?
Based on everything I’ve read about human behavior, everything we do is reward based in some form or another. Psychopathic serial killers were interviewed and asked if they felt bad about what they had done. They said they couldn’t wait to do it again. They found pleasure (neurological reward) in their actions. Now we know that the brains of psychopaths are damaged or circuitry is malfunctioning in the frontal lobes.
So, while we may think we have choice or free will, ultimately it appears that all our actions, behaviors are driven by attaining reward in one form or another. So naturally, I question the concept of free will.
For clarification, those first two ‘paragraphs’ in my comment were from William. I didn’t put them in quotes. I forgot that when citing (), you have to do it with each separate paragraph when spacing. The second paragraph “it may be hard to do so. …, etc, was from William.
I can buy all of that, except I think many times our choices are not between “reward” or “no reward” but rather most choices each their set of rewards and consequences.
I fully believe that we all have tendencies and are all influenced. I still think we have the ability to choose. perhaps it’s hard to do so, but hard does not equal impossible in every case.
we may be speaking of freewill in different ways. I think i’ve explained my view.
I dont think that you believe that people are helpless in the choices they make. I dont think you believe that people’s actions are predetermined.
If that is right, then i am wondering if we’re even apart on this issue.
Based on everything I’ve read about human behavior, everything we do is reward based in some form or another.
Victoria, I tend to agree. I think we would like to think we are making choices and performing actions based on our “free will,” but it actually boils down to what is the most pleasing to us, physically and/or psychically. IOW, we are being influenced by factors that we’re most likely not even aware of.
As Nate wrote sometime back … all our past experiences, our knowledge about a given situation, our emotional state, our hormone levels, our level of education, our level of intelligence, whatever events are happening around us at the time, etc. — each of these play a part.
Could the reason we like to think it’s all about “us” as we make our decisions and choices be our resistance to being “controlled” by outside influences/circumstances?
I don’t think it is nearly so simple. Certainly we know that the brains of psychopathic serial killers are damaged. That says nothing about people whose brains are not damaged. Not everyone suffers from brain damage. Not only that but it is suggested that these people can be rewired. Can they be rewired without their complicity? Is that not a choice?
No, I’m not saying there was zero reward in the behavior for me. I see what you are saying about that, but the long-term reward is not always more rewarding. The right thing to do is not always the pleasurable thing, even if there is the promise of some reward[even if not the most rewarding]. So while we may do a thing that is less rewarding, but still rewarding, that does not – in my mind – negate freewill.
What if you have a choice among equally pleasurable things?
One definition of free will is this: The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies
Considering all the factors being discussed, it would seem Sam Harris and Stephen Hawking are correct. Essentially, free will is an illusion since we are never free from those “external agencies.”
Nan wrote: “we are being influenced by factors that we’re most likely not even aware of.”
That’s how I see it too, Nan. So does Stephen Hawking. From Paul’s link, Hawking states:
“Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws.”
Nan wrote: “Could the reason we like to think it’s all about “us” as we make our decisions and choices be our resistance to being “controlled” by outside influences/circumstances?”
It could be, Nan. We tend to think about other people controlling us, but I think it may have more to do with the fact that we are/have been exceptionally vulnerable to nature, i.e., natural disasters.
Ruth, if I’m coming across as saying that it’s simple, then I have communicated poorly. It’s not simple by any means but I think that people tend to take a complex subject as free will and say that because I made the decision to write this comment this is proof of free will.
I haven’t read every single comment yet, but wanted to jump back in the conversation anyway.
I think we do have free will in the sense that we make our own decisions. But the real question is could we have ever made a different choice than the one we made?
Let’s take Ryan’s example of his dog as a simple illustration. His dog chose to chase after a ball rather than eat dinner. It was the dog’s choice to make — no one was forcing him to choose the ball. But if you could rewind, and all the circumstances were still the same: the dog’s love of chasing the ball, his current hunger level, the aroma of his food, etc, would he still make the choice of playing with the ball, or would he choose the food?
I think if everything is exactly the same, it’s hard to say that the dog would choose differently. And this is why some people question whether we have free will or not. If your choice would turn out the same every time, based on all the factors, then are you really making “free” choices, or are you just reacting?
I’m not saying I agree… but I do think it’s an interesting question.
Ruth, if I’m coming across as saying that it’s simple, then I have communicated poorly. It’s not simple by any means but I think that people tend to take a complex subject as free will and say that because I made the decision to write this comment this is proof of free will.
I certainly am not qualified to even argue the merits of freewill or determinism because I have not studied it enough.
I find the concept of complete determinism hard to wrap my head around. Did you have a choice in whether or not to write your comment?
The thing is, in most cases, the factors (at least for humans since our lives are so much more complex than animals) are not the same every time. Would you agree?
I think the thing I find the most difficult about complete determinism is not the idea that the things that there are things(environment, hormones, chemicals, etc.) that influence decisions. It is the implications of that which bother me. It isn’t even that I have a problem not throwing people into prison for raping, killing, etc. I have long thought that rehabilitation was the way to go. But according to this philosophy, that we do that which is most rewarding, how do you rewire a person’s damaged circuitry so that ‘they can’t wait to do it again’. Do addicts who overcome addiction (even in the face of a strong urge to relapse) not have to be making some kind of choice?
Are we wrong to bash fundamentalist extremists?
Are we wrong to be angry at rapists?
What about domestic violence?
What about ISIS’?
What about murderers?
What does it mean to be held accountable for our actions? Are we?
Ruth, determinism denies the possibility of free will. I cannot see this as being totally true. IMO, we do have “choices,” but they are influenced by outer circumstances. True, it’s a fine line.
I think when we say that free will is an illusion, we’re actually saying that “strict” free will is non-existent in that we have to acknowledge other factors come into play when we make our decisions.
Psalm 139:16 New Living Translation
“You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed.”
Finding Truth 
,/cite>We have choices and we make choices. My fate is not predetermined – except death, but not the how or why.
William, I was reading about something that most people aren’t aware of (I wasn’t until yesterday) that the first and only time in American history, there was universal childcare. It was during WWII. It only lasted a few short years, but those children who experienced this made better choices as adults and were more likely to complete a college degree. Mamas got out of the house more and around more adults, not having to stay at home 24/7 tending to the stress that comes with raising children pretty much alone. This not only had a positive effect on the mother’s well being and outlook, but also her children.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/09/30/3573844/lanham-act-child-care/Mama
The CDC did an extensive study on adverse childhood experiences, and it definitely had a significant influence on the choices these children made as they grew into adulthood. It played a major role in determining risk taking, substance abuse, heath and time of death.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/findings.html
LikeLike
I totally agree we have influences. I dont doubt that one little bit. I firmly believe that many influences carry very much weight in everything we do.
But are they impossible to overcome? It may even be rare to overcome, but i dont think that’s the point.
I agree that even with a choice, we are not fully aware of all the choices available or all the potential outcomes.
But if we’re defining freewill as zero influence and perfect knowledge of all possibilities and potential outcomes, then I guess I’d say that freewill does not exist, even though i find that definition to be far too strict.
If that is the case, I will rephrase my position to be: we have the ability to act or not act, and to speak or not speak, even while still heavily influenced by multiple factors – in other words, our futures are not pre-written.
LikeLike
“would I kill or try to kill as freely outside of combat. absolutely not. But then, even when i was willing to kill in combat, i wasnt willing to torture.”
William, I suggest that when you have time, watch Philip Zimbardo’s lecture. Why did those all American, kid-next-store soldiers torture? I say you should count yourself fortunate that conditions were not right in your environment for such antisocial behavior.
We are far more influenced by our environment that people are willing to admit because we want to think we are in control. As Zimbardo stated, civilization is but a thin veneer — it’s not the “bad” apples, it’s the environment.
LikeLike
Are you suggesting that people are not culpable for their actions? Do you believe we have no choice but to act the way we act in any given moment?
LikeLike
“We are far more influenced by our environment that people are willing to admit because we want to think we are in control. As Zimbardo stated, civilization is but a thin veneer — it’s not the “bad” apples, it’s the environment.”
true, and it may be because I thought long an hard about such situation before I ever joined. It could also be because i sat through base level psychology course in college that went over things like this as they related to Nazi’s and WWII germans.
But in high school sports, i didnt haze younger guys even when peers and those older thought it was a good idea.
I can tell you that i would have tortured or even humiliated prisoners of war, because I have made my determination. I am quite used to going against popular opinion and find little appealing about receiving acceptance from those i do not respect.
of course, my tendency has always been to take the opposite approach to those around me, so maybe i’m hardwired to be abrasive and argumentative.
I think that despite environment and despite natural tendencies, we have the abilities to overcome those and that we have the capabilities to free ourselves from those bonds.
it may be hard to do so. it easier to take path of least resistance, but it can usually be rewarding to take the path of great resistance. are you saying that people are pre-wired to take whichever path they are on?
that a person who is born with a short temper, who works to over come that and does, didn’t really over come anything but only changed as what was mandated by his influences?
To me, I find that i influence myself at times…
do we even disagree?
do you think I’m wrong here:
If that is the case, I will rephrase my position to be: we have the ability to act or not act, and to speak or not speak, even while still heavily influenced by multiple factors – in other words, our futures are not pre-written.
LikeLike
An Intrinsic Reward
“A few years ago, economist Bill Harbaugh of the University of Oregon wanted to know what rational calculations play into people’s charitable giving choices. He and psychologist colleague Ulrich Mayr presented subjects with opportunities to donate to a food bank from a fund of $100. An fMRI scanner recorded what areas of their brains were activated as they chose.
When subjects decided to donate their money, Harbaugh and Mayr found, brain areas involved in processing rewards lit up more than they did when the decision to donate was not their own, but was instead dictated by the experimenters.
One such area was the nucleus accumbens, which contains neurons that release the pleasure chemical dopamine. This area “keeps track of rewards, whatever kind they are,” Harbaugh says. Some subjects, whom he calls “egoists,” showed less such activity at the prospect of seeing their money go to charity. Those he calls “altruists” showed more. The results, he says, suggest that at least for some people, giving money to others provides an intrinsic reward that is neurologically similar to ingesting an addictive drug.”
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/11-what-makes-a-hero
LikeLike
can people migrate from egoist to altruist and vise versa?
can they perhaps train themselves to do so?
LikeLike
tendencies can influence choices, but I do not think they dictate actions.
acting toward a tendencies may be like taking the path of least resistance. acting in spite of a tendency may be like taking the road less traveled – why would that negate freedom of choice, freewill, etc?
does having tendencies and influences mean that there is no choice?
LikeLike
I think that despite environment and despite natural tendencies, we have the abilities to overcome those and that we have the capabilities to free ourselves from those bonds.
it may be hard to do so. it easier to take path of least resistance, but it can usually be rewarding to take the path of great resistance. are you saying that people are pre-wired to take whichever path they are on?
William and Ruth, my personal opinion, based on years of research, is that it is intrinsic to be prosocial, and that selflessness yields both mental and physical rewards whether one is conscience of it or not. But ultimately, selflessness translates to selfishness. I do agree that we can rewire (trains) our brains to be more altruistic, empathic and compassionate, even to the point where it looks like we are self-sacrificial.
But my point in all this is why? Why are we doing so?
When I went through my deconversion, I became aware that my desire to serve god and love others was based on factors related to my own well being whether I was conscious of it or not at the time of my belief. But there was even more motivation in the fact that anticipation of a reward, i.e., heaven, is very rewarding neurologically speaking. So believers who purport that they are good because of their god are not aware that they are “good” because they are selfish, but I don’t mean to indicate that this kind of selfishness is negative.
William, you chose to not go along with the crowd because doing what you thought was right was more rewarding than being acknowledged by the “in crowd”.
Ruth you chose to make sacrifices, but are you saying there was zero reward for you in this behavior? When you made these sacrifices, was it for the reason of knowing it was (in your mind) the right thing to do?
Based on everything I’ve read about human behavior, everything we do is reward based in some form or another. Psychopathic serial killers were interviewed and asked if they felt bad about what they had done. They said they couldn’t wait to do it again. They found pleasure (neurological reward) in their actions. Now we know that the brains of psychopaths are damaged or circuitry is malfunctioning in the frontal lobes.
So, while we may think we have choice or free will, ultimately it appears that all our actions, behaviors are driven by attaining reward in one form or another. So naturally, I question the concept of free will.
LikeLike
For clarification, those first two ‘paragraphs’ in my comment were from William. I didn’t put them in quotes. I forgot that when citing (), you have to do it with each separate paragraph when spacing. The second paragraph “it may be hard to do so. …, etc, was from William.
LikeLike
I can buy all of that, except I think many times our choices are not between “reward” or “no reward” but rather most choices each their set of rewards and consequences.
I fully believe that we all have tendencies and are all influenced. I still think we have the ability to choose. perhaps it’s hard to do so, but hard does not equal impossible in every case.
we may be speaking of freewill in different ways. I think i’ve explained my view.
I dont think that you believe that people are helpless in the choices they make. I dont think you believe that people’s actions are predetermined.
If that is right, then i am wondering if we’re even apart on this issue.
LikeLike
Based on everything I’ve read about human behavior, everything we do is reward based in some form or another.
Victoria, I tend to agree. I think we would like to think we are making choices and performing actions based on our “free will,” but it actually boils down to what is the most pleasing to us, physically and/or psychically. IOW, we are being influenced by factors that we’re most likely not even aware of.
As Nate wrote sometime back … all our past experiences, our knowledge about a given situation, our emotional state, our hormone levels, our level of education, our level of intelligence, whatever events are happening around us at the time, etc. — each of these play a part.
Could the reason we like to think it’s all about “us” as we make our decisions and choices be our resistance to being “controlled” by outside influences/circumstances?
LikeLike
I don’t think it is nearly so simple. Certainly we know that the brains of psychopathic serial killers are damaged. That says nothing about people whose brains are not damaged. Not everyone suffers from brain damage. Not only that but it is suggested that these people can be rewired. Can they be rewired without their complicity? Is that not a choice?
No, I’m not saying there was zero reward in the behavior for me. I see what you are saying about that, but the long-term reward is not always more rewarding. The right thing to do is not always the pleasurable thing, even if there is the promise of some reward[even if not the most rewarding]. So while we may do a thing that is less rewarding, but still rewarding, that does not – in my mind – negate freewill.
What if you have a choice among equally pleasurable things?
LikeLike
One definition of free will is this: The power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies
Considering all the factors being discussed, it would seem Sam Harris and Stephen Hawking are correct. Essentially, free will is an illusion since we are never free from those “external agencies.”
LikeLike
And if people don’t have a choice in how they act are they culpable for those actions? Is a psychopathic serial killer culpable?
If we have no choice then I had no choice in the way I reacted to this nor what I have typed to this point.
LikeLike
Nan wrote: “we are being influenced by factors that we’re most likely not even aware of.”
That’s how I see it too, Nan. So does Stephen Hawking. From Paul’s link, Hawking states:
“Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws.”
Nan wrote: “Could the reason we like to think it’s all about “us” as we make our decisions and choices be our resistance to being “controlled” by outside influences/circumstances?”
It could be, Nan. We tend to think about other people controlling us, but I think it may have more to do with the fact that we are/have been exceptionally vulnerable to nature, i.e., natural disasters.
LikeLike
“I don’t think it is nearly so simple.”
Ruth, if I’m coming across as saying that it’s simple, then I have communicated poorly. It’s not simple by any means but I think that people tend to take a complex subject as free will and say that because I made the decision to write this comment this is proof of free will.
LikeLike
I haven’t read every single comment yet, but wanted to jump back in the conversation anyway.
I think we do have free will in the sense that we make our own decisions. But the real question is could we have ever made a different choice than the one we made?
Let’s take Ryan’s example of his dog as a simple illustration. His dog chose to chase after a ball rather than eat dinner. It was the dog’s choice to make — no one was forcing him to choose the ball. But if you could rewind, and all the circumstances were still the same: the dog’s love of chasing the ball, his current hunger level, the aroma of his food, etc, would he still make the choice of playing with the ball, or would he choose the food?
I think if everything is exactly the same, it’s hard to say that the dog would choose differently. And this is why some people question whether we have free will or not. If your choice would turn out the same every time, based on all the factors, then are you really making “free” choices, or are you just reacting?
I’m not saying I agree… but I do think it’s an interesting question.
LikeLike
Ruth, if I’m coming across as saying that it’s simple, then I have communicated poorly. It’s not simple by any means but I think that people tend to take a complex subject as free will and say that because I made the decision to write this comment this is proof of free will.
I certainly am not qualified to even argue the merits of freewill or determinism because I have not studied it enough.
I find the concept of complete determinism hard to wrap my head around. Did you have a choice in whether or not to write your comment?
LikeLike
The thing is, in most cases, the factors (at least for humans since our lives are so much more complex than animals) are not the same every time. Would you agree?
LikeLike
I think the thing I find the most difficult about complete determinism is not the idea that the things that there are things(environment, hormones, chemicals, etc.) that influence decisions. It is the implications of that which bother me. It isn’t even that I have a problem not throwing people into prison for raping, killing, etc. I have long thought that rehabilitation was the way to go. But according to this philosophy, that we do that which is most rewarding, how do you rewire a person’s damaged circuitry so that ‘they can’t wait to do it again’. Do addicts who overcome addiction (even in the face of a strong urge to relapse) not have to be making some kind of choice?
Are we wrong to bash fundamentalist extremists?
Are we wrong to be angry at rapists?
What about domestic violence?
What about ISIS’?
What about murderers?
What does it mean to be held accountable for our actions? Are we?
LikeLike
Ruth, determinism denies the possibility of free will. I cannot see this as being totally true. IMO, we do have “choices,” but they are influenced by outer circumstances. True, it’s a fine line.
I think when we say that free will is an illusion, we’re actually saying that “strict” free will is non-existent in that we have to acknowledge other factors come into play when we make our decisions.
LikeLike
Psalm 139:16 New Living Translation
“You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed.”
doesn’t sound like free will to me.
LikeLike
True enough, Paul … IF you believe that bible guy.
LikeLike
doesn’t sound like free will to me.
I don’t think freewill means what Christians think it means.
LikeLike