Is it really free will, If you only have one option?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So if I eat a doughnut every day and one day decide I am ruining my health and stop that's not me choosing to stop?

Sure,it is "you", "choosing". It's your brain. Who else would it be? You're not understanding.

But, if I hooked you up to an EEG & MRI and monitored your brain activity as you made that choice, it would show me that you made it before you are aware that you have made it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Have fun proving otherwise.

Sorry bud,not how it works. All the observations so far show that is not accurate. Proofs are for mathematics. But you are always free to wedge your feet stomping assertions into any gap in our knowledge. They carry no weight, however.

 

[ding]

I didn't move the goalposts.

Sure you did, 4 or 5 times,now.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man

That depends on how you mean that. If i write a code down, does it become independent? Ding, you are slippery and intentioanlly nebulous.

Are you asking if some sort of absolute moral code exists outside of man? Where would it exist, then? Remember, ypu first characterized it by saying it was a product of humans, who are qualittatively dofferent. Then you quickly changed lanes. And then did so again. So let's get your talking points in order.

I don't believe I can explain it any better than I have already done. I was pretty thorough in my explanation.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Sure,it is "you", "choosing". It's your brain. Who else would it be? You're not understanding.

But, if I hooked you up to an EEG & MRI and monitored your brain activity as you made that choice, it would show me that you made it before you are aware that you have made it.

No. YOU aren't understanding. What you claim proves free will is an illusion does no such thing.
And it would be highly surprising if many of my choices weren't made in an unconscious way...I have an entire life of experiences, likes, dislikes, etc. to inform those choices which are default decisions for me.

BUT, the bottom line is I can override these decisions at any point I choose, if there is a reason for me to.
So make up your mind and realize that you can't have things both ways. Either your deterministic view is a false one or it isn't.

 

[mudwhistle]

What is the one option you are referring to?

Free will.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Sorry bud,not how it works. All the observations so far show that is not accurate. Proofs are for mathematics. But you are always free to wedge your feet stomping assertions into any gap in our knowledge. They carry no weight, however.

I've heard about this stuff before. It doesn't negate free will.
But feel free to assert your fallacious arguments Just realize it carries no weight, however.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

then there should be no expectation for absolute morals.

And there aren't any. Get that through your head.

The only "right and wrong" innately known by humans is that hardwired by 4 billion years of evolution. The rest is picked up after birth.

That's why 21st century ding has better morals than 15th century ding, despite carrying around the same bronze age fairy tale book.

It's just so obvious...but your mind is addled by magical nonsense....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What you claim proves free will is an illusion does no such thing.

Of course it does, if you consider free will to mean being a conscious agent of your choices and behaviors. That is precisely what it does. You really are not getting this. You make your choices before you are aware you have made them. This is true in every study we have done, every time.

BUT, the bottom line is I can override these decisions at any point I choose,

No, sorry, you can't. And if it appears that you do, that behavior is also predetermined by your hardwiring and software, itself effected by nature and nurture.

Yes, if i could know the state of every molecule in your brain, I could perfecrly predict whether or not you will decide tomorrow to stop eating donuts. Now, quantum mechanics may effect this (hand in hand with chaos theory), but those effects will generally build up over time. And those are still deterministic processes, despite some very famous scientists calling them non deterministic decades ago. And they are certainly not controlled by you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It doesn't negate free will.

It absolutely does,if you take free will to mean being the conscious agent of your choices.

You're not the first person to struggle mightily with this idea, so dont be embarrassed.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Of course it does, if you consider free will to mean being a conscious agent of your choices and behaviors. That is precisely what it does. You really are not getting this. You make your choices bwfore you are aware you have made them. This is true in every study we have done, every time.

Well what if you don't sweeten your phony horrible argument by making all choices "conscious" ones thereby making your premise all just a lie? What then?

What about a person walking down an unfamiliar street filled with shops? And that person chooses one as soon as he sees it and rejects all others? Was that choice "conscious" in the sense that he really had to stop and carefully weigh all the pros and cons of all the other places he had never seen before in his life?

Or was his choice fairly instantaneous because that shop carried all sorts of products he has always been drawn to and fond of? Yet he wasn't compelled or forced to enter one certain shop and could easily have made another choice given a compelling reason to do so.
Choices are made all the time without any real thought given because a mind is filled with default preferences. But that says nothing about a free will that could override those default positions at any time at all.
Grow up and get a real job.

No, sorry, you can't. And if it appears that you do, that is also predetermined by your hardwiring and software, itself effected by nature and nurture.

Yes. I can and claiming otherwise is bullshit and once again you cannot prove otherwise.
I am not an automaton forced to do things against my will. You are frankly full of shit and atheists need not lie if their philosophy and beliefs were worthwhile and honest ones. But you demonstrate they are not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To demonstrate:

I can change your personality greatly with 12 ounces of ethyl alcohol. You will make different choices than you would normally make. You will demonstrate different behaviors. You may show new, different affinities.

 

[Avatar4321]

When dont we have choices?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes. I can

Not as the conscious agent of that choice. Sorry. The choice will be made before you are aware it has been made. The evidence shows what it shows, no matter how many times you stomp your feet and reject it.

Well what if you don't sweeten your phony horrible argument by making all choices "conscious" ones

Because that would be false. As the evidence shows.

And, get something straight: this is not "my argument". This is the current state of affairs of neuroscience.

 

[onefour1]

What is the one option you are referring to?

Free will.

So to the question of the thread, "Is it really free will, If you only have one option?", my question was, "What is the one option you are referring to?" Your response is, "Free will". If that is the the option and the only option, then yes, it really is free will.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When dont we have choices

Even ants 'make choices'. Computer algorithms 'make choices'.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It absolutely does,if you take free will to mean being the conscious agent of your choices.

You're not the first person to struggle mightily with this idea, so dont be embarrassed.

I'm hardly wrong so I feel no need to be embarrassed except perhaps to the extent that I have exchanged posts with you willingly. That is awkward I will admit.

I take free will to mean that I can make any choice I choose at any time and if I act without conscious consent of my will it's only because no such decision is needed at that particular time. To say otherwise if absurd.

I may always put my left shoe before my right because that is what I've grown accustomed to.
That choice was made long ago. But if I decide to put on my right shoe first the next time that's just what I will do. Because it is my will to do so.

 

[Avatar4321]

When dont we have choices

Even ants 'make choices'. Computer algorithms 'make choices'.

I agree.

There is always at least two choices.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Not as the conscious agent of that choice. Sorry. The choice will be made before you are aware it has been made. The evidence shows what it shows, no matter how many times you stomp your feet and reject it.

Recheck the evidence, Chuck. It shows no such thing and you shouldn't go around spouting off nonsense you don't fully understand.
My brain, my choice, my will. If not my choice then who is making all these decisions for me?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

To demonstrate:

I can change your personality greatly with 12 ounces of ethyl alcohol. You will make different choices than you would normally make. You will demonstrate different behaviors. You may show new, different affinities.

You can change my criteria for the decisions that I make while the effects of alcohol are present. That is all you can do however. I still decide what I do.

Like I said, you probably read some atheist literature that put this argument in your head without understanding it at all though the argument doesn't stand up anyway. Atheism & Free Will

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Because that would be false. As the evidence shows.

And, get something straight: this is not "my argument". This is the current state of affairs of neuroscience.

Recheck your neuroscience, Chuck. You greatly overstate what the science on this matte shows. Neuroscience of free will - Wikipedia