Do we have FREE WILL?

[Soph0571]

Are we the master of our own destiny or are we all victims of fate? Is our life’s paths predetermined as part of Gods plan or can you overcome your circumstances? Are we prisioners to fate or to our biology?

The idea / concept of free will to make decisions that impact our futures touches all of our lives every day, but many people believe that free will is an illusion. It is true that no-one knows what is going to happen next. Life is a tale of the unexpected and through the amazing and yet to be fully understood complexity of our consciousness we make daily decisions about what we do. But can those decisions ever be truly unfettered and if not, how can we have pure free will? There is an ideal of free will that there is magical power to make choices for ourselves, that are not constrained choices. That in some way our choices are not predetermined to some extent by our history, our biology, our society. How can that be logical? Surely, we are all products, to one degree or another, of our past.
Is free will all a matter a definition? Free ‘will’ and free ‘won’t’ mean different things to people from different faiths and those of no faith. If we go with a pragmatic definition of free will then I think we can accept that most human beings have the capacity to learn from our mistakes and adjust our future behaviour accordingly.

The theology of free will is somewhat baffling. If your faith construct offers you a belief in a final judgement, in eternal punishment or eternal salvation then to justify this you need to attribute to human beings not only the capacity to make choices, but that we have the capacity to make choices that are wholly responsible for what we do, how we do it, and the outcomes for us from those choices. In essence, the buck stops with us. But this cannot be realistic. We can of course all make moral choices but they are constrained by environmental, societal and historical factors. We do not have pure free will, to pretend otherwise is a cop out for those who are not interested in social justice.

Pure free will is used as a great excuse to stifle social support networks. If they just made better choices, they would better themselves. They have a freedom to choose. Free will is much more complex than that.

[empedocles]

1. 'Free Will' is complex. It becomes more complex when . . .

. . . we factor in various emotional impacts young children are exposed to. Factor in such concepts as PTSD. Interesting things.

[traitortrump childhood, etc., seems, awfully, 'complex'].

[KPN]

2. Yes, but only to the extent that we are

rational, sane and not under perceived threat. We have free will only to the extent that we are rational and secure in our being.

[packman]

3. Makes you feel sorry for Judas

Preordained from the creation of the universe to betray Jesus? The Book of Life is read by God and He knows if you will turn right or left as you walk out the door - if you believe in that nonsense.

[CrispyQ]

4. Is God a Taoist?

Is God a Taoist?
by Raymond M. Smullyan, 1977

http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html

It's a dialog between a mortal & God on free will. It's been a long time since I read it, but I remember enjoying it. I was surprised to find it online.

[MineralMan]

5. We have free will, within the parameters that limit us.

We can choose to go in whatever direction we wish, as long as we are physically able to go.

We are free to decide what we believe, but only within the limitations of our intellects.

We are free to plan our lives, but not necessarily to live them as we planned.

Internal and external limitations, many of which we do not personally understand, alter our ability to decide.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Well, that could be a narrower definition of "free will", since pretty much everything has limits...

But, there is an interesting discussion going on about whether the concept of free will is just an illusion.

Do we really have the ability to decide, or do we convince ourselves that we have the ability to decide?

[MineralMan]

9. It is the definition I use.

Since I'm an atheist, I don't consider it in terms of deities controlling anything, since I do not believe they exist.

I'm also aware of a host of limitations, lifespan among them. I can, and do, decide for myself about many things, and benefit or not from those decisions, generally based on things over which I have no control.

Within the parameters of those limitations, I do enjoy free will, and use it on a daily, hourly, or even shorter-term basis. The number of choices I have made in my lifetime, large and small, are uncountable. The consequences of those choices are clear in some cases, and not so clear in others.

I can choose what I will do, but I cannot choose how others, nature, unpredictable events and many other factors might affect me, despite my ability to choose.

Still, within all of those limitations, I have free will. I'm certain of that. Now, I choose to end this post.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Well, you certainly think you have free will, but there is that nagging question about...

whether or not you see the forest or the trees. We are all in that situation, because we have no idea whether time folds on itself with the future influencing the present. Gods are merely an invention to explain the unexplainable, so atheism or belief means little.

And, does it make any difference to anyone but a lonely philosopher?

[MineralMan]

12. It's a matter of scale, really.

Big choices and little choices.

[Doodley]

77. But are YOU making the choices or are the choices being made for you? You think

you make choices out of your own free will, but how do you know? Why do you assume that?

[edhopper]

6. Theologians ask about Free Will in the context

of a God who knows everything, including what will happen. How does free Will work in a pre-determined Universe?

But the real question is one of neuroscience. The concept of free will being a completely conscientious choice of actions for individuals is a myth. The answer to what we actually decide is complex and not nearly understood. Some would even say we don't truly decide anything in the classical "free will" definition.

And the excuse that God allows unspeakable evils because of "Free Will" needs to be permanently thrown into the trash bin of terrible theological explanations.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. With or without gods, is the universe pre-determined? Einstein gave us the first hint...

of relativistic views of time, but he admitted that there was more to learn about it.

Are events in "time" random and unrepeatable, or is there some order to them? How do waves of time interact?

Too early on a Sunday morning to deal with this stuff.

[edhopper]

14. Ah, whether time is a series of cause and effect

or a big glob of timey-wimey....?

[MineralMan]

15. For an individual's existence, larger concepts about time are unnecessary.

We experience time much the same - all of us. Our experience is somewhat variable, but is evened out by natural phenomena.

We exert our free will in small increments, mostly. We limit ourselves to measurable timeframes. An hour, a day, a year. Most people recognize that they cannot accurately predict long-term effects of their decisions, although some like to believe they can.

Our lives are a continuous series of decisions - most of them minor and fleeting. We make them often without knowing why we make them, but we do make them nevertheless. We make them consciously or unconsciously. We use our reason to make some and our raw emotions to make others. But, still, we make choices, for better or worse. Free will. It exists, but isn't some weighty thing that requires a lot of philosophizing, I think. We do decide what we do, using whatever methods we use. Then, we live with the results, or die from them.

[edhopper]

16. but is making a decision

unconciously cosidered free will, and how many of our decisions truly concious/

[marylandblue]

17. You have to give an unfalsifyable definition of free will first

If you don't, you end up just talking in circles.

[MineralMan]

19. Talking in circles is what religion is all about.

It all circles back to the original premise. It's what we do here in the Religion Group.

[marylandblue]

20. Free will is really a philosophical or scientific issue

But in religion, it becomes an article of faith. Western religions require free will so God can justifiably reward or punish us.

[MineralMan]

22. See, I don't do "faith." So, my use of the term is based on

something other than that. We all define such terms differently, which makes discussion only peripherally useful, really. Religionists talk about deities and their influence or control of things. I talk about the brain and how it works to make decisions. We're all speaking different languages, it seems.

Still, we have to have something to talk about.

[marylandblue]

32. You have to agree on definitions at least for discussion purposes

We have a lot of trouble with definitions in the religion group. We argue about definitions a lot, or worse, leave things undefined.

[edhopper]

28. I doubt that is possible.

[marylandblue]

33. Then free will is a meaningless concept

[edhopper]

35. Yes and no

some will give a definition, and then the validity of that definition can be discussed.

[marylandblue]

40. I thought you said no falsifiable definition was possible

Or maybe I misunderstood. My view is that if it isn't falsifiable, it's meaningless. So if we discuss a definition that can't be falsified, we have discussed nothing at all, even if we talk a lot.

[edhopper]

41. I think it's a concept worth discussing

even if the definition doesn't meet your criteria, because it has resonance in our society.

Does Love have a falsifiable definition?

[marylandblue]

42. Love has multiple falsifiable definitions

So does free will. But people seem to resist giving it a definition. Instead they talk about some metaphysical concept that has no type of test whatsoever, even a subjective one. I can accept that something is worth discussing simply because it has resonance, but that doesn't mean it does or does not exist.

[edhopper]

43. I see what you are saying

I don't have a answer if free will exists and if so, to what extent.
In a religion context, I don't think most religious definitions hold up to scrutiny.

[qazplm135]

55. love is way easier than free will

love is an emotion. We even know the chemical reactions that led to that particular emotion.

For free will to be defined with enough specificity to be "falsifiable" probably requires a definition of consciousness, which is itself even harder to define and categorize and understand than free will is.

We don't know enough about our very basic state of being, how we actually make decisions, what qualifies as "we" or "I" in the first place yet.

[marylandblue]

57. We don't need to know the nature of consciousness to have a falsiable definition

A falsifiable definition can be falsifiable in principle but we not yet have the technical knowledge to do so.

[qazplm135]

59. the two are very much tied together

so going to have to disagree.

[qazplm135]

50. no, not meaningless

certainly fuzzy and not fully defined.

The issue with the argument around free will IMO is a lot of people seemingly will only accept an all or nothing approach instead of the partial answer (that I think is the correct one).

We do not have unfettered free will, nor are we simply slaves to our genes and environment.

We all have walls around us made of genes and environmental factors that box us in. We are free to roam around within those boxes, but usually not free absent extraordinary circumstances to venture outside.

[marylandblue]

53. For something to be meaningful, it has to have a definition

Otherwise we may be using the same words to describe different things.

If the definition is also not falsifiable, it is meaningless because we can't tell the difference between a world with free will and one without.

[qazplm135]

54. plenty of things do not have a perfect definition

and we absolutely can have an idea of what a world without free will would look like.

Give me a planet, and let me populate it with nothing but androids running computer programs that I control and that they cannot violate or break out of. Boom you have a "world without free will."

A planet with absolute free will is much harder to model of course because of the fact that at some point, even if you start off as a blank slate, experience alone will cause you to act along some restraints (you will stop putting your hand on a hot stove after the first time, and look before you cross your street after you've been hit once).

A planet with partial free will will look like our own. People who have a range of options and choices and the freedom to exercise them, but limited both by experience and to a certain extent genetics/biology. We also know that sometimes, people can even break out of their past patterns or inclinations/programming and take new paths.

I just typed all sorts of meaningful things right there. Nothing there is meaningless. Even if I cannot provide you with a perfect definition of what free will is. You've taken an absolutist position in my opinion.

[marylandblue]

56. You have an implicit definition in there

Which is something like: free will is operating unlike a programmed computer, unable to escape it's program. Absolute free will is operating off a blank slate with no consequences for our actions. Partial free will is when we are not a blank slate and our actions have consequences, which causes us to learn from experience.

[qazplm135]

58. I have a fuzzy definition

and I'm not sure I'd agree with all that you typed (and no not sure I could come up with something better).

The problem with "defining" free will is that there is almost no way of thinking through the positive example of it that would last for more than a millisecond unless you also gave that hypothetical creature the inability to form short-term memories.

But it's very easy to think of a negative example of it, and it's very easy to think of a limited form of it.

[marylandblue]

60. All you need is to have two types of worlds

One with free will as you define it, one without, and be able to distinguish between the two. Which you've done, whether you realize it or not.

[qazplm135]

61. no, I haven't

not in the former. I have in the latter quite clearly.

So despite the mild patronizing from you, I don't agree with you.

[marylandblue]

62. I didn't patronize you, I just gave my opinion of what you did

You want to keep things "fuzzy," for some reason. But as far as I can tell you met the criteria for falsifiability and I consider your definition to be implicit. For some reason, you seem to think this is a bad thing, I don't know why.

[qazplm135]

63. I don't "want" to do anything.

I don't think "bad" or "good" has anything to do with it.

I disagree with your idea that my definition meets what you think it meets, which, given that it's my definition, one might think that would carry some thought behind it. I think my definition is fuzzy because I think my definition is fuzzy.

I'm not confused. I'm not burdened with some secret shame. I could be wrong, as we all can, but yes, telling me that I have some sort of ulterior motive or reasoning other than my plainly stated one, and telling me that I don't "get" my own definition but it's an acceptable one to you nevertheless is patronizing

[marylandblue]

64. I don' t think you have an ulterior anything

And it's not that you don't understand your own definition. It's that your definition is implicit. That's all. You can call it fuzzy or whatever, if you want. It seems pretty clear to me.

It.goes back to my original statement. If it's not falsifiable, it's meaningless, by my definitions. You made a falsifiable statement, therefore it is not meaningless to me. Unless I don't understand what you mean by fuzzy.

[Doodley]

81. What you say is based on the key assumption that we have free will.

"Partial free will," is like saying "partial love" or "partially alive" or "a partial dream." It either is or it isn't.

Suppose I claimed I had a computer that had free will. Suppose I claimed it had free will, but it was restricted because it didn't have a body and it didn't have a sense of smell or touch. The important thing would be that I was claiming it had free will, not that it had restrictions. It either would or it wouldn't have free will. That would be what I would be expected to prove to you.

I could hold the belief that the computer had free will, even if I had no proof. How is this different to your belief?

[qazplm135]

85. based on what?

there is nothing to say that free will either is or isn't.

You actually can be partially in love, you actually can be partially in a dream (it's called a waking dream), and one can argue you can be partially alive (say no pulse but brain activity, or brain-dead but with a pulse).

The operative word is free...and you can be partially free. Quite easily.

[Doodley]

79. Good answer, but when you say we are not slaves to our genes and environment, do you

have any evidence? What evidence is there that we are no more than machines that think we are more than machines?

[qazplm135]

84. machines are way more predictable

machines don't exhibit independent thought. Machines require a creator.

If you want to believe we are machines, then you probably need a creator.

[Doodley]

87. May I suggest that if you were truly free or even partially capable of free will, you would at least

be able to consider that you were not capable of free will? Faith is blind if it cannot be questioned and tested.

[qazplm135]

94. How am I not capable of considering it?

It's literally the point of this entire thread.

[Doodley]

95. Then I have misinterpreted your words, for which I apologize.

[MineralMan]

18. Good questions. I don't have good answers.

All of our decisions, of course, are affected by cognitive biases. Some, we make without thinking, because that's convenient and necessary much of the time. Others, we make after some sort of logical process, although our logic is altered by those biases. I'm not sure, however, that it matters all that much, in discussing free will.

If I get a cup of coffee and want something to eat to go with it, I typically have some choices available. All are choices I've selected at one point or another. Do I have the chocolate chip cookie? One of the brownies I baked yesterday (another decision), or a Hostess Snowball? Or, do I decide to have nothing, in an attempt to control my weight? It doesn't matter, really, which choice I make, but I will make a choice. It's an insignificant choice, but it's a conscious one that is limited by other choices I have made regarding snacks in the past.

Or, more immediately, what do I write in the current paragraph regarding free will? I could present some other examples of choices, both rationally and irrationally made. I am deciding as I type. My decision is not to add any more to this post, and that decision was made just now.

[edhopper]

23. and then we have to consider

the biological component of hunger and thirst driving your decisions.

[MineralMan]

21. Both you and I are interested in the neuroscience of decision-making.

I'm interested because I write marketing content for websites and we're focusing on consumer neuroscience right now.

It's all very interesting. Right now, I'm doing a series of pages on cognitive biases for the web developer I work with.

As I'm studying and writing, I seem to be coming to the conclusion that, while it's useful to understand decision-making processes in the brain, it may well not lead to marketing techniques that are any more effective than the trial-and-error strategies already in use. It appears to me that applying consumer neuroscience to web design and content might generate a few more leads or sales, but that most people will still leave the website without making any decision other than to leave.

It's that fractional increase in conversion rates that all of this is working toward. We can nudge people, but we can't make them decide. That's what I'm realizing. But, nudging more people is profitable, so, we keep working on doing that better. How interesting!

[edhopper]

24. It's like how much

emotions drive people to vote for Trump.
Logic and reason escape Trump voters.

[MineralMan]

25. Yes. Emotions play a big role in elections, and on both sides.

It's too bad, really.

[edhopper]

27. The media plays a big roll in this

remember that "Hillary doesn't connect with voters" BS.

[marylandblue]

31. The media is driven by emotions just like everyone else nt

[edhopper]

36. That is why

science is the best method of discovery, it works despite the emotions of the scientists.

[marylandblue]

30. It's okay if you recognize it for what it is

If you know emotions play a big part of your decisions, you can decide to either "go with the flow," or think about it more. If you think everything you do is perfectly rational, you are probably making many irrational decisions and find everyone with a different opinion is inexplicably "irrational." I find this sort of thinking is too common on both the left and the right.

[edhopper]

37. not always

but when the other side denies facts and truth, they are irrational.

[marylandblue]

38. I don't think either side has a monopoly on facts or truth

It's easier to see someone else's biases than your own.

[edhopper]

39. it's not binary

All one or the other. But I think it easily quantifiable that the GOP, especially under Trump, does not deal in facts or truth. That most of what they do is based on lies and falsehoods.

[marylandblue]

44. They think they are being rational

And perhaps some are lying, but most are simply not recognizing how much emotion is occurring in their own brains, even if they have their facts right. Consider the caravan coming to the border.

Nobody disputes the fact - there is a caravan of people coming. But some people are finding this scary. Trump is whipping them up, not really by lying, but by describing the caravan in a scary way.

Fear clouds people's judgement. It is true for everyone. The stress hormones are for fight, freeze orflight, not for clear thinking. The first step in clear thinking is to know that this is happening.

[edhopper]

45. I would agree with you as far as conservative voters

but the leaders only deal from lies and falsehood. They have no facts on their side.

[marylandblue]

47. I always wonder whether people believe the lies they say

My guess is that they often do. Lies are more convincing if you convince yourself first.

Trump is a special case though. He seems to be believe his lies are the same as truth, having special value equivalent to truth by the enormous power of his brilliant brain.

[edhopper]

48. I doubt McConnell believes

anything he is saying.
Trump knows he is lying, but is so ill informed doesn't know the truth either.

[Doodley]

78. You believe this, but suppose it was all an illusion. There is no evidence that we have free will.

[MineralMan]

80. No, I don't think it's an illusion at all.

Decisions I make when faced with options have consequences that are very real. In both the short and long term, my decisions over the years have materially altered the course of my life, which is distinctly not an illusion. Our lives have a beginning and an end. The time between those two events is marked by decisions and the consequences of those decisions.

It's no illusion.

[Doodley]

82. Of course it seems that way. You make decisions and you see those decision have an outcome.

But how do you know you were free to make those decisions? You may think you were free, but were you? How do you know that you were not destined to make those decisions, even though you think you consciously made them? I suggest you want to believe you were free, but believing something, doesn't make it so.

Suppose I told you I created a computer program that had free will. It had decided that it wanted me to play different music on my laptop. It made a decision and something changed as a result. Would you want more evidence that the program actually had "free will?" I think you would. Suppose the program told me it has free will. Is that evidence?

Would you say the computer program has free will, or is it more likely a simulation or illusion of free will? And how do you know that your experience of "free will" isn't equally an illusion?

[MineralMan]

83. Yours is not a new idea, of course.

It is, however, not my experience with the world. Decisions I have made have often been made after very careful consideration of all options. Some have worked out well; others not so much. Some have proven to be good decisions; some bad.

While some believe all of our decisions are made based on things like cognitive biases, that is not my belief. Some decisions, of course, are made without much consideration and are based on little more than actions of our most primitive parts of the brain. However, that is not always the case, by any means.

Any self-aware person can recognize the difference. I am such a person.

As someone who created many computer programs, including some that were experiments in AI language creation, I know exactly how software programs make "decisions." No free will is involved, except when I determined how the program would choose one out of many options. Generally, in the AI software, I used weighted pseudo-random routines to control decision making. The actual decision was unpredictable, but was always within the parameters of the programming.

I am not a computer program, though. My brain is not digital. It is also capable of self-altering decision methods.

And with that, I'm done with this subthread discussion.

[Doodley]

86. You appear to be unwilling to even consider you may be wrong. Does that sound like free will?

[MineralMan]

90. Actually, I have considered that many times. I've thought a great deal about

the question. I've read others' thinking about the question. I maintain that I am correct, after all that. You do not know me. You do not know much of anything about me. Yet you have decided that I am wrong. Think about it.

[Doodley]

91. I have read many posts of yours in which you (rightly so) expect a higher degree of evidence.

You are a prolific DUer. I have read many of your posts and have come to respect what you write and the way you make your arguments. I haven't decided you are wrong, and I admit that I do not know you, but I am surprised to see you believe in something without any evidence whatsoever.

[MineralMan]

92. Oh, there is plenty of evidence that people exercise free will

when making some classes of decisions. There is also plenty of evidence that most decisions are made emotionally, intuitively or based on automatic reactions to things.

But not all. And it is in the exceptions where original thinking and free will are found. I work in the field of neuromarketing, and deal with the full range of cognitive biases and the brain's methods of decision-making. Oddly enough, my constant goal is to shift people away from quick decisions and toward careful comparisons and fact-based decisions.

The success of my clients depends on people making those thoughtful, rational decisions on their own. My clients are successful. It works.

I don't spend a lot of time presenting that evidence here, however.

[qazplm135]

7. Partial free will

within a range constrained by our own biological (genetic) and environmental factors that shape and mold who we are, and by the fact that there are external actors/actions we cannot control or change.

[uriel1972]

65. where is this 'Free Will' of which you speak?

Where is it hiding? What exactly about it makes it 'Free'? How does it work?

How can we make decisions that are free if we are constrained by our inherent proclivities and the environment?

That we learn and change does not mean we have this 'Free Will'.

How do we tell the difference between 'Free Will' and ignorance of our own 'Decision-Making' process? All evidence points towards decisions being made BEFORE we can even consciously recognize and rationalize.

The only way a decision can be 'Free' of other influences is if the options are precisely and exactly balanced and there is NO benefit for choosing one option over another. Possible, but mind-boggingly improbable.

"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose." as the song goes.

I think complexity gives rise to the illusion of rational decision-making and free will.

You ain't free 'til you're dead... and by then it's too late.

[qazplm135]

66. You apply an all or nothing to the concept of free

There are all sorts of degrees of freedom.

[uriel1972]

67. Yes I do...

because slightly hidden in the concept of free will, is the word "FREE" and like it or not, it does tend to imply that the person freely chose to do something... without coercion or inherent restraints.

The concept is used to BLAME people for CHOICES they didn't have the OPTION to make.

What you see as "FREE", I do not.

[qazplm135]

68. There are degrees of freedom

So yeah don't agree

[uriel1972]

69. Like many ideas...

such as souls, spirits, string-theory, multi-verses, gods and more there is no evidence for 'Free Will', none.

Whilst many find the idea attractive and/or useful, that alone does not make it exist.

So, yeah. I don't agree with you on this one.

As for degrees, well, I hope that makes you happy in fuzzy semantic land.

I may be 'free' to wander around my prison cell, however that does not make me 'free'.

The one word may have many meanings, often closely related but not synonymous.

Like the words 'belief' and believe' and 'faith'.

[Act_of_Reparation]

70. Why do you hate paragraphs?

[qazplm135]

71. like many ideas...

there is no evidence for 'paragraphs', none.

Whilst many find the idea attractive and/or useful, that alone does not make it exist.

[uriel1972]

73. There is evidence for paragraphs.

Though not in my post I agree.

[Voltaire2]

74. String theories and many worlds theories

both explain observed physical phenomena even though neither can currently be proved.

[marylandblue]

13. I like the idea of being "captain of the soul."

You can plot a course and steer the ship, but the wind gives you the power and can always blow you off course.

[Jim__]

26. "We can of course all make moral choices but they are constrained by environmental, societal and ...

... historical factors."

Your of course is where I believe many discussions and most disagreements about free will begin. Does your sentence imply that we essentially have the power to choose our behavior based on our moral beliefs? Most people agree that there are some constraints on our choices, the disagreement is about to what degree our action is compelled by the constraints.

My belief is that we are responsible for most of our moral decisions. If we're driving that trolley that's about to kill 5 people, we freely make the decision whether or not to turn onto the track where we'll only kill one person. But, different people will believe differently about which decision is moral and which immoral; and those beliefs are heavily constrained by our history.

[uriel1972]

29. Nope...

it's a combination of proclivities (nature) and environment (nurture). We don't know what we are going to do next, so I stick around to see.

[zipplewrath]

34. Two distinct concepts

There is free will and there is predetermination. I tend not to go with predetermination, there is too much randomness and chaos in the universe. Conversely, I often think the concept of free will is over stated. When you consider extreme examples of mental illness, it would seem clear that even in less extreme situations, we are prewired to make certain decisions or choices.

[Doodley]

88. You are right. Mental illness and brain injury can result in changes in behavior - Do those

people have free will? Likewise, prescription medications, alcohol. illegal drugs can all change the way a person makes decisions. Where did their free will go?

[zipplewrath]

96. Exactly

There is alot of research that indicates we tend to make decisions, often quite quickly, and then expend a large amount of energy "justifying" the decision to ourselves. In that justification, people see free will. However, I look at the quick decision and wonder if the decision was prewired into our brains. Lately, they suggest that roughly 80% of what we consider to be "personality" is genetically determined. That doesn't sound alot like a concept of free will.

[Voltaire2]

46. Your definition of free will would apply to an amoeba.

“If we go with a pragmatic definition of free will then I think we can accept that most human beings have the capacity to learn from our mistakes and adjust our future behaviour accordingly.”

Just about every living thing has the capacity to learn and adjust behavior.

[Major Nikon]

75. Some willfully chose not to do so

I suppose close mindedness is also an expression of free will.

[keithbvadu2]

49. For the religious, there is no free will. There is only allowed will.

For the religious, there is no free will. There is only allowed will.

God has the ability and has been given credit for changing mens' hearts/minds.

God makes a decision, even if it is to allow your choice to stay in place.

[wasupaloopa]

51. There is cause in effect. Every thing that happens

has something that caused it. There is no god predetermining your fate. Your actions are causes that have outcomes.

[qazplm135]

72. not at the quantum level

there effect can precede cause.

[Doodley]

89. Exactly.

[C_U_L8R]

52. Maybe (or maybe not) but we do have...

[Doodley]

76. No, I do not believe we have free will and I don't see any evidence that we do.

Everything we do, every thought that we have, every decision we make is as a response. We are machines, just tiny microorganisms that briefly flicker in the vastness of time and space. We might think we are more, but we have no more free will than the roots of a tree that take a winding path below the ground, under rocks or around nearby vegetation.

[WhiteTara]

93. Buddhists say all is cause and effect. If you live in your habits

you will never make a change. Between the act and response is a brief moment where change is possible and different actions occur that have different results. But habits are so strong, that usually, there is no change in response.