Alfred Mele - Psychology of Free Will

What do common people think about free will, and why should it matter what they think anyway? Do common people think they have free will? Can they be persuaded otherwise? How does one’s sense of free will affect one’s sense of morality and responsibility?

Alfred Remen Mele is an American philosopher and the William H. and Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University. He is also the past Director of the Philosophy and Science of Self-Control Project (2014-2017) and the Big Questions in Free Will Project (2010-2013). Mele is the author of thirteen books and over 250 articles.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[Jinxed]

So the people that read the article/story which dismissed freewill acted freely to cheat, or did they have no choice?

[stevoofd]

There’s degrees of freedom in the choices we make, which varies due to a lot of often subconscious factors and cognitive abilities. The term ‘free will’ is just a heuristic layman term that seems to want to encapsulate the entire complex range of freedom in decision processes, but reduces it to a binary ‘there either is or is no free will’.

Free will is not much of a scientific construct, it’s easy to get all philosophical about, but seems to lead to the same old discussions over and over.

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.

- Omar Khayyam C. 1160 -

[johnaugsburger]

I was thinking along the same lines as you. Are their actions after reading that there is no free will actually free will?

[DorotheaJacob-cs]

Jackson Cynthia Anderson Anthony White Sandra

[DorotheaJacob-cs]

Hernandez Carol Jackson Ronald Gonzalez Karen

[lucianmaximus]

Everyone has options from which to choose, but the options are often the lesser of two evils. Because Technology and Artificial Intelligence have almost taken over, we're getting closer to not having much options other than 'choosing' to be a robot and obey the machine just to stay alive.

[miguelrosado]

We have free will because our brain calculates/simulates probabilities and chooses based on desired outcome. Nature created quantum intelligence, and we are it. The brain is using all available information (conscious and subconscious) to output it’s will, we are the conduit for the conscious output of the brain.

Biological life can transmute information, so they are probabilistic system and not deterministic systems.

[realitycheck]

IMO...Spirit, which is unchanging, doesn't have free will. Something that never changes cannot have our definition of free will. Spirit has its own definition of free will.

The "laws" of physics are unchanging and do not have free will. The "laws" of spirit are unchanging and do not have free will; based on our definition of free will.

We operate primarily under the "laws" of the ego or the flesh (body). But as chaotic and charging as they may be, they still follow a pattern of thought.

To change the pattern of thought takes discipline, mental effort and time. It doesnt come "freely" in most cases.

[barrymarcus]

If there is no free will, how can I even entertain the concept of a free will. Or, if I have no free, am I compelled to believe in free will?

[Ouiofcourse]

There's a difference between having Free Will and being able to predict the future...

You don't have free will but, you don't know what the future have for you, that's where the illusion of free will happen, so you better try your best !

[angeleverable]

"For some men, nothing is written unless THEY write it". LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Whether free will exists is irrelevant to living your life. If you believe in destiny, you are destined to be great; if you can make life what you will, you can choose to be great. As Winston Churchill said, "we are all worms, but I believe I am a glowworm".

[craigswanson]

I’d love to see Mele debate Sapolsky’s smug mug.

[TheEmptyBeing]

If you don't use what you've got, then you ain't got it. The same goes for free will. Just go with the flow and don't even bother to stop and think about where you're going.

[williamburts]

Were they free to use their will to have this conversation on free will? If yes, then they have free will, if no, then what is using their will to have this conversation?

[SRAVALM]

He says, "Unless you have a soul"...

What's the first thing you learn when inquiring the soul? That we don't have a soul. But a soul has an essence, thus nature and form, therefore a body.
These "experts" have no yearning for wisdom.

[SMitch]

I think we need to understand innate vs conditioned traits in humans before we can say there's free will. There's work that makes it looks like genetics and epigenetics are driving the show. Other papers will say it's 50:50. I 100% agree that human civilization functions better with a BELIEF in free will, though.

[catherinemoore]

Free will is most clearly seen when it is working against our self interests. .
People say that those who do good are motivated by pride or social status/recognition : but why focus on the rewards rather than the values that motivate the deeds? That's where we must posit the existence of a soul: a force that motivates our actions at a higher level and without calculations of personal benefits.
I believe this 'force' exists and that it seems to be coming from a place other than a specific mechanism related to psychology or the brain. . It is a form of destiny but with the freedom to choose it or refuse it. That's what may be called 'the soul'.

[sams]

Surveys aren't evidence, they're opinions. Evidence is made of facts, not opinions.

[aren]

I get frustrated when Lawrence has people on that are solely there to confirm his biases. This guy is subpar and not very smart.

[Geo_Knows_Things]

A researcher who dismisses other people's ideas as "fake scientists, " has lost all credibility in my eyes.