I've always felt the same way, except that the game has "free will" mode turned on. (It DOES have one of those, right? It's been a while since I've played it.)Dkozza said:
Does free will exist?
- Thread starter JC175
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Looking it at logically, nope, doesn't effect free will at all.
Example: you look at all your data and it tells you I'm going to raise my right hand. I raise my right hand. You would not have been able to predict this until after the moment my body established I would do it.
However.. a simple test is if you say to me: you're going to raise your right hand, and I look at you and say "No.. not I am not".... I could have instead chosen to raise my hand, but I did not.
If you tell the sun "Hey mate, you're gonna rise at 6.13 tomorrow morning".. it's still going to do it.
Example: you look at all your data and it tells you I'm going to raise my right hand. I raise my right hand. You would not have been able to predict this until after the moment my body established I would do it.
However.. a simple test is if you say to me: you're going to raise your right hand, and I look at you and say "No.. not I am not".... I could have instead chosen to raise my hand, but I did not.
If you tell the sun "Hey mate, you're gonna rise at 6.13 tomorrow morning".. it's still going to do it.
True, except that "choice", in the general meaning of the word, really does not exist. What really determines our choices? Chemical reactions within our brains triggered by external stimuli. Saying we have free will implies there's some kind of external force (one free from the bounds of our bodies as well as this universe) that influences our choices. Even if this were true, it means there still isn't really a choice involved, it's just another reaction. I prefer to look at it this way. Free will may just be an illusion in the strictest sense of the word, but the very atoms that determine our actions are the very same atoms that we are made of. So, while we can't actively choose our actions, the simple act of reacting to stimuli is, in a word, a choice. I guess what I'm saying is, it all depends on your definition of "free will".Jadak said:
Yea, but if a reason not to do something appears in those couple of milliseconds, depending on reaction times, you might begin the motion and then stop, but you can still stop at any point in time if a reason for it appears.JC175 said:
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that there's no possible way for there not to be free will because you can choose to do, or not do, something at any point in time, for any arbitrary reason.
Is it possible that there's some force out there we'd call 'Fate' pulling the strings? Sure, it's a possibility, but there's no way to really argue about it. Any example of free will could just be held under the light of "Well, he/she/it/they was meant to do that!".
Regardless of all of that, the fact remains that you can always, without fail, make a choice, and that's the very essence of free will.
So, just for hypothetical purposes, let's just say that I had the magical ability to reach into your mind and control you like a puppet made of meat. Would THAT compromise the idea of free will?JC175 said:
No, because it's bullshit, just like YOUR hypothetical situation.
The existence of free will (human volition, that is) is a "perceptual self-evidency" and axiomatic--we couldn't even be having this discussion without it because it is human volition that makes it *possible* for us to be wrong or right and know the difference. The operation of free will stands at the base of all human knowledge, thought, and thus discussion.
The problem of free will and determinism is a false dichotomy. A deterministic world does not preclude the possibility of free will. I define free will as the ability to analyze different courses of action and choose to take a certain course of action based on whatever values you care most about. And though that action may be determined, in that: given the present circumstances (atomic functions, chemical processes, etc) of the world only one course of action may occur, it does not mean that you are incapable of analyzing different paths. You don't know what's going to happen next, despite the world being deterministic.
So this brings us to another definition of free will. Perhaps free will is not the ability to change a deterministic universe, but the ability to conceive of different possibilities given a certain situation and "choose", based on whatever values one holds, a course of action.
For example: I'm at a vending machine deciding between Coke or Sprite. I am determined, given the chemical processes in my brain, to choose Coke. However, I am able to conceive of the possibility of choosing Sprite. I am able to conceive of the consequences of choosing Sprite, instead of Coke. I am able to weigh the costs and benefits of choosing one over the other. And, most importantly, I do not know, initially, what is determined by the world. However, given whatever values I hold more dearly, I ultimately "choose" Coke.
So, then what is "unfreedom", in my philosophy? I suppose the inability to even conceive of any possibilities, except the one determined. Or perhaps, it'd be doing something you really don't want to do. For example, smoking crack, when you're addicted to crack, not because you really want to smoke crack. You can want to stop smoking crack, you want to do something else, but the physical addiction just overwhelms the brain, preventing any sort of circumstantial analyzation.
That's the true dichotomy: Determinism vs. Chaos, not Determinism vs. Free Will.
So this brings us to another definition of free will. Perhaps free will is not the ability to change a deterministic universe, but the ability to conceive of different possibilities given a certain situation and "choose", based on whatever values one holds, a course of action.
For example: I'm at a vending machine deciding between Coke or Sprite. I am determined, given the chemical processes in my brain, to choose Coke. However, I am able to conceive of the possibility of choosing Sprite. I am able to conceive of the consequences of choosing Sprite, instead of Coke. I am able to weigh the costs and benefits of choosing one over the other. And, most importantly, I do not know, initially, what is determined by the world. However, given whatever values I hold more dearly, I ultimately "choose" Coke.
So, then what is "unfreedom", in my philosophy? I suppose the inability to even conceive of any possibilities, except the one determined. Or perhaps, it'd be doing something you really don't want to do. For example, smoking crack, when you're addicted to crack, not because you really want to smoke crack. You can want to stop smoking crack, you want to do something else, but the physical addiction just overwhelms the brain, preventing any sort of circumstantial analyzation.
I think you're wrong. You're saying that free will is essentially pure randomness. If your actions are guided by absolutely nothing, then it's pure luck whether the coin flip in your head comes up "Stab" or "Don't stab". Randomness isn't free will. A random universe is the exact opposite of a determined universe. Without limitations of some sort, then the universe would be purely chaotic (ex: the laws of gravity may stop for no reason or change for no reason).DoW Lowen said:
That's the true dichotomy: Determinism vs. Chaos, not Determinism vs. Free Will.
I like to think of life as a game developed by Bioware; sure, you can take different paths, lead different lives, be good or bad. But in the end, it's still somewhat linear, and you can never *really* do what you want (e.g. stripping down infront of Washington Monument and singing I'm A Barbie Girl, partially because of social status, partly because it's illegal.) I think free will exists, but it's somewhat linear and predictable. Which makes the Joker that much more interesting- now THERE's free will.
Hey, there's no right and wrong here, we have no way of actually knowing. Personally I believe there is such a thing as free will, but I find it an interesting topic to think about.JMeganSnow said:
And the suggestion there is entirely possible if technology can improve to a certain position. All it is is measuring certain functions and states in the body - sure, it'd be incredibly complex to measure and interpret the exact neural activity occuring within the brain at any moment, but seeing as the brain works completely on electrical pulses it's theoretically possible.
Compatibilist free will exists.
Incompatibilist free will is unintelligible.
Neither is entirely satisfying.
Incompatibilist free will is unintelligible.
Neither is entirely satisfying.
The problem with this analogy is that you can sing I'm a Barbie Girl before the Washington Monument in the nude. You may be arrested for it, but you can still do it. You can literally do anything you can conceive of. The only thing holding you back is fear of consequences.Aqualung said:
At the basic heart of it, what you're discussing is a structure enforced by society. It's not socially acceptable to strip naked and sing terrible, terrible songs, just like its not socially acceptable for you to kill without good reason or to ever play Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing. So you don't do it, because you want to fit into society - we are all social beings after all.Aqualung said:
- Yes. Also random chance doesn't exist either. If you toss a coin, it can only land on one side with that energy stored in its movement. The thing is, we don't know which side so we call it random chance. Our memory can't store all available data of other people's bodily functions, so their actions seem to have random element in them. Possible actions could be listed in some kind of table (like in computers, data slot can only have value of certain type). Outside of that table, nothing out of this free will can happen.JC175 said:
- First you'd need to know words of Barbie Girl to be able to sing it. Secondly you'd need to know how to get to Washington Monument. Third thing you need is the kind of personality to even consider such an idea. Fourth thing is the difference between talking about things and doing things. There's many "ifs" there. If you think about it, it's not much different than being "strongly preferred" to eat and sleep when hungry and tired. This is just in different "level" socially.Agayek said:
Um, seeing these two paragraphs together is hilarious. "We have no way of knowing" "It's definitely possible". If we KNOW that it is POSSIBLE, then we damn well do have some way of KNOWING.JC175 said:
But actually, we do not, although current theory suggests that it'd be impossible to monitor the brain and body on such a level simply because at that point looking at it fundamentally changes its operations. It's like taking a sealed box and saying "is it pitch black inside this box?", then opening it in a lighted room to find out. Lo and behold, the inside of the box is illuminated--NOW.
Some of the biggest scientific challenges are finding out whether it *even makes sense* to ask certain questions. As Wolfgang Pauli would say, hypotheticals such as this are "not even wrong"--they are not falsifiable. They lack reference to anything which could be used to tie them to any other information of any kind.
so if i don't get to the bathroom i'll wet myself and cry. oh well. a least people can't compain that the sims needs to be censored.Dkozza said: