Does free will exist?
- Thread starter JC175
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Right-o, and I just got done with AP Bio... I actually learned about that. Don't tell my teacher.300ccs of medicine said:
I think it was the original idea from the medical community, and it stuck. A bunch of concentration gradients doing the wave is a harder concept for most people to grasp, and since most people don't know what electricity is anyways, the attitude is "why not?"
I am not sure I understand what point you are trying to prove. At least in my opinion, i believe that prediction of action does not mean loss of free will. If you could monitor our brains neurons, you could probably make a fairly accurate prediction on what we are thinking.
If you can make an accurate prediction, then you can probably tell what we plan on doing, but I fail to see how it compromises free will. It would take not nearly a second to completely change how I wanted to live, whether I want to slaughter hundreds of people, or cure diseases with my own two hands. That means I have a choice in what I plan on doing.
If you can make an accurate prediction, then you can probably tell what we plan on doing, but I fail to see how it compromises free will. It would take not nearly a second to completely change how I wanted to live, whether I want to slaughter hundreds of people, or cure diseases with my own two hands. That means I have a choice in what I plan on doing.
Well, if high school is teaching it right then it's probably people making the idea simpler in their minds then it really is. When I need to explain in laymans terms, I usually say "signal" which is correct but understated. The "signal" travels down the nerve to the end-organ and tells to do or to stop not doing something, is usually simple enough. No need to explain myelination, synapses, sensory vs motor, orders, and upper vs lower just to say "it's broken".Gerafin said:
Thanks though.
Your hypothesis supposes that the human brain has direct and total effect on these functions at a CONSCIOUS level. By your statements, yes, it compromises our free will. HOWEVER, you cannot predict a complex system such as "free will" simply viewing the reaction that our bodies would have to something so random as the chemical make up of the air we breathe at any given moment.JC175 said:
Your second edit fully negates all of your previously stated examples. You would have been better off asking, "Do you believe in fate?"
"Choosing" to allow these basic functions to operate our bodies as they do, we as humans can allow ourselves free use of the applicable benefits of these functions, thusly enhancing our ability to direct our bodies at will. This is all according to the sum of our desires. Encumbered as we might be by the mandates of our respective social constructs, it is our consistantly updating analysis of our reactions to social stimuli which dictates our behavior in the face of future events.
It is not impossible that each of us has the ability to overwhelm our own nature and free ourselves from traditional restraints (phobias, etc.), but the liklihood of any given success lies beyond the realm of possibility (greater than almost the entirety of the populace), because why do we NEED to be that different?
My answer: we don't, because no one's gonna give a damn anyway...
The point was to consider the issue without getting into the realm of puppetmasters pulling strings and such, although I see what you mean here. Most of the time if you see a question about free will, you assume that the opposing sides are free will, and being controlled by a higher being...gahh. My head hurts.Samoftherocks said:
Oh, I understood what was being asked. It's just that the opening statements (pre-edits) all spoke of functions that would have been difficult for a single-celled organism to comprehend. Not us. We're top o' the chain, baby! We can breathe in our sleep! The author skipped a few layers of consciousness to get to his point. That's all.JC175 said:
Not a fan of the "Somebody's going to delete all the doors, speed up time and make you starve to death" idea, eh? Can't say I am, either.MaxTheReaper said:
My guess? Lazy science teachers that don't feel like explaining the difference between depolarization and electricity. I know most of my teachers called it electricity, as such.300ccs of medicine said:
But if free will doesn't exist then punishment will do nothing to modify behavior or dissuade a criminal from repeat behavior.300ccs of medicine said:
That is a startlingly good point.MoganFreeman said:
I applaud you, sir.
Oh, aye. Your sadistic side really comes out when you're given absolute control over people you don't know.MaxTheReaper said:
For example, deleting the toilet and the only door that leads out of the bathroom, and watching someone slowly die in a puddle of their own piss. That sounds much more graphic than it really is, but it's quite disturbing when you think about it.
It's even more disturbing when you consider that people believe that there's someone that has that kind of control over us, and created us in his image. That pretty much means that there could be someone watching all of us, with the same dickish tendencies that all of us humans have.
I refer to my earlier post in which I described a model of "partial will" that is masked with the illusion of free will.MoganFreeman said:
If a persons decisions stem from reflex arcs trained by external stimuli, then punishing undesireable behavior will change it. Which is demonstrated rather thoroughly.
And even so, if by "punishment" you mean incarceration, then yes, locking someone in a hole will in fact keep them from stealing cars, regardless of whether or not they have free will.
Actually you not jumping into lava is a voluntary action. Although you could be pushed into the lava against your "free will".Gitsnik said:
It's a paradox, we can make our own choices and we'd like to think that those choices are personal, which they are, but at the same time we decide before a situation even occurs.Gitsnik said:
Yes. That is what I am saying and free action, although I'm slightly confused by what you mean by that term, I'm going to assume that free action is the ability to choose between the choices given to us. Which I do not debate.Gitsnik said:
Great I think we're on the same page.DoW Lowen said:
Free action, to continue whipping the lava reference, is: "Even if I am pushed into this pit I can escape it unscathed". Being pushed into the lava might go against your free will, but you have still chosen not to be pushed into it. The actual action of being pushed in has nothing to do with it - it is all about what you want to do, not necessarily what is forced on you.
You can choose to ignore the consequences (i.e. if you jump into the lava you will die), but that does not mean the consequences will not catch you up - instantly in the case of the lava, or - if we were to use a murder or theft as the point - when the law enforcement personnel catch up with you. Either way you have made a choice and are free to make that choice, but ultimately it is only a choice you have made - depending on environmental constraints you may be forced to do something else.
The problem is the two operations - free will and free action - are so closely tied into each other that it can be hard to differentiate. Free will is the ability to make choices in your head, determining whether or not you wish to accept, ignore or deal with the consequences is part of this choice. Free action, on the other hand, is the ability to do what you like without fear of retribution or consequence.
Edit: And then we get into the predestination argument of what your "free will" choices are going to be - what influences your environment and so forth are going to cause you to evaluate and decide. That said you can still choose to take the more dangerous path if you have two options, though I think that only certain people would do that sort of thing - heading back into nature vs nurture there.
Theoretically possible = "I have no idea if this theory is correct or not and hence no evidence to determine whether this is possible or not". Hence, it's equivalent to saying "I have no idea whether this is, in fact, possible, but I'm going to assume it is for the sake of argument."JC175 said:
To declare that something is possible, you need evidence, hence the hilarious juxtaposition of your various points. But people inclined to this kind of pointless mental wanking generally wander all over the map in what they erroneously refer to as their "thinking" anyway, so it's not like I'm *surprised*.
I've yet to see your list of references. Thanks for such an illuminating contribution to the discussion. Next time instead of "thinking" I'll just wander around and randomly criticise people's grammar in response to criticism, or mock amusement at the plebs, who are just like little ants running about in an enclosed field, in order to convince the public that I'm some kind of high class twat.JMeganSnow said:
I think that someones course in life isn't predetermined, but one might be more likely than the rest, depending.
EG) You can always do whatever you want whenever you want, you just to be alright with the consequences of your actions. Even if it goes against what might be natural, if you really want to do it, there's nothing mentally stopping you.
EG) You can always do whatever you want whenever you want, you just to be alright with the consequences of your actions. Even if it goes against what might be natural, if you really want to do it, there's nothing mentally stopping you.