Well, if free will doesn't exist, then I'm going to say it's the one silly non-existent thing I believe in...
Does free will exist?
- Thread starter Spectral Dragon
- Start date
Yes, most definately. Sure all of the factors you mentioned influence us, some stronger than others but in the end if you are smart enough you can see through those trying to manipulate you and ultimately you make decisions for yourself, even if you don't realise it.Spectral Dragon said:
Its our choice to live... or commit suicide... (as I was before poines)Spectral Dragon said:
Yes but our will power if strong enough can influence if we are to reduce what we have, for example we moderate or we stop consuming sugar when we want to lose weight or just think its bad for us. Will power.
Free will is freedom to chose.
Sure we have limited options depending on circumstance but we still have the choices.
Lets say your a German soldier hiding in a bunker at the end of WW2...
You have many many options.
- Commit suicide as many did if they were given orders to go out and man positions as they'd rather die saying "fuck you" than out fighting. (Same with the Russians)
- Sit and do nothing
- Help tend to the wounded
- Start Dancing
- Start singing
- Go on a GTA style killing rampage
- Read something thats lying around
- Cry
- Help others calm down
- Run away
- Run away hoping to meet allied forces and surrender
- Punch everyone in the bunker
- Find Hitler with the intention of killing him
- Find Hitler with the intention of Tea Bagging him
Many many options. Some more likely than others... a lot more likely.
I'm sure that every single one of those happened apart from the last two and the GTA rampage. (the punching guy being restrained after the first one or two).
War is often the biggest question... war... why?
Surely that is free will somewhere in that.
The option of cowardice or to excel.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle implies that the world is not nearly as deterministic as Newton and Einstein had thought. Determinism isn't dead but is hasn't as much evidence in its favor as Probability. Free will is wining the argument in physics circles. As far as philosophy goes... this could go on forever.
Furthermore, think of the moral implications...
If there is no free will and we are destined to live our lives as we inevitably do, then how culpable are we really for what we do? How do you justify punishing criminals? "But officer, I was destined to do this."
In other words, free will imparts responsibility for ones own actions. And we make the assumption that people are responsible for their actions.
Furthermore, think of the moral implications...
If there is no free will and we are destined to live our lives as we inevitably do, then how culpable are we really for what we do? How do you justify punishing criminals? "But officer, I was destined to do this."
In other words, free will imparts responsibility for ones own actions. And we make the assumption that people are responsible for their actions.
we're just animals like everyone else on this planet, and are defined by the things that surround us. the rest is just our own ignorance and humans being humans and feeling special about it.
...man, this really doesn't sound like me at all.
when did I started to get full of that hippy crap? D:
EDIT: so yes, free will does exist, like for any other animal, but reduced in it's options by our own experiences.
EDIT2: also screw all the black/white perspectives I read in this thread, no, free will doesn't mean that you have a kind of "destiny" or something, it just means that you don't really have a choice based on the current circumstances. And those tend to change, you know.
you're never free, you're always governed by your feelings and urges and all that.
...man, this really doesn't sound like me at all.
when did I started to get full of that hippy crap? D:
EDIT: so yes, free will does exist, like for any other animal, but reduced in it's options by our own experiences.
EDIT2: also screw all the black/white perspectives I read in this thread, no, free will doesn't mean that you have a kind of "destiny" or something, it just means that you don't really have a choice based on the current circumstances. And those tend to change, you know.
you're never free, you're always governed by your feelings and urges and all that.
I can, and indeed will declare that the two are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps determinism is the wrong word, "nature" perhaps, but I firmly believe that just as there is an art and a science to everything, including art and science, the human mind can contain both.Sniperyeti said:
It depends on how you define "free will".Spectral Dragon said:
We are able to make decisions that impact our lives in any number of ways, from choosing when/where to eat, to picking which paths to take. We have the freedom to choose, for good or ill, and I would say that is the definition of "Free Will".
That said, the choices we make are decided by electro-chemical reactions within our brains. Our brains are finite-state machines. Horrendously complex ones, but they are still state machines. There is no metaphysical control over the brain, it simply moves from state to state as the situation changes. I would argue that this doesn't take anything away from the choices we make, but I've seen the point debated.
I don't believe we can answer this question with a mere 'yes' or 'no', because it asks about both metaphysics and self-hood. We have to think about whether the physical world itself is preprogrammed (and how would we know?) Then we have to decide what 'self' is, if it's not just a system within the physical world -- and whether it even makes sense to separate 'self' from the other stuff.
The problem is, both questions are political. If we had an answer to determinism, what would we do with it other than use it to struggle for power? And what is 'self' but a fiction we use to try and make ourselves the good guy of our own story?
Does it suit us to say 'the world is predictable, but I am not?' Heck yes... it makes us feel like the centre of the world.
What about 'the world is unpredictable and so am I?' Of course -- it lets us argue whatever we want.
Or how about 'the world is predictable and so am I?' Sure -- it lets us avoid fear.
Or 'the world is unpredictable but I am predictable?' -- why not? That lets us relegate all self-scrutiny to some higher power.
I don't think that these questions are answerable, and I also think that the more we want to answer these questions, the more self-interest we have invested in the answers. I think we'd be best served to treat people as they appear to be: a mix of both.
The problem is, both questions are political. If we had an answer to determinism, what would we do with it other than use it to struggle for power? And what is 'self' but a fiction we use to try and make ourselves the good guy of our own story?
Does it suit us to say 'the world is predictable, but I am not?' Heck yes... it makes us feel like the centre of the world.
What about 'the world is unpredictable and so am I?' Of course -- it lets us argue whatever we want.
Or how about 'the world is predictable and so am I?' Sure -- it lets us avoid fear.
Or 'the world is unpredictable but I am predictable?' -- why not? That lets us relegate all self-scrutiny to some higher power.
I don't think that these questions are answerable, and I also think that the more we want to answer these questions, the more self-interest we have invested in the answers. I think we'd be best served to treat people as they appear to be: a mix of both.
This is such an insanely stupid question. If you have no free will than it is a lack of free will (IE chemicals in the brain) that cause you to ponder if you actually have free will.
Do you value freedom of speech?(I assume the answer is yes) than this isn't worth discussing. Until people actually start to treat it seriously and taking away people rights than it is a non-issue.
Do you value freedom of speech?(I assume the answer is yes) than this isn't worth discussing. Until people actually start to treat it seriously and taking away people rights than it is a non-issue.
I don't know what you've heard, but alot of the quantum stuff cannot be determined. Otherwise we wouldn't have probability distributions for things like a particle-in-a-box, or we could predict the moment an unstable nucleus will decay, or even in which direction said radiation will be ejected in.BiscuitTrouser said:
Now, if the rate and even the direction of radiation, a form of energy transfer, cannot be predicted, nor does it follow any (aparant) strict rules, appearing to be completely random, then wouldn't much of the flow of energy be essentially unpredictable?
To sum up, while your view that classical physics is deterministic may be correct, that does not account for all of physics. As there are random elements that we cannot predict, nor do we understand, who's to say that somewhere, deep down in the mechanics of our brain, there isn't room for a little randomness? And who's to say that randomness isn't, infact, free will?
But because of past experiences, you like cereal. It's not because of your choice, it's because you were fed cereal as a child and you know it's not in any way harmful or dangerous and it tastes good. It's a logical decision, yes, but from a purely mechanic standpoint, it wasn't your decision, it was your brain. But you say you could have chosen something else, you say? Well it depends on your mood, or your tastes, or your time, or your budget, which all come from external factors.Guffe said:
Also, I have no idea. I've been thinking about this one for a long time and I still have no answer.
Free will does not exist, whether god exists or not is irrelevant. If god exists then God is omnipotent and omnipresent, God would know all and see all, and nothing could happen without God, past, future and present. Which means that God knew what you would do even before God chose to create you, therefore since you were created, God would have created you for the specific purpose of being who you are and doing what you have done, are doing and will do. God could not create something random because that randomness would be outside of God, which would mean that God is not truly omnipotent, besides God would still see the result of the random force nullifying it's effectiveness.
If the big bang happened then every single particle of mass and energy exploded from a single point in an instant. Each particle would have been moving on a set path that was decided in the first instant of time, as we would see it, and would only deviate from that path due to the influence of other particles. Which could be predicted by mapping out the two, or more, paths and seeing where they intersect. We could predict what would happen when they intersect by knowing the type of particles the energy of the particles and the angle of intersection, it would seem uncertain or probabilistic to us because we can't examine things to an infinitesimal degree, any variation at all could change the result, but all variations were already determined.
Free will is definitely an illusion unless a new theory of existence can say otherwise.
If the big bang happened then every single particle of mass and energy exploded from a single point in an instant. Each particle would have been moving on a set path that was decided in the first instant of time, as we would see it, and would only deviate from that path due to the influence of other particles. Which could be predicted by mapping out the two, or more, paths and seeing where they intersect. We could predict what would happen when they intersect by knowing the type of particles the energy of the particles and the angle of intersection, it would seem uncertain or probabilistic to us because we can't examine things to an infinitesimal degree, any variation at all could change the result, but all variations were already determined.
Free will is definitely an illusion unless a new theory of existence can say otherwise.
I'm sorry, I really didn't want to get involved in this discussion at all, but your argument doesn't make sense.Princess Rose said:
(However, given the size of this thread I've probably only seen a small fraction of it. So apologies if I'm repeating anything already said by others)
Granted, this is a matter of perspective. (IE. what does it actually mean to choose something.) There is, after all, in the scientific circles that even bother to discuss this the concept of 'strong' and 'weak' free will.
Trouble is, the person you are arguing with is arguing on principles that refer to the 'strong' argument, and your counter-arguments depend on taking the perspectives related to the 'weak' conception of free will.
The problem with your statement (from the perspective of the 'strong' concept of free will), is that while your brain may be able to make a choice, this is not free will.
This choice is entirely constrained by prior experience, and the inputs from your environment.
It is the illusion of choice, because it's origins depend on deterministic processes. And since a deterministic process cannot produce a random result, the 'choice' doesn't actually exist.
You say you can choose to think whatever you want, but the flaw in that is that this choice isn't independent. No matter what choice you made, it's cause can be traced to some external influence, either now, or in your past that results in you making that particular 'choice' at that moment in time.
Psychology studies don't help much in this matter. Fully 80% of the 'choices' we make aren't us consciously choosing something, but rather justifying the choice we made after the fact. This has been measured experimentally several times...
These studies suggest that instead of something like this:
"I can do A or B"
"I choose to do B"
"I then do B"
The reality is more often than not this:
"I can do A or B"
"I do B"
"I then come up with a reason for why I did B"
And here, in fact, is the big hole in your reasoning exposed:
And as soon as I make that choice, my brain starts firing electrical impulses to the correct part of my brain to reference that material.
You've externalised the choice. You make it seem like the choice is somehow independent of your brain...
No. Even in the cases where you can be said to actually be making a decision, (As opposed to what I just explained a moment ago) that decision-making process is in and of itself electrical impulses within your brain.
But since these impulses are themselves the result of previous impulses, which also depend on previous impulses... The whole thing becomes an unbroken chain of cause and effect, which excludes the possibility of choice. (Or rather, unconstrained choice. Choice is an awkward word to use in a discussion about free will, because there's a difference between making a choice, and making an unconstrained choice.)
At the end of the day, free will is only possible by the most restrictive definitions of 'free', if the choice being made is 100% independent of ALL outside influence.
Given that the brain is part of the universe, not independent of it. That's pretty much impossible.
So, that means free will is an illusion.
Now, that's the 'strong' argument.
There are other possible arguments that aren't quite so demanding of what it means to make a 'free' choice. And with many such arguments there is far more reason to claim that Free will of some kind does in fact exist.
But the person you were arguing with was definitely invoking the 'strong' argument, and none of your counter-arguments are valid in that context. (Now, if you wish to argue by less stringent definitions of free will, that's fine. But the way you're going about it doesn't establish that in any way, and otherwise fails to really counter-act anything you've been presented with.)
Me and my brother had this arguments last night. 3 hours of philosophy/physics and theorizing. I'm pretty sure we arrived at Quantum physics. Here are some of the arguments in list form.
1. Space is infinite. Therefore there must be more than one big bang. An infinite amount of matter in an infinite space. (Though the infinite matter never equals the total amount of space)
Now, determinism requires there to be an initial cause. Like the big bang. But the big bang must have been caused by something, perhaps due to rules that govern how huge amounts of energy behaves.
2. We start to delve downwards in complexity, from a person down to the atoms, from the atoms to the quarks, and from the quarks downwards to perhaps energy. Endless space means that you can go an infinite amount of times down. An infinite complexity of everything.
3. so there is an infinite chain of causes that affects you. However, this scale of complexity moves upwards as well. If there is more than one big bang, if we "zoom out" enough, these clusters of big bangs will be part of something, that is part of something, that is part of a quarks on the atom of the compound in the cell of the leg of a giant turtle.
4. If we blow up the earth, we aren't going to affect the turtle.
5. As we go up or down in complexity, we see that each "tier" of complexity affects each other less and less.
6.There are an infinite amount of causes affecting you. Your reaction to this, an infinite amount of causes affecting you, is indistinguishable from coming out of nothing
So, to recap: both free will and determinism.
free will is because every cause/event has an infinite amount causes/events. which is indistinguishable from out of nothing.
infinite causes/events is due to infinite complexity downwards.
space is infinitely big and small.
(think of like this, tier a can affect tier b, which will affect tier c. However, there are an infinite amount of affects affecting tier b, so the affect of b on c is indistinguishable from something "new".
This is pretty long, so props to you if you read it. And if i had a lolcat you would get one.
1. Space is infinite. Therefore there must be more than one big bang. An infinite amount of matter in an infinite space. (Though the infinite matter never equals the total amount of space)
Now, determinism requires there to be an initial cause. Like the big bang. But the big bang must have been caused by something, perhaps due to rules that govern how huge amounts of energy behaves.
2. We start to delve downwards in complexity, from a person down to the atoms, from the atoms to the quarks, and from the quarks downwards to perhaps energy. Endless space means that you can go an infinite amount of times down. An infinite complexity of everything.
3. so there is an infinite chain of causes that affects you. However, this scale of complexity moves upwards as well. If there is more than one big bang, if we "zoom out" enough, these clusters of big bangs will be part of something, that is part of something, that is part of a quarks on the atom of the compound in the cell of the leg of a giant turtle.
4. If we blow up the earth, we aren't going to affect the turtle.
5. As we go up or down in complexity, we see that each "tier" of complexity affects each other less and less.
6.There are an infinite amount of causes affecting you. Your reaction to this, an infinite amount of causes affecting you, is indistinguishable from coming out of nothing
So, to recap: both free will and determinism.
free will is because every cause/event has an infinite amount causes/events. which is indistinguishable from out of nothing.
infinite causes/events is due to infinite complexity downwards.
space is infinitely big and small.
(think of like this, tier a can affect tier b, which will affect tier c. However, there are an infinite amount of affects affecting tier b, so the affect of b on c is indistinguishable from something "new".
This is pretty long, so props to you if you read it. And if i had a lolcat you would get one.
No it does not. Probability merely supports a chance that different things can happen which would only disprove predestination; and only if multiverse theory is wrong. Even if we aren't predestined, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle merely would possibly provide evidence that predestination is wrong, it says nothing at all about free will. Or do you personally have the power to control the 'random' outcomes described in Heisenburg's principle? Because I can assure you, no one else has such an ability(which I believe means that you're god)acturisme said:
Huh, weird. My friend and I had an in-depth conversation about this today..
I'm personally still undecided. It's a weird topic that I haven't fully wrapped my head around yet.
I'm personally still undecided. It's a weird topic that I haven't fully wrapped my head around yet.