Does free will exist?

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Nope. All are actions are sub-consciously calculated, we have about as much power to change that fact as we have the ability sprout wings and fly. One simple experiment to prove this; get up and do something completely random. You can't, you have to calculate what to do, and it'll be based on thoughts you've had earlier (whether you've registered them or not). Yeah, that may seem bleak, but in reality it really doesn't make a difference.

 

[Venatio]

Yes free will exists and any idiot who says otherwise isnt worth the time of day. Of course that free will can be nudged, cajoled and threatened to do things it might not want to do even if we disagree with said actions.

 

[Supertask]

Hey, long time lurker first time post
This is an issue which many people seem to get confused about, because "Free Will" is never defined. To all the people saying something along the lines of "Today I made choice X over choice Y, therefore free will exists" well what do you consider the "I" in that statement to be? It is the collection of all your experiences and memories, along with the processing ability of your brain. They (i.e. you) are what determine what choice you make.

The deeper confusion about this is the assumption that whether or not the universe is entirely deterministic or whether there is genuine probability actually makes a difference (this issue appears to have partly derailed this thread at one point). It doesn't matter either way. How am I any more free if my decisions are decided by a dice roll than by pure determinism?

And this goes beyond the laws of physics, and beyond the question of whether there is a soul. It is a matter of pure logic, if an event is not determined by some outside trigger, then it is random by definition. To anyone who disagrees, I challenge them to give an example of any event which is both non-deterministic and non-random.

Free will exists in the sense that the collection of things that determine your actions (the things your mind is made of) are you, in this sense you make your own choices. However everything that makes up your mind only does so because of previous events that occured, things that caused you to have memories and experiences, to be in certain places at certain times. Free will does not exist in the sense that you can make is decision which is both non-random and non-determined, this is a logical contradiction.

 

[Stammer]

Probably not. Everything was set in motion billions of years ago.

Which means I was inevitably going to post this.

Pudding.

Kittties.

Rainbow Brite.

>.>

Yeah, I believe in some kind of pseudo-fate. Everything was set in motion billions of years ago, and everything that happens after that is going to happen as a result of that no matter what. All of your brain functions are based around pre-determined things. The only way things would be different at all is if some molecules flew off in other directions during the big bang.

But at the same time, what we do still changes our future. Just because something is inevitable doesn't mean we're not the ones who control that inevitability with our minds.

 

[Jorge Ortiz]

Ok what must be understood to answer this question is what IS free will, remember free will means youre abe to do whatever you want, but there have always been consecuences to your actions, thats simple science. There is free will, now the real question here is if WE have free will. Society has conditioned us to think not, because of the rules established and the limititaions we get, but heres the kicker thats how you can tell we got free will. In my oppinion free will doesnt mean to do whatever the hell you want to do because society tell you ist wrong, its the fact that you can do what feels right in your heart and without caring what society says, for example you treat everyone with the same love and compassion you would your family and even though society teaches us to be afraid of one another our free will tells us otherwise.

 

[peruvianskys]

Anyone interested in free will should read Robert Nozick's writings on the subject. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia (which is pretty lame, I know, but it's actually a great summation of the free will aspect in Philosophical Explanations):

When human beings become agents through reflexive self-awareness, they express their agency by having reasons for acting, to which they assign weights. Choosing the dimensions of one's identity is a special case, in which the assigning of weight to a dimension is partly self-constitutive. But all acting for reasons is constitutive of the self in a broader sense, namely, by its shaping one's character and personality in a manner analogous to the shaping that law undergoes through the precedent set by earlier court decisions. Just as a judge does not merely apply the law but to some degree makes it through judicial discretion, so too a person does not merely discover weights but assigns them; one not only weighs reasons but also weights them. Set in train is a process of building a framework for future decisions that we are tentatively committed to.

The life-long process of self-definition in this broader sense is construed indeterministically by Nozick. The weighting is "up to us" in the sense that it is undetermined by antecedent causal factors, even though subsequent action is fully caused by the reasons one has accepted. He compares assigning weights in this deterministic sense to "the currently orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics", following von Neumann in understanding a quantum mechanical system as in a superposition or probability mixture of states, which changes continuously in accordance with quantum mechanical equations of motion and discontinuously via measurement or observation that "collapses the wave packet" from a superposition to a particular state. Analogously, a person before decision has reasons without fixed weights: he is in a superposition of weights. The process of decision reduces the superposition to a particular state that causes action.

I couldn't really say it any better so there it is. He's got a very novel take on it that I think makes a lot of sense.

 

[nerdsamwich]

I think in many ways, this question is not all that useful. Because we can never truly know the answer as this question is being debated (a billion years ago the big bang happened so it was inevitable that Debbie Gibson would become a pop star in the 1980s).

I'm a pretty practical person and think it is important to think through the implications of which position you are about to argue.

If you argue that there is no free will, that all of our actions are out of our control, then we can not then punish people for murder or crimes...because it wasn't them who did it, it was the big bang that caused those people to commit those crimes.

I think the idea that we have no control over our actions, including actions that oppress or harm other people, is socially dangerous...indeed anti-social.

Whether or not we have free will, I prefer to live in a society that believes in free will and also recognizes the effects of social environment on the possibilities we can inact our will upon. This allow us to do social justice work to try and improve the social environment of people to allow them more and better choices, but also gives us the ability to take action against members of our society making what we see as bad choices to rape, kill, rob, etc.

I don't want to live in a society where someone might walk up to me punch me in the face and say, "Sorry, I punched you in the face, it wasn't my fault, I had no choice but to do that. You know, the big bang."

But--- if we have, in fact, no free will, then we must inevitably punish wrongdoing, as we have no choice in the matter. Do I choose to believe in the reality of choice, or am I forced to by Destiny? Or chemistry, or momentum, call it what you will. If free will exists, then I choose to believe that it does; if not, then I have to believe it does. I do agree that the question is useless because the answer doesn't affect anything, but it's a fun way to chase your thoughts in circles for a while.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

I say yes, I had a choice to click this. I had a choice if I wanted to eat that sandwich I made.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Nope. I'm a hopeless determinist. There's causality and quantum probability (maybe), free will is just a factor of that. It's a great illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.

 

[M920CAIN]

More like we're the slaves of our needs: the need to eat, the need to breath, the need to be warm, the need to... etc... even the need to play .

 

[exp. 99]

The trick to free will is that other folks have the freedom of choice to infringe upon your power to choose for yourself. I can choose to go shoot someone, for example, but then other people can choose to put my ass in jail, and ruin my ability to choose to do much of anything.

Either way, this is deep stuff y'all are digging into, and I like it. It's good brain candy.

 

[2xDouble]

My only point would be, i can roll a dice, and physics can tell me where the dice will land if i can tell the force i applied. Just because i cant predict the dice does it mean that, from the second i threw it, it wasnt already going to land a certain way up? Prediction of an action and it being determined are seperate concepts.

The real question is, was it going to have landed that way before you threw it?

Determinism says yes.
Chaos Theory says no.
String Theory says both yes and no.
Multiverse Theory says yes, because you threw infinite dice with infinite results.
Game Theory says the dice wanted to be thrown.
Psychology says the dice mean you hate your father (or mother).
Philosophy says the dice are a metaphor of the self.
Existentialism says what dice?

 

[NightHawk21]

SNIP

While your biological and physical explanations are and for the most part fairly accurate, you seem to have a lot of dislike for randomness which is odd seeing how there are large portions of biology and chemistry that are completely random in nature.

Anyways, it seems you and I don't share the same opinion on what free will is. Yes, given enough information about any given situation it is possible to predict the likeliest outcome or a few possible outcomes, but even the ability to choose between those outcomes is a product of free will.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Typical Science vs the assumed "Magic/Religion" thread on a gaming website.
And as usual, absolutely nothing of value was accomplished or discussed.
Really. These "existential crisis" threads hinge/border on belonging on another forum anyway.

Anyone else want to start a collective drinking game for these sorts of topics?

-Take a shot every time someone uses "Science vs Religion". Take another if they use it as their sole assumed argument.
-Take a shot every time you see someone play the Unprovable Irrelevant Credentials-card. (someone claims to be an exceptional person in that field; and they think this somehow matters to their argument; arguments are proven/disproven with facts, not credentials).
-Take two shots every time you see a paradoxical or contradicting statement.
-Finish your drink every time someone is suspended or banned because of one of these topics.

 

[Death God]

Yes, it is still there but no, people don't exercise it due to a free of punishment of sorts/

 

[RedDeadFred]

Yes I do think we have free will and if you didn't notice I am actually extending this sentence solely for the reason of my not wanting to get a warning for a low content post.

 

[Crazycat690]

Well somewhat, the same way a prisoner can walk away until the chains stop him, normal people do their daily walks, but we can't choose that much when it comes down to it. However I do believe we can break these chains, to completely go against society and the common ideology and thereby intruduce anarchy, then we will have free will.

 

[ultimateownage]

Just like there is no true randomness, just the inability to perceive the effects that determine something's outcome.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Please read my extra posts. I actually study chemistry computer science, biology and maths for A level. So far im going quad A on my grades. Im not an idiot. I understand what im talking about, i know nothing magic happens, thats my point. Surely if it is not randomised at all it is predictable no? I also understand the pseudo random numbers computers generate are actually made from a seed and a complex algorithm, ive written a few in python actually. I understand the process behind conduction in nerves both mylinated and not, and i understand how the ion gradiant makes message transfer predictable and physics based. Thus determinalism.

Message transfer, not message content.

So why are you here?

In this thread? To show that unless you want to deny contempery physics determinalism must be true. The choice is simple. Its difficult but i think that more understand couldnt hurt anyone. I think of it like this. I came to the realisation i have no free will. Did anything change? No. It was the exact same as when i thought i did plus one extra thought. I might as well go on living as if i do have free will for all the difference it makes. The points faily moot to be honest. Its not really worth worrying about, i just enjoy scientific discussion.

Sounds more like nihilism or fatalism to me. Nothing you do matters, blah blah blah. You can say to me "But science says so!" and I can say to you, without a doubt in my mind, that science has been and will be proven wrong. Every time. What we believed about science 100 years ago isn't the same as it is now, and 100 years from now things will be different. Because we as beings never will understand the truth of existence, no matter how many machines we create to "see" things we couldn't before, no matter how many times you "prove" it with math.
Do I believe science is all hocus pocus bullcrap? No. I know it serves a purpose and all, but people who believe science is 100% correct are just as bad as the scientists predating them who thought they were right too. Our species collective knowledge of the real universe is a drop in the friggin ocean. We know little, understand little but pride ourselves on "getting it all". Overinflated gas bag egos.
You say "but I go to college for this, I know it all". No, you know what they tell you. So of course you have no free will, you accept what you are told like a good sheep. Baa baa baa.

 

[Blind Sight]

I think there's a bit of a language issue here as well; 'free will' can be defined in numerous fashions, making a debate on it clouded and confusing at times. Of course there's the notion of free will being action without the intervention of some divine being, but free will is also used to constitute the idea of voluntary actions or choices.

Just to add in my two cents, I'll argue that there is no 'absolute' free will, i.e. humans cannot shift physics or reality to their own whim or outcomes, but the notion of free will as a system of voluntary choices does hold some merit. Humans already exist in an environment where there are pre-determined physical rules, however how they act in said environment constitutes a form of free will. I'm basically arguing that our actions, whether irrational or rational, are a product of inherent choice based on cognitive decision making that is grounded in reality. In layman's terms, we can't shift or change physics for our benefit; however, we can rationally determine limited outcomes in the context of reality and make choices we prefer. Reality does affect our decisions, but we consider that factor and the outcomes we choose are a product of our mind. Bear in mind, said outcomes might not be what we were aiming for, but the inherent choice needed to create that outcome is limited free will. Short version: Humans largely can't change the laws of the universe, but they can understand the outcomes from actions and then make rational or irrational choice based on experience and knowledge.

I'm largely arguing this because I'm trying to discuss free will in smaller terms, i.e. with the notion of static universe and the limitations of the human mind. Human free will must work in the context of these limitations, but that does not completely negate choice. Rather, it lays the foundation for a basic understanding of reality that allows us to determine limited outcomes and make choices based on them.