Does free will exist?

[2xDouble]

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?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

...our actions are a random selection of a few possibilities.

Sounds like free will to me.

That implies a choice. We have no choice on a collapsing wavelength, which as you stated made the "decision" on what roll the dice was going to make. Thats not free will. Thats living out a few possibilities set for you. Rolling a dice over and over in frictionless vacuum until quantum mechanics makes that 2 a 1 for 1 time in every billion.

 

[naam]

I'm gonna go with 'no' as an answer to the question, but that that shouldn't influence us too much as we enjoy the ride. The logic behind understanding how everything ever works would be too complicated to comprehend anyway, and a simplified world view makes us more capable of dealing with situations in a timely and effective matter.

 

[phazaar]

This is all just a language game. Yes free will exists, but what it means to you changes whether you possess it or not.

A lot of people are arguing that because they 'chose' to reply to this, or they could 'choose' not to eat that means they have free will. They're right.

The other (main) language game being played is those people that choose to then say 'why did you choose that?' and analyse the reasoning for free will. If time was turned back to the moment you started making the decision (let's say, whether to hit reply or just move along at the realisation that there is no point devoting your time to this when you could be watching the BF3 pre-install), and you put a loop on those few seconds, the outcome would never differ, because you're the same person, with the same chemicals fueling the synapses in your brain, making the decision for you in effect. Thus, you have no free will, as the decision itself was predetermined. Thus, they're right too.

Generally speaking then, ethics comes down to 'believe whatever you want, and let them do the same, unless what you believe is that they must believe what you believe, in which case the universe implodes.' No right or wrong kids, it's just yaa boo theory all the way down

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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.

 

[Lukeje]

...our actions are a random selection of a few possibilities.

Sounds like free will to me.

That implies a choice. We have no choice on a collapsing wavelength, which as you stated made the "decision" on what roll the dice was going to make. Thats not free will. Thats living out a few possibilities set for you. Rolling a dice over and over in frictionless vacuum until quantum mechanics makes that 2 a 1 for 1 time in every billion.

But it is indistinguishable from true free will, correct?

 

[Princess Rose]

Message transfer, not message content.
So why are you here?

Thank you! You said what I've been saying, but more simply and eloquently.

As to answer your other question, I'm fairly certain that the answer is: BiscuitTrouser is here to Troll.

Edited for clarity.

 

[2xDouble]

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.

Interesting choice of answer.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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.

The only one talking about magic is YOU.

In your previous (equally idiotic) reply to me, you made a big deal about energy not being created but released.

No shit - that's exactly what I said. Electricity is created from glucose - that is, energy is transferred from chemical form to electrical form. Electricity =/= energy - it is merely another form of energy.

What everyone who thinks you're an idiot is saying is that while the chemical reaction to turn glucose into electricity is entirely predictable, what signals are transmitted by our brain WITH that electricity is NOT.

Did you even read the science behind the ion channels? I CAN predict where that energy will go, it archs and moves down a gradient in a neurone, passing synapses with the release of acetyl choline or not in the prescence of nicotine. Are you saying we cant predict the movement of electriity and energy? I thought you were implying energy was created from glucoses destruction. Which is false. Sorry. Again tone it down, im trying to have a reasonable discussion.

Imagine the brain as a circuit, lets call the fibres of your brain cells wires, each with a given resistance determined by natural biological processes in the brain. Where does the electricity go? We can predict that. We can tell what path it will follow and how it will do so, and at which point it will reach a destination apon which ion channels close. Does a different set of phsyics govern the movement of this electrity in your brain?

Message transfer, not message content.
So why are you here?

Thank you! You said what I've been saying, but more simply and eloquently.

As to answer your other question, I'm fairly certain that the answer is: BiscuitTrouser is here to Troll.

Edited for clarity.

Now you are just being uneccessary. I made no insults toward you, i respect your view, i have never once called you an idiot. Please try to be less insulting. The only troll like behaviour here is from you...

Diety almighty can we have a scientific disagreement without the title troll being thrown around? It degrades us both.

If you are so certain i am a trolling cretin just leave. If you want to keep calling me names in an attempt to boost your arguement just leave. If you want to discuss things civily where we obviously dont agree please stay. For the filth i apparently am in your eyes im trying my best to stay polite.

Ah the content. Electricity has properities, ampage and voltage. No "content". The "content" comes from which nerve bundle is triggered, the direction of the message and what receptor it triggers as a result. So the path is determined and thus your action.

From your lack of reply i take it you opted for the above choice. That saddens me. It was fun talking to you. What a shame really, you were aggressive, insulting and confrentational from the start, beggining with "i laugh in your face at your views"

 

[DanielDeFig]

Yes and no.

I'm a firm believer in determinism. I believe that every event in the universe is the result of an infinite chain of previous events. This means that the mean who starves himself, does so not because of free will, but because of his past experiences that led him to decide to ignore some of his most basic instincts.

Here's the problem with determinism: Unless you know everything about every Joule of energy and every atom in the universe, you will never be able to predict/know/understand anything 100%. This is especially troublesome when you try to use determinism to predict the future, the lack of knowledge of a single atom would eventually stack up over time until there are too many "maybe"'s and "probably"' down the line of your prediction for them to be reliable. Finally, there is only so much knowledge a human can posses (There must be a physical limit, as our brains are physical), and I doubt it's enough to be able to predict anything significant.

This leads me to conclude that, while understanding that the laws of physics will ultimately determine how the universe plays out, it's nothing for me to worry about, and nothing is "written" (I see believing in 'destiny' as something very dangerous. Too many people use it as an excuse for not being responsible for their actions). So I might just as well live my life in the knowledge that I am in full control of my actions, and therefore responsible for them.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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.

Interesting choice of answer.

Ill take that as a compliment. Thank you for not calling me an idiot or a troll. You are very civil and it was a pleasure sharing my views with you. Thank you for linking me the video, i love extra credits. It was also nice of you to suggest research for me. I might not need such research but the thought was good. Thank you for being polite.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Free Will is the ability to make your own decisions.

For example: something as small as sandwich, you can either eat it or not eat it (not eating also includes any action upon the sandwich that is not considering eating it, like throwing it or burning it). Either choice is exercising free will.

You decide that you are either A: hungry enough/tempted enough to eat the sandwich, or your B: not hungry/not tempted to eat the sandwich. I.E you either indulge your urges or resist them.

As for those people who think that Physics somehow disproves Free Will, forget that in Mathematics their is a thing called probability. Physics as a fundamental strut of the universe may theoretically dictate every course of action ever undertaken by any celestial body, sentient life form or otherwise... but the numbers your looking at are so astronomically complicated and so far beyond the scope of modern science and mathematical knowledge that they are essentially imperceivable.

In other words, they don't matter. So the petty act of Eating a Sandwich on a whim is enough of a reason for me to believe I have free will.

Now if you will excuse me... there is a sandwich destined to end very shortly.

 

[demoman_chaos]

nope.avi
I'll let a British bloke tell you why.

 

[Akytalusia]

short answer, no.

the more interesting question is if possibilities exist without it. from your perspective of yourself, from your perspective of others, from others perspective of you, from others perspective of themselves, it opens up multiple universe hypothesis, add in schrodinger's cat and quantum bogosorting, and you've got something to think about.

 

[Princess Rose]

I made no insults toward you, i respect your view, i have never once called you an idiot.

You called the entire thread ignorant.

You said that anyone who believes in free will must be a Christian Fundamentalist who believes that the brain works by magic.

You called people stupid for saying that particles from the big bang aren't the source of electricity in our brain. That you later recanted is no excuse.

You accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of thinking that our brains work by magic.

You have never ONCE respected any view but your own.

You and your constant and insistent attacks on all viewpoints but your own have successfully derailed this entire thread. What was a discussion of philosophy has been turned into a sloppy discussion of physics and biology.

Those are the actions of a Troll. And, having said so, I will waste no more time on you. Be as polite as you like - your actions speak louder than your placations.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

...our actions are a random selection of a few possibilities.

Sounds like free will to me.

That implies a choice. We have no choice on a collapsing wavelength, which as you stated made the "decision" on what roll the dice was going to make. Thats not free will. Thats living out a few possibilities set for you. Rolling a dice over and over in frictionless vacuum until quantum mechanics makes that 2 a 1 for 1 time in every billion.

But it is indistinguishable from true free will, correct?

Yep. Ill grant you it makes no difference if you think you have free will or not. At all. SO its all meaningless really. Fun conversation though, and a fun brain teaser.

 

[Spectral Dragon]

I've always looked to the available option of apathy, inaction and eventual slow death as absolute proof of the existence of free will. After all

we can choose not to eat, for a time, but eventually have to if we want to survive.

^that right there is a choice, no matter how hard anyone wants to believe it isn't^

Fair enough, but what made you choose it? It might seem like free will, but given how you were raised, your determination (already a part of you, not something you choose) and neurons firing in your brain, it's not free will. It's a choice, but not completely free. It's an affected choice, with a lot of factors involved.

 

[lRookiel]

Yes.

Add something more to that dude, the moderators dont like Really short posts and ALWAYS notice them .

OT: Yes since we all choose what we do, and how we act through our own personality, I know that alot of our choices seem forced or simulated Like avoiding hunger, but things like lifestyle choices are free will. e.g. giving up smoking requires alot of willpower to do.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

Yes. I do believe we have free will. I know that there is also a purpose to what we do, but we are the ones who drive that purpose and give it meaning, not the other way around.

 

[babinro]

I'd call it an illusion of choice. I can choose to do pretty much whatever I want for only a brief time before the structure of society will punish me for not conforming.

I'd say that we're about as close to free will as we could hope for without the world crumbling into anarchy.