Does free will exist?

[SilentCom]

If you're really concerned about free will, take a look at Erasmus & Luther Discourse on Free Will. Even if you don't believe in religion, it illustrates two completely different point of views from two scholarly people debating on the concept of free will. One argues for it while one argues against it. Check it out, it might help you decide.

 

[Yopaz]

No, we have no free will. I'm simply agreeing with the guy over me for no other reason that his post is the last post I read.

 

[DanielDeFig]

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

Excellent video on how you can view the world deterministically, without bringing in the whole "what's the point if everything is pre-determined" that easily follows (Usually alongside an unhealthy view on responsibility for your own actions).

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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.

People seemed to assume determinalism was "does society control you". This irked me.

I dont see how you can accept all phsyics we know is true and also that we have free will. They are both polar opposites, one dictates a universe of rules, one says that the universe has an exception to those rules and thus they are not rules. The statement is true.

I accuse no one of magic, it is a question meant to make you think, without those rules holding true, what does give us free will? The acceptance of a soul is the main way to get around this, that i can respect. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

I apologise for the thread derailment. The particals formed compounds, formed glucose, and then we broke it down to release said energy. Energy from the big bang Tada.

I do respect peoples views, i argue hard and push statements so i get answers, it challenges people to give their best responses and prove their view holds water. I did not mean to be a troll. This is accidental. You can hardly argue you were a paragon in our discussion. Im sorry i came off that way toward you.

You seem nice enough, you honestly think i was here to hurt people and be insulting. I was not. If you do not wish to discuss with me anymore thats ok. I wasnt kosher to call people ignorant. Of that i am sorry. I get caught up in discussion, it really reels me in, i get passionate about what i think, i dont think anyones an idiot for not being determinalistic, i just fail to understand how both physics and free will can be simultaniously true.

Attacks and challenges are similar in scientific discussion. How can we learn if our views and known "facts" are not furiously attacked by those who think they have evidence. If you could show me how im wrong scientifically, i would spin on a dime, change my mind and agree whole heartedly. I invite people to challenge my thoughts, to say im foolish, to show evidence i am wrong. I revel in it. Thus why i so enjoyed this discussion with you. Do not mistake that for attacks.

How can we discuss free will without biology and physics?

The main amount of times you called me an idiot was based on mis understandings of what we both meant. This was unfortunate and i doubt it helped us discuss this properly.

For the record i wouldnt call our discussion a wate of time, i found some fun and challenging ideas against my view, and expanded it by reasoning why i dont believe them to hold true.

If it makes you ahppy to walk away, do so. Thank you for the discussion, they are more fun when they are heated.

 

[DarkRyter]

I don't know. What am I? Some kind of existentialist quantum physicist?

I'm just some guy who goes on video game forums.

 

[Yechezkel]

There are multiple interpretations of quantum physics out there: some which say yes, some which say no. Some are certainly better supported than others, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend I actually understand quantum physics well enough to create a meaningful reply regarding the topic. What I am going to sit here and pretend is that I'm qualified enough to say that at the functional level, it doesn't matter. All this talk of determinism, of all the particles in the universe tracing set paths from the beginning of the universe to the end doesn't actually matter because for that to be relevant to our day to day lives, these paths would have to be measurable. EG, for one to predict how another is going to act, one would have to be able to quantify the entirety of particle interactions in the determinist universe and extrapolate accordingly. But such quantification is quite certainly impossible. Thusly, it makes sense to function on the human level as though free will exists, whether it does or not, because we have no mechanism of functioning differently. To put it simply.

 

[Guffe]

Yes we have...
The fact that I must in the morning chose cereal or porridge and make that choise every morning I have free will, then sometimes I go fro bread which means I have the power of Ultimate Free Will (UFW from now on!)
yes we have free will.

 

[Suicidejim]

Well, I'm not a physicist, but from what I recall, some of the more 'random' aspects of quantum theory do throw a certain degree of doubt on the idea of determinism, but then again, quantum physics seems to exist purely to confuse scientists. Personally, I think that for all practical purposes, free will is an illusion, but a necessary one. When you convince yourself that you were 'destined' to perform all your actions, there is a danger that one can develop a decidedly destructive personality, using the idea of 'destiny' to justify actions that would otherwise be unacceptable. "It's not my fault I raped her, it couldn't have happened any other way" etc.

In the end though, it's irrelevant. Even if we could definitively prove that free will doesn't truly exist, there would be no practical applications for that information, since, even if the universe is completely predictable, the amount of data we would have to feed into some hypothetical supercomputer would be far beyond what mankind could possibly achieve in its relatively brief existence in the universe. At most, we could probably quiet some religious types, but they'd probably just find a way around it (or say that God did it to try and mislead us). And if free will does exist, that just means one less topic to discuss on forums, but otherwise it's business as usual, since we all at least act with a subconscious assumption that free will is real.

not unless there is some form of random somewhere. (which we havent found yet and is highly unlikely to ever be found) thats why i believe that the only way to make technology significant is by making a truly random number generator. something that can say spit out a number between one and ten and not have it based off of anything. once we have that we as a civilization will prob be at our peak becouse that is almost the deffinition of playing god. changing the set course that has been the same for all of time.

Well, with the aid of quantum physics, we're starting to get close, as it happens. This is the bit where I sheepishly hide when people go 'Prove it,' though, because I don't have the links to the articles I read on hand. They were on the New Scientist website, as I recall, but I'm too lazy to hunt them down for the sake of an internet debate.

 

[Princess Rose]

My last comment:

Free will and physics are NOT polar opposites. Physics can (and will) explain how free will works within the brain. Random is not free. CHOICE is free. The ability to decide to expend energy in one part of your brain instead of another part.

Also, the words "believe in physics" give me flashbacks to the Creationism threads of old.

I am so tired of this crap.

I am out of this derailed thread.

 

[esperandote]

We have free will, we just have to face the consequences if what we choose to do is something antisocial or illegal.

consequences=/=not having free will

 

[2xDouble]

The question itself is a thousand questions. What is it to be free? What is it to have will? Can will truly be free? Can anything truly be free? What determines willful choice? or not choice? What exists? Can something exist? What does existing mean? Can will exist? What will does not exist? Can existence be free?

...there's no way I'm listing them all. heh.

 

[dickywebster]

A question that has confused many a mind and can sometimes look like a paradox.

I would say we do have free will, but it can be easy to ignore it/be manipulated.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Yeah, free will does exist.

And for all the people saying that it was a configuration of your surroundings and experience that lead you to have your illusion of free will, I think you're getting mixed up with cause and effect. Which in itself is variable, and can be broken down by free will with a random that bares no relation from the cause to the effect.

So free will does exist, and always to some degree.

 

[Flippincrazy]

Oh deary, threads centring around such complicated questions always appear to boil down into personal vendettas from equally one-sided points of view...

Anywho, as I have not studied such a topic in any sufficient detail (A-Level courses in Physics, Biology and Philosophy DO NOT allow you to definitively state that your opinion is the only valid one) all I can offer is my naturally subjective shot in the dark.

As far as I am aware, the main contrasting theories(and that is all they are, possibly falsifiable theories, not statements of fact) are:
Theory No.1:Those who claim that "Free Will" is merely an illusion that can be dispelled through a delicate evaluation of all psycholgical, anthropological and biological factors present within a person's life, accompanied by the underpinning physics present therein.
Theory No.2: We retain the ability to choose and have our actions defy prediction - the fact that we possess the ability to question our own free will act as strong evidence towards this view.

Both these are certainly credible theroies, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Examples of possible criticisms that can be accurately pledged agaisnt each one are:

Criticism of Theory No.1:
Such a claim clings to an exceptionally abstract ideal that it would be possible to accurately calculate and factor all these supremely complicated schools of both non-cognitive and cognitive thought and ultimately come to a prediction. Sure, one might argue that all apparent "choice" is ultimately due to a series of electro-chemical reactions within our brains and our nervous systems, all of which dictated by various laws of physics and by the arrangement of amino-acids within our multitudonous strands of D.N.A. But unless we were an omniscient being possessive of an infallible knowledge, one who simply knows, and does not have to strive to know, such a concept of prediction is ridiculous for us mere mortals to entertain. Therefore, a concept of Free Will remains essentially intact.

Criticism of Theory No.2:
The fact that we possess the ability to question our own free will derives not from free will, but the sentience that distinguishes us from the majority of organic life on our planet. Using Theory No.1, we can in fact dismiss such supposed evidence, our "choice" to question derives from the intellectual capacity of our brain, and it is logical that a being with a high degree of sentience will explore such questions fundamental to much of traditional ideology as Free Will.

Obviously, this is a gross-over simplication of both theories, and I have neglected to explore the many others that are present within this question - but it paints a basic, if flawed idea that neither theory is wholly right. Not to mention that in my forgetful state I've glazed over the possibility of there being a degree of "randomness" in the human psyche.

My own view, which again anyone can argue agaisnt, including me, is that we do not possess a complete "free-will", but we possess something close enough to "free will" that we may as well continue to call it "free will". We have the ability to make a choice, but it will ultimately be subject to many different external influences - albeit those which we do not have the capacity to factor into an equation so as to formulate a prediction.

Thankies for reading if you somehow managed to withstand the volume of ****shit I inevitably just spouted :3

 

[gigastrike]

Or course we do. Who's choosing for us?

 

[JCBFGD]

Yup, we have free will. I'm replying to you of my own free will, so yeah, I'm gonna hafta say that it exists.

 

[2xDouble]

My last comment:

Free will and physics are NOT polar opposites. Physics can (and will) explain how free will works within the brain. Random is not free. CHOICE is free. The ability to decide to expend energy in one part of your brain instead of another part.

Also, the words "believe in physics" give me flashbacks to the Creationism threads of old.

I am so tired of this crap.

I am out of this derailed thread.

No they're not opposite, nor are they inclusive, nor exclusive. It's a pretty complex web, really. Physics and philosophy are bitches sometimes.

Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote a song about conundrums very much like this. Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Yul Brynner! *applause*

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Oh deary, threads centring around such complicated questions always appear to boil down into personal vendettas from equally one-sided points of view...

Anywho, as I have not studied such a topic in any sufficient detail (A-Level courses in Physics, Biology and Philosophy DO NOT allow you to definitively state that your opinion is the only valid one) all I can offer is my naturally subjective shot in the dark.

As far as I am aware, the main contrasting theories(and that is all they are, possibly falsifiable theories, not statements of fact) are:
Theory No.1:Those who claim that "Free Will" is merely an illusion that can be dispelled through a delicate evaluation of all psycholgical, anthropological and biological factors present within a person's life, accompanied by the underpinning physics present therein.
Theory No.2: We retain the ability to choose and have our actions defy prediction - the fact that we possess the ability to question our own free will act as strong evidence towards this view.

Both these are certainly credible theroies, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Examples of possible criticisms that can be accurately pledged agaisnt each one are:

Criticism of Theory No.1:
Such a claim clings to an exceptionally abstract ideal that it would be possible to accurately calculate and factor all these supremely complicated schools of both non-cognitive and cognitive thought and ultimately come to a prediction. Sure, one might argue that all apparent "choice" is ultimately due to a series of electro-chemical reactions within our brains and our nervous systems, all of which dictated by various laws of physics and by the arrangement of amino-acids within our multitudonous strands of D.N.A. But unless we were an omniscient being possessive of an infallible knowledge, one who simply knows, and does not have to strive to know, such a concept of prediction is ridiculous for us mere mortals to entertain. Therefore, a concept of Free Will remains essentially intact.

Criticism of Theory No.2:
The fact that we possess the ability to question our own free will derives not from free will, but the sentience that distinguishes us from the majority of organic life on our planet. Using Theory No.1, we can in fact dismiss such supposed evidence, our "choice" to question derives from the intellectual capacity of our brain, and it is logical that a being with a high degree of sentience will explore such questions fundamental to much of traditional ideology as Free Will.

Obviously, this is a gross-over simplication of both theories, and I have neglected to explore the many others that are present within this question - but it paints a basic, if flawed idea that neither theory is wholly right. Not to mention that in my forgetful state I've glazed over the possibility of there being a degree of "randomness" in the human psyche.

My own view, which again anyone can argue agaisnt, including me, is that we do not possess a complete "free-will", but we possess something close enough to "free will" that we may as well continue to call it "free will". We have the ability to make a choice, but it will ultimately be subject to many different external influences - albeit those which we do not have the capacity to factor into an equation so as to formulate a prediction.

Thankies for reading if you somehow managed to withstand the volume of ****shit I inevitably just spouted :3

That seems fair enough to me

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.

 

[Jandau]

Impossible to determine. End of story. Anything else is a matter of faith (as in you belive it's one or the other). Even asking the question "Is there free will?" proves nothing, since it simply might be your designated response to the various stimuli you have been exposed to during your life.

One thing that is certain is that we don't have COMPLETE free will. Our actions are influenced by physical factors such as the chemical balance in our brains (which can be altered with drugs and medication) and psychological factors (habits, fears, conditioning, etc.). That much has been proven. However, wether or not we have the ability to push our behavior one way or another (at least to some extent) or if we're simply floating on the currents of the stimulus-response mechanism can't be conclusively determined.

However, if we do not posses free will, then we are not truly sentient and do not truly exist as anything more than mindless automatons (if slightly more complex automatons than other on our planet), and that just kinda doesn't sit with everything I've learned and experienced so far, so I'm personally in the "Free will exists" camp.

 

[Aizsaule]

anyone with a understanding of psychics wont believe in free will, with psychics there is no random. even quantum mechanics isn't magic.