Does free will exist?

[SillyBear]

Not at all. Our choices are down to neurology, context and surroundings. Nothing we do is truly a "choice". It seems like it is sometimes, but it never is.

How so? If a person thinks about a decision and chooses to do A, then, according to your statement, he didn't make the decision, his mind did.

But isn't that how we determine an identity for people? What difference does it make if his mind forced him to make the decision, if there's no difference between him and his mind?

Yes, there is free will, determinism is not incompatible with free will.

Him "deciding" consists of neurological impulses dictated by his genetics, past experiences and current context.

There is no "decision" at all. Like I said - to him, it seems like he just made a logical choice - but there was no choice involved at all. He would have always chosen that option, at that moment, in that frame of mind. That is not a choice.

No, there is no free will.

Let an actual neuroscientist explain:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/

 

[Shadowseraph]

The answer to your question can be demonstrated with this thread. The answer is simply "Could we have done differently?" If you COULD do differently, then you have free will. Case in point: I COULD have ignored this thread and just watched Moviebob ***** about the GL Moive and then continued watching my other movie 3 minutes sooner. But I didn't. Me making this comment has no significant effect on my life or my physiology or soul (if you want to go that route), so who/what I am has nothing to do with it. It was just a matter of tuna over chicken. It's what I felt like doing at that point in time.

 

[zehydra]

Not at all. Our choices are down to neurology, context and surroundings. Nothing we do is truly a "choice". It seems like it is sometimes, but it never is.

How so? If a person thinks about a decision and chooses to do A, then, according to your statement, he didn't make the decision, his mind did.

But isn't that how we determine an identity for people? What difference does it make if his mind forced him to make the decision, if there's no difference between him and his mind?

Yes, there is free will, determinism is not incompatible with free will.

Him "deciding" consists of neurological impulses dictated by his genetics, past experiences and current context.

There is no "decision" at all. Like I said - to him, it seems like he just made a logical choice - but there was no choice involved at all. He would have always chosen that option, at that moment, in that frame of mind. That is not a choice.

No, there is no free will.

Let an actual neuroscientist explain:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/

I'll read it, but it's kind of lengthy and I don't have time currently. If I read it, and it inspires a response, I'll give it later.

I think where we are disagreeing here, is that you're saying that the neurological impulses cannot be considered "deciding", whereas I think they should be.

For instance, it would maybe be unorthodox to say, but it would not be incorrect to say that when you query a computer to run a certain program, it "decides" to run the program you have specified from the given input and other information already stored in the machine.

 

[Delsana]

Psychologically? No.

Realistically? Yes, people are idiots by choice.

 

[SillyBear]

Not at all. Our choices are down to neurology, context and surroundings. Nothing we do is truly a "choice". It seems like it is sometimes, but it never is.

How so? If a person thinks about a decision and chooses to do A, then, according to your statement, he didn't make the decision, his mind did.

But isn't that how we determine an identity for people? What difference does it make if his mind forced him to make the decision, if there's no difference between him and his mind?

Yes, there is free will, determinism is not incompatible with free will.

Him "deciding" consists of neurological impulses dictated by his genetics, past experiences and current context.

There is no "decision" at all. Like I said - to him, it seems like he just made a logical choice - but there was no choice involved at all. He would have always chosen that option, at that moment, in that frame of mind. That is not a choice.

No, there is no free will.

Let an actual neuroscientist explain:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/

I'll read it, but it's kind of lengthy and I don't have time currently. If I read it, and it inspires a response, I'll give it later.

I think where we are disagreeing here, is that you're saying that the neurological impulses cannot be considered "deciding", whereas I think they should be.

For instance, it would maybe be unorthodox to say, but it would not be incorrect to say that when you query a computer to run a certain program, it "decides" to run the program you have specified from the given input and other information already stored in the machine.

Trust me, just look into what neurosurgeons and scientists say about it. There's no point discussing this - it's pretty widely accepted in the neurological community that free will doesn't exist. Sam Harris (the guy who wrote the link I gave you) is a great place to start.

As for your definition of the word "decision", I can't really see your point at all. Something isn't a "decision" if there is only one possible outcome. So yeah, I don't think there is much weight in that line of thought you're getting into.

 

[InsipidMadness]

Not a chance. We have the ability to perceive free will, and some are presumptuous enough to assume it as their own, however that is nothing more than a fancy word for Choice. We can choose things but overall, people with a greater standing by context will always have their tidal wave of will crush the little wave you call freewill. Let me ask a few questions: as a kid, have you ever wanted something at the store (your will desires object) yet your parents said no (their will as a parent), your will was outdone by another; have you ever wanted something intimate from a relationship and your partner turned you down, another example of one will having more standing than another. There's a billion more examples like this, and it never has to be you who's wanting, you could be the one who directs someone else's will elsewhere; some friends really wanted to party at your place specifically for a night but you persuaded them to meet at a bar instead. We're allowed to make choices and decisions but freewill is impossible. There are factors like morals, values, and other people who will increase or decrease what it is you desire but we will always be suppressed by the factors that is life. We can't exactly fly or teleport now can we.

 

[zehydra]

Not at all. Our choices are down to neurology, context and surroundings. Nothing we do is truly a "choice". It seems like it is sometimes, but it never is.

How so? If a person thinks about a decision and chooses to do A, then, according to your statement, he didn't make the decision, his mind did.

But isn't that how we determine an identity for people? What difference does it make if his mind forced him to make the decision, if there's no difference between him and his mind?

Yes, there is free will, determinism is not incompatible with free will.

Him "deciding" consists of neurological impulses dictated by his genetics, past experiences and current context.

There is no "decision" at all. Like I said - to him, it seems like he just made a logical choice - but there was no choice involved at all. He would have always chosen that option, at that moment, in that frame of mind. That is not a choice.

No, there is no free will.

Let an actual neuroscientist explain:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/

I'll read it, but it's kind of lengthy and I don't have time currently. If I read it, and it inspires a response, I'll give it later.

I think where we are disagreeing here, is that you're saying that the neurological impulses cannot be considered "deciding", whereas I think they should be.

For instance, it would maybe be unorthodox to say, but it would not be incorrect to say that when you query a computer to run a certain program, it "decides" to run the program you have specified from the given input and other information already stored in the machine.

Trust me, just look into what neurosurgeons and scientists say about it. There's no point discussing this - it's pretty widely accepted in the neurological community that free will doesn't exist. Sam Harris (the guy who wrote the link I gave you) is a great place to start.

As for your definition of the word "decision", I can't really see your point at all. Something isn't a "decision" if there is only one possible outcome. So yeah, I don't think there is much weight in that line of thought you're getting into.

except that a process HAS to occur for that possible outcome to occur, no? What shall we call that process, calculation? I calculate that I shall have a sandwich for dinner? My mind calculates for me that I shall have dinner? Why NOT just call it a "decision"?

We don't say that people make "decisions" because we believe they have free will, we say that people make "decisions" because there are available options, which they must choose from. It doesn't matter how they choose it, just that they do choose one. Thus, they make a "decision".

 

[Gamblerjoe]

Strong compulsions do not define free will. Free will has to do with the fact that you are physically capable of choosing something. Just because you chose the option that makes sense, doesnt mean that you lack free will.

However I started thinking about this while playing Mass Effect. In that game they distinguish between VI (virtual intelligence) and AI (artificial intelligence.) VI is what we call AI in real life. It is just a program that mimics the decision making process through a series of programmed scripts and logics. An AI is a program that demonstrates sentience, reasoning, and intuition.

This got me thinking about the human brain. First off, I dont believe in any religion or the idea that we have a soul. I believe that our thoughts and feelings are our interpretation of chemicals and neurological signals in the brain. If that is the case, who is to say, until we gain a better understanding of the brain. If it turns out that the brain is just a far more advanced version of a computer, then we too are making our decisions and gaining sentience the same way as the AI in Mass Effect. Once you get to that conclusion, who is to say what free will is. Are we just responding to complex algorithms attached to a wonky RNG, or are we really making our own decisions. Even if we could go back in time to observe loose wiring in action (the ability for a single human to respond in more than one way to the same stimulus) it would still not prove free will. One could just make the argument that loose wiring is the result of the RNG starting with a different seed number.

Crazy stuff; and the more we learn about behavioral science, the weirder it gets.

...lol, the capatcha is swarela serum. That sounds like something out of a Sci-Fi game too. Perhaps some kind of mind altering drug. I always knew that Dr. Swarela was up to no good.

 

[NightHawk21]

Not at all. Our choices are down to neurology, context and surroundings. Nothing we do is truly a "choice". It seems like it is sometimes, but it never is.

How so? If a person thinks about a decision and chooses to do A, then, according to your statement, he didn't make the decision, his mind did.

But isn't that how we determine an identity for people? What difference does it make if his mind forced him to make the decision, if there's no difference between him and his mind?

Yes, there is free will, determinism is not incompatible with free will.

Him "deciding" consists of neurological impulses dictated by his genetics, past experiences and current context.

There is no "decision" at all. Like I said - to him, it seems like he just made a logical choice - but there was no choice involved at all. He would have always chosen that option, at that moment, in that frame of mind. That is not a choice.

No, there is no free will.

Let an actual neuroscientist explain:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/

I'll read it, but it's kind of lengthy and I don't have time currently. If I read it, and it inspires a response, I'll give it later.

I think where we are disagreeing here, is that you're saying that the neurological impulses cannot be considered "deciding", whereas I think they should be.

For instance, it would maybe be unorthodox to say, but it would not be incorrect to say that when you query a computer to run a certain program, it "decides" to run the program you have specified from the given input and other information already stored in the machine.

Trust me, just look into what neurosurgeons and scientists say about it. There's no point discussing this - it's pretty widely accepted in the neurological community that free will doesn't exist. Sam Harris (the guy who wrote the link I gave you) is a great place to start.

As for your definition of the word "decision", I can't really see your point at all. Something isn't a "decision" if there is only one possible outcome. So yeah, I don't think there is much weight in that line of thought you're getting into.

Maybe in extreme circumstances, but there are situation in which the outcome is not clear and the person's action even to them is is no way "logical". For instance, even right now I know I should be studying as I have a shit ton of work coming up this week and next, but I am choosing to sit on the internet. So I'll give you that our ability to choose in life or death matters (eating, breathing, etc) is limited to non-existent, but that doesn't necessarily mean that our ability to make decisions as a whole is non-existent.

 

[Ghengis John]

A thought struck me while reading the replies on the thread about what makes us human. A few mentioned free will. But lately I've been wondering if that really exists.

Oh I think we have a considerable degree of free will, but this clip's fun.

 

[creonto]

it does and it does not. what i am typing now is what i was always going to type, however, that does not mean i did not decide to type this, that was still my decision, it was simply always going to happen

 

[RThaiRThai]

No, free will doesn't exist. In a topic this long, the likelihood of this post being read goes down significantly, and I'm sure somebody somewhere in this thread has said everything I would have said already.

On the other hand, I should contribute more if I'm going to post.

The answer depends partially on the definition of free will. I have had a discussion with a person who I entirely agreed with, except because of our definitions of free will, he decided that it exists, while I decided that it doesn't exist.

I was going to start explaining what I think in an abbreviated way, but that wouldn't really work. I'll just end it here.

 

[SillyBear]

snip

Dude, the more you respond the more you are setting yourself up to feel like an idiot after you read the article. You're coming in from a baseless angle.

There is no decision. It's instantaneous and it occurs before your conscious mind has even registered the fact it has occurred. 300ms before, to be specific.

That is not free will. You are not making the decision. That is not free will. That is not free will.

I don't know what the hell you're on about. Now you're trying to argue semantics and vague definitions on what the word decision means. Earlier you used an analogy about a computer. In a topic about FREE WILL... you used an analogy... about a computer. See what I mean? I'm honestly not interested buddy. The line of thinking you're going through is irrelevant, you're just trying to convince me that you can make "decisions" without free will. Because you think computers have choice and make decisions. Or you don't think that, you just say that they do.

Whatever. It's annoying now, let's just drop it.

Maybe in extreme circumstances, but there are situation in which the outcome is not clear and the person's action even to them is is no way "logical". For instance, even right now I know I should be studying as I have a shit ton of work coming up this week and next, but I am choosing to sit on the internet. So I'll give you that our ability to choose in life or death matters (eating, breathing, etc) is limited to non-existent, but that doesn't necessarily mean that our ability to make decisions as a whole is non-existent.

Do research.

It doesn't matter if you are deciding on a life and death matter or what kind of sandwich you are eating, your neurological impulses set it all out before you have even registered the fact you are thinking. There literally is no choice at all. It feels like there is, but there isn't.

We don't have free will. Read the article I linked earlier. Neuroscience has already confirmed this, and yet there are still people doubting it. Oh well, same goes for evolution and physics too.

 

[Roberto Hadi]

Short answer: yes.
Longish... You have to give a working definition of will and another of freedom. And a means of proof for a phenomenon that happens inside a person's head, so its kinda hard. BUT. Lets take the oposite route for a minute. Can there be any meaning in anything if we dont have some form of free will? No. Does the world feels as if you have some degree of freedom and meaning or at least feels as if those are possibilities? If yes, there is free will, if no, take some lithium and answer again.
The only context anyone says there is no free will and means it besides depression is if they want to control others. Don't be like that.

 

[zehydra]

snip

Dude, the more you respond the more you are setting yourself up to feel like an idiot after you read the article. You're coming in from a baseless angle.

There is no decision. It's instantaneous and it occurs before your conscious mind has even registered the fact it has occurred. 300ms before, to be specific.

That is not free will. You are not making the decision. That is not free will. That is not free will.

I don't know what the hell you're on about. Now you're trying to argue semantics and vague definitions on what the word decision means. Earlier you used an analogy about a computer. In a topic about FREE WILL... you used an analogy... about a computer. See what I mean? I'm honestly not interested buddy. The line of thinking you're going through is irrelevant, you're just trying to convince me that you can make "decisions" without free will. Because you think computers have choice and make decisions. Or you don't think that, you just say that they do.

Whatever. It's annoying now, let's just drop it.

Maybe in extreme circumstances, but there are situation in which the outcome is not clear and the person's action even to them is is no way "logical". For instance, even right now I know I should be studying as I have a shit ton of work coming up this week and next, but I am choosing to sit on the internet. So I'll give you that our ability to choose in life or death matters (eating, breathing, etc) is limited to non-existent, but that doesn't necessarily mean that our ability to make decisions as a whole is non-existent.

Do research.

It doesn't matter if you are deciding on a life and death matter or what kind of sandwich you are eating, your neurological impulses set it all out before you have even registered the fact you are thinking. There literally is no choice at all. It feels like there is, but there isn't.

We don't have free will. Read the article I linked earlier. Neuroscience has already confirmed this, and yet there are still people doubting it. Oh well, same goes for evolution and physics too.

"That is not free will. You are not making the decision. That is not free will. That is not free will. "

There is a decision being made. And it's being made by the equivalent of "you".

Edit: I should elaborate. "It's instantaneous and it occurs before your conscious mind has even registered the fact it has occurred. 300ms before, to be specific." so, there's a calculation that determines an outcome? Then that's the "decision-making" process. YOUR decision-making process, to be specific.

 

[quantumsoul]

We all have freedom of choice but not freedom from the consequences of that choice.

I could jab a pen into my hand right now but it would hurt and I have no desire to do so. So I won't but the choice is still there.

 

[SillyBear]

There is a decision being made. And it's being made by the equivalent of "you".

Jesus fucking christ.

What has this got to do with free will? Seriously?

According to your logic, computers make decisions. Therefore do computers have free will?

No?

EXACTLY. So why do you keep going through with this?

 

[zehydra]

There is a decision being made. And it's being made by the equivalent of "you".

Jesus fucking christ.

What has this got to do with free will? Seriously?

According to your logic, computers make decisions. Therefore do computers have free will?

No?

EXACTLY. So why do you keep going through with this?

Actually, the argument could be made that computers have free-will, if they had a will at all.

If computers were somehow conscientious, then yes they would have free will.

 

[Aprilgold]

WE DO, just some things are neccessary to survive.

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^

Like the above example.

 

[zehydra]

There is a decision being made. And it's being made by the equivalent of "you".

Jesus fucking christ.

What has this got to do with free will? Seriously?

According to your logic, computers make decisions. Therefore do computers have free will?

No?

EXACTLY. So why do you keep going through with this?

Actually, I have a question, what is your definition of free will?