Does free will exist?
- Thread starter Spectral Dragon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've read some of the arguments, but I'd just like to make a silly observation.
The deterministic argument kind of sounds like the argument of an old couple.
"Hey Mike, want to go out for a few beers?"
"Gee Pat, I did have a few plans, but it might be n- Sorry Pat, Science says no."
Edit: An abolitionist neuroscientist was asked if there was such thing as free will.
"Free will cannot exist, for it is held in the mind," it replied.
The deterministic argument kind of sounds like the argument of an old couple.
"Hey Mike, want to go out for a few beers?"
"Gee Pat, I did have a few plans, but it might be n- Sorry Pat, Science says no."
Edit: An abolitionist neuroscientist was asked if there was such thing as free will.
"Free will cannot exist, for it is held in the mind," it replied.
I've read it now, and my position is more-or-less the same.SillyBear said:I'm donezehydra said:.
This is just annoying. Read the fucking article, read more, then get back to me.
It's like trying to argue with a Christian who denies evolution without reading about it.
Thanks for the chat.
It seems he refutes a number of problems with "well then a chicken or a dog would have to have free will, and that he knows few people who think that they have free will".
The whole discussion seems pointless to me, when it all boils down to subjective definitions of "free will".
I think the best interpretation of "free will" under these circumstances is to contrast it with an opposite. Let's say "forced will". For instance, the author's thought experiment:
"Imagine that a mad scientist has developed a means of controlling the human brain at a distance. What would it be like to watch him send a person to and fro on the wings of her ?will?? Would there be even the slightest temptation to impute freedom to her? No. But this mad scientist is nothing more than causal determinism personified. What makes his existence so inimical to our notion of free will is that when we imagine him lurking behind a person?s thoughts and actions?tweaking electrical potentials, manufacturing neurotransmitters, regulating genes, etc.?we cannot help but let our notions of freedom and responsibility travel up the puppet?s strings to the hand that controls them."
In this scenario, it is clear that regardless of all the philosophy that has been debated thus far, that it is clear that the person whose brain is being controlled does not have free will. The difference of course, between a normal person, and a person who is being controlled by another being, is that the normal person's neural system is part of the person. A fundamental part of "free will" is the "self", and even if the notion of making a decision is an "illusion", then it is still the "self" making the decision, thus "free will".
If there is no such thing as free will, I cannot chose to accept your point, and therefore, you are wasting your time trying to convince me of such.
That's my view, anyways
That's my view, anyways
The ancient forces which were applied in making your view must have had a good sense of humour. That, or they were just ornery
As much as it goes against my usual behaviour I'm going to comment on this already crowded thread. Forgive me if my point has been suggested before but I only read the first two pages, it's late here, what can I say?
I suppose this has got me thinking as to what point a mechanism (chemical or electrical or of any other sort) can only end with a single outcome. Since the specific path of a particle of gas cannot be accurately predicted thanks to our friend "The Random Walk"...though I suppose it could be theoretically, that said it is theoretically possible for me to spontaneously turn into a bowl of soup...on the moon....yesterday...anyway, I would say that it is even more difficult to predict the path of an electron or other energy transfer particle. Not only do they interact with particles around them they also interact with themselves and can do any one of a near infinite number of things for no discernible reason whatsoever.
Given this average randomness I'd say free will is quite likely to be present. If that seems like a sudden leap I understand. It's just that for every event that occurs let's say we have a 1 picosecond window where we can predict with almost 100% accuracy what will happen. Then we will know what will happen after that and so on and so on. However with time the reliability of the model would decrease and it would become impossible to predict the action of every single factor. Then we have to account for the fact that all of our measurements of these objects occur in probability densities. So let's say we know what path one electron will take 99.997% of the time, there exists the possibility that it won't do that.
I'm just reiterating people's points now. It's annoying, but it makes sense. I guess I'll use the summation that's been working for me as I write. Everything is predetermined...but it only gets to the stage where it can be viewed as predetermined while it is in the process of happening or after it has happened. Yes that voids the idea of "pre" but does it matter? No one's reading this far in the thread anyway. So, functionally free will must exist, mainly because of random elements such as self replicating organic molecules and more complex collections of molecules that form cells and colonies. Another leap, I know, but there is no way of predicting what will happen once your variables are no longer affected solely by charge and mass.
Also (and this has been annoying me for a while) Mr. Biscuit, "Ampage" is not a word.
I suppose this has got me thinking as to what point a mechanism (chemical or electrical or of any other sort) can only end with a single outcome. Since the specific path of a particle of gas cannot be accurately predicted thanks to our friend "The Random Walk"...though I suppose it could be theoretically, that said it is theoretically possible for me to spontaneously turn into a bowl of soup...on the moon....yesterday...anyway, I would say that it is even more difficult to predict the path of an electron or other energy transfer particle. Not only do they interact with particles around them they also interact with themselves and can do any one of a near infinite number of things for no discernible reason whatsoever.
Given this average randomness I'd say free will is quite likely to be present. If that seems like a sudden leap I understand. It's just that for every event that occurs let's say we have a 1 picosecond window where we can predict with almost 100% accuracy what will happen. Then we will know what will happen after that and so on and so on. However with time the reliability of the model would decrease and it would become impossible to predict the action of every single factor. Then we have to account for the fact that all of our measurements of these objects occur in probability densities. So let's say we know what path one electron will take 99.997% of the time, there exists the possibility that it won't do that.
I'm just reiterating people's points now. It's annoying, but it makes sense. I guess I'll use the summation that's been working for me as I write. Everything is predetermined...but it only gets to the stage where it can be viewed as predetermined while it is in the process of happening or after it has happened. Yes that voids the idea of "pre" but does it matter? No one's reading this far in the thread anyway. So, functionally free will must exist, mainly because of random elements such as self replicating organic molecules and more complex collections of molecules that form cells and colonies. Another leap, I know, but there is no way of predicting what will happen once your variables are no longer affected solely by charge and mass.
Also (and this has been annoying me for a while) Mr. Biscuit, "Ampage" is not a word.
Makes sense to me.zehydra said:I've read it now, and my position is more-or-less the same.SillyBear said:I'm donezehydra said:
This is just annoying. Read the fucking article, read more, then get back to me.
It's like trying to argue with a Christian who denies evolution without reading about it.
Thanks for the chat.
It seems he refutes a number of problems with "well then a chicken or a dog would have to have free will, and that he knows few people who think that they have free will".
The whole discussion seems pointless to me, when it all boils down to subjective definitions of "free will".
I think the best interpretation of "free will" under these circumstances is to contrast it with an opposite. Let's say "forced will". For instance, the author's thought experiment:
"Imagine that a mad scientist has developed a means of controlling the human brain at a distance. What would it be like to watch him send a person to and fro on the wings of her ?will?? Would there be even the slightest temptation to impute freedom to her? No. But this mad scientist is nothing more than causal determinism personified. What makes his existence so inimical to our notion of free will is that when we imagine him lurking behind a person?s thoughts and actions?tweaking electrical potentials, manufacturing neurotransmitters, regulating genes, etc.?we cannot help but let our notions of freedom and responsibility travel up the puppet?s strings to the hand that controls them."
In this scenario, it is clear that regardless of all the philosophy that has been debated thus far, that it is clear that the person whose brain is being controlled does not have free will. The difference of course, between a normal person, and a person who is being controlled by another being, is that the normal person's neural system is part of the person. A fundamental part of "free will" is the "self", and even if the notion of making a decision is an "illusion", then it is still the "self" making the decision, thus "free will".
Also to get back to Sillybear's point on computers, perhaps you should take some of your own advice and read more. A basic computer does not make decisions. If you knew anything about computer programming at all you would know that at its most basic a decision revolves around:
If x is something, do this. If x is not that, do something else. Yes you can make these circumstances long and very specific, but more or less every so called decision a computer makes can be broken up to something along those lines. Saying a computer decides to do something is like saying molecules choose to move down a concentration gradient or proteins choose how they will fold.
Asking this question is ridiculous, know why? Because the answer boils down to IT DOESN'T MATTER. Honestly, what in the world would change if everyone agreed "yeah there's no free will" then what? Does the everything change, does ANYTHING significant change? At all?
So why in the world would you argue semantics on this kind of level?
So why in the world would you argue semantics on this kind of level?
No, since we're affected by all sorts of stimuli that have different magnitudes. For example, I answer this because I'm bored at a quarter to 2 AM, but at a quarter to 2 PM, I would not bother because I would have homework, a class, or lunch to get to.
I will be honest. This line of thinking boggles me.BiscuitTrouser said:
You say the Big Bang, the ultimate example of something so astronomically improbable randomly happening, isn't random, whereas thoughts are? It makes no sense. John Polkinghorne said of the first three seconds of the universe, "The ratio between the expansion and contraction had to be so exact that it would be literally like taking aim on a 1 square inch target, 20 billion light years away and hitting it bullseye." Are you going to tell me Polkinghorne doesn't know what he's talking about? Your logic is flawed. Either everything is random from the beginning or it isn't. Something cannot be both random and orderly.
On to the fundamentalist Christian part. That statement proves how little you know of Biblical Christianity. Please do your research and read the Bible instead of listening to the people who aren't Christians but call themselves one. Baptists will say the gifts of tongues and the interpretation of tongues is a moot point, out of date. They are simply wrong. You are also simply wrong in saying Christians do not believe science. Polkinghorne is a Christian. Newton was a Christian. Please stop using incorrect generalities.
There are "Christians" out there who ignore huge chunks of the Bible. That is their own problem. It doesn't help their case in the least. Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater.
OT:
Free will is the ability to chose. How, what, why, and when you chose doesn't affect it. Predictability has nothing to do with it. Physics has nothing to do with it. Studying physics to understand free will is in itself a choice to understand choice. Free will exists, and while physics might be able to explain how the process actually works, it still doesn't explain WHY. Science can explain how, but not why, because the reason behind something is in and of itself not scientific, for meaning is abstract. Once science delves into the realm of philosophy, which takes over the field of "why", it ceases to be science.
Conclusion: Free will exists.
Well, if free will doesn't exist, then I'm going to say it's the one silly non-existent thing I believe in...
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.