Does free will exist?
- Thread starter Spectral Dragon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would say yes, but there's no way I could prove or convince you if you think otherwise. It largely depends what human/societal model you subscribe to, and even then you could argue that "since there's no way to test if the person would have made a different choice, we have to assume he would always make the same choice." Having studied sociology and human behavior, I make the choice to say yes we do, based on my interpretations of what I have seen and researched.
I am a full on atheist and believe that the brain and the mind(consciousness) are one (monism), yet I do not believe that free will exists. This is because the brain produces chemicals that determines what we do. Even if posed with a situation, our brain will be the one that comes up with the decision before we even realize it.
From my thinking, it exists to a degree. And the meaningful debate happens when we try to hash out where, in our "decision-making process," the line is crossed.Spectral Dragon said:
But the reason we never get to that part is because both sides of the fence are deathly afraid of the middle. The "free willers" take free will to be the world's biggest "given"--it is assumed that it's there, and that everyone already agrees on its existence and meaning. The "determinists" don't want to allow for any free will, because it causes the Mind (no matter how small or large a role it may play) to be this mysterious outside "X Factor."
Of course, the free willers think that determinists are exercising free will without realizing it... and the determinists just think the free willers were pre-determinied to be free willers.
For all practical purposes, we have enough of a fascimile of free will, that the argument is purely semantics; what you define as "will" determines your answer.
A determinalist will define it as a series of chemical and electrical reactions; and they will try (in vain) to prove that all of your actions can be predicted down to the letter, assuming unrealistic, "idealized" scenarios.
(I so commonly see this used as a Nihilist/Fatalist argument against morality and rational judgment since nothing we do matters to the universe)
A spiritualist/theist/etc will argue that there is a more proactive, immeasurable force at work, and will try (in vain) to prove that it exists (similar in logic to how it is also "idealized" though in a slightly different sense).
But when you get down to it, life is a statistical anomaly created under the most obtuse of physical and chemical conditions. The quickest, most powerful superconductor supercomputer we can build will never be able to perfectly account for all the responses in the human brain to the point where it becomes perfectly predictable (there are a large number of complications here; the only reasonably predictable behaviors are those you program into the system; everything else is but a guess).
In short: don't fret about what the "scientists" tell you about Free Will. It doesn't mean a damn thing for all practical purposes. You will still wake up, eat, sleep, shit, work etc until you die.
A determinalist will define it as a series of chemical and electrical reactions; and they will try (in vain) to prove that all of your actions can be predicted down to the letter, assuming unrealistic, "idealized" scenarios.
(I so commonly see this used as a Nihilist/Fatalist argument against morality and rational judgment since nothing we do matters to the universe)
A spiritualist/theist/etc will argue that there is a more proactive, immeasurable force at work, and will try (in vain) to prove that it exists (similar in logic to how it is also "idealized" though in a slightly different sense).
But when you get down to it, life is a statistical anomaly created under the most obtuse of physical and chemical conditions. The quickest, most powerful superconductor supercomputer we can build will never be able to perfectly account for all the responses in the human brain to the point where it becomes perfectly predictable (there are a large number of complications here; the only reasonably predictable behaviors are those you program into the system; everything else is but a guess).
In short: don't fret about what the "scientists" tell you about Free Will. It doesn't mean a damn thing for all practical purposes. You will still wake up, eat, sleep, shit, work etc until you die.
As a fatalist, I would say no. But it all comes down to your prospective. You can say a man chose to do something, or you can say he was destined to do it all along.
This is a wrongheaded question. The truth doesn't matter so much as the belief, because a belief in free will or determinism creates a world of difference, whereas the fact will never change.
Not really. It just means I responded to stimuli - another thread on here - combined with my natural curiosity, of which I've never had control of, compelled me to do it. I could have resisted, but that is a hypothetical scenario that doesn't exist in this universe. It was a choice, but a logical one. I'm not saying free will doesn't exist, but just because I question something does not mean I have free will. It only means I have consciousness.The Heik said:
Free will, two possible interpretations.
The first is the common view that free will is being able to do what you want without constraint. This makes you a slave to your desires, you are not free to do anything but satisfy your every fickle wish. If you do not desire to satisfy a desire, the desire not to satisfy is also a desire and indulging it makes you no more free.
The second is free will through self control. Kant argued that by utilising your reason and intellect you are made free. You are no longer an animal of indulgence who thinks that to be free is to be unchained but a man who realises that freedom is to be found in philosophy and science. When no action is taken to bring about a desired end but rather one that make you a better person, then you are free. Chemistry and socioty no longer tell you what you want because you want nothing.
I'm a fan of the second kind as you might've gathered.
TLDR: Doing what you want is not freedom, doing the right thing through understanding and intellect is.
The first is the common view that free will is being able to do what you want without constraint. This makes you a slave to your desires, you are not free to do anything but satisfy your every fickle wish. If you do not desire to satisfy a desire, the desire not to satisfy is also a desire and indulging it makes you no more free.
The second is free will through self control. Kant argued that by utilising your reason and intellect you are made free. You are no longer an animal of indulgence who thinks that to be free is to be unchained but a man who realises that freedom is to be found in philosophy and science. When no action is taken to bring about a desired end but rather one that make you a better person, then you are free. Chemistry and socioty no longer tell you what you want because you want nothing.
I'm a fan of the second kind as you might've gathered.
TLDR: Doing what you want is not freedom, doing the right thing through understanding and intellect is.
Of course there is free will. The mere suggestion that there isn't is laughable to me. Just because you decide to eat because you are hungry, doesn't mean that it wasn't a decision.
Exactly.loc978 said:
oh everyone has free will, but we are also subject to consequences afterwards.Spectral Dragon said:
You have to define exactly what is meant by free will first.
1. What do you mean by will?
2. What does it mean for the defined will to be free?
Then we can start to propose answers, but free will could mean any number of things to any number of people.
1. What do you mean by will?
2. What does it mean for the defined will to be free?
Then we can start to propose answers, but free will could mean any number of things to any number of people.
All biology is predicated on the physical properties of its components; of course all brain activity is described by physics. The rule is that if your math isn't describing what you're observing, your model isn't accurate enough. (I don't understand Quantum Mechanics well enough to know why this supposedly isn't true for particles, but I don't know that it's relevant to predicting human behavior.)
There's no need for mysticism concerning the mind, this "free will is ineffable to science, woooooo" attitude. You can choose to buck your biological needs and starve to death, but this idea didn't come from nothing and it doesn't go nowhere: The act attempts to assert your authority over yourself. It satisfies an emotional need. Looked at this way, a lot of "spontaneous" human behavior becomes trivially easy to understand.
Does this mean you don't have free will? In fact, it can. If we say that free will is the ability to make decisions using your consciousness, then the fact that your conscious mind is built on a foundation set by chemicals means that your choice can be influenced by your physical state. For example, by addiction.
This said, fatalism does not logically follow determinism, the fact that your decisions can be predicted scientifically does not devalue them, and in any case spontaneity is a seriously shitty criterion for humanness.
There's no need for mysticism concerning the mind, this "free will is ineffable to science, woooooo" attitude. You can choose to buck your biological needs and starve to death, but this idea didn't come from nothing and it doesn't go nowhere: The act attempts to assert your authority over yourself. It satisfies an emotional need. Looked at this way, a lot of "spontaneous" human behavior becomes trivially easy to understand.
Does this mean you don't have free will? In fact, it can. If we say that free will is the ability to make decisions using your consciousness, then the fact that your conscious mind is built on a foundation set by chemicals means that your choice can be influenced by your physical state. For example, by addiction.
This said, fatalism does not logically follow determinism, the fact that your decisions can be predicted scientifically does not devalue them, and in any case spontaneity is a seriously shitty criterion for humanness.
)
The question is fundamentally flawed. You ask "Does free will exist?" which frames a simple "yes or no" scenario, when the truth is more complex than that (which is usually the case).Spectral Dragon said:
I would argue that yes, free will exists, but, at the same time, our will is not always 100% free.
Sometimes our genetic and physiological components compel us to behave a certain way. While we can act against our compulsions (confirming free will), sometimes a compulsion can be so strong that we completely surrender our free will to it. In some extreme instances, such as nuerological disorders, it can be practically impossible to ignore a physiological compulsion. Example: acute paranoid schizophrenia. (Ever heard of "A Beautiful Mind"?)
Sometimes our psychological/social conditioning compels us to behave a certain way. Again, we can resist, but sometimes psychological/social conditioning can be too great to reasonably ignore. Example: brainwashing. (Ever heard of "A Clockwork Orange"?)
I believe that we have free will, but our free will can be limited and often is limited by many factors; the free will that a person actually excercises varies from person to person and is based on many factors.
Yes but in my opinion we're bound by society's concept of normalcy. We can still do whatever we want but our responsibilities in life tie us down. We're also bound by conscience. For instance, I have the free will to skip work tonight and go to a movie, but I know that's a bad idea because I'll get written up or fired. I have the free will to walk downtown and start shooting people, but I know it's a TERRIBLE idea and I'll be arrested or just shot down by the police. Etc. Etc.
Free Will < Conscience, Responsibility, Intelligence
Free Will < Conscience, Responsibility, Intelligence
Actually:BiscuitTrouser said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Physics
Scientists are split.