free will

[Adeptus Aspartem]

And how exactly is it incompatible? Whenever I see that sort of claim I see people making rather... unfair... arguments on the behalf of those who deny free will, that really don't *have* to logically follow from a lack of free will.

Well, if i have no free will. I can not be hold accountable for my actions, because i didn't do them .. in my own free will? I was forced by the univerese and my circumstances to do X.
Ergo i can't be punished.

On the other hand you could say: The punishment that follows a crime is also deterministic.

In the end determinism means jack-shit for us. Choice or the illusion of choice, our society will still keep on going as it has, because we don't know anything else.

 

[WoW Killer]

Impossible because of the limits on our ability to compute.

More like impossible because of the limits of computation in general. Not all real numbers are even theoretically computable (in fact, most of them are not). If your initial state involves distances between two brain cells (for instance to calculate the time needed to pass signals between them), then that's the distance between two points lying anywhere in a three dimensional continuum. If just one number in your entire state is a non-computable number, then all you can do is approximate. No matter how close that approximation, you'll have bigger and bigger variances appearing over time if the system is chaotic.

To put it in terms of this quote, I am saying we theoretically have the present and not merely the approximate present.

That's basically the definition of omniscience. What I'm saying is that even if we had another billion years worth of scientific understanding and technology, we still wouldn't be able to predict a persons actions with certainty.

Edit:

Well, if i have no free will. I can not be hold accountable for my actions, because i didn't do them .. in my own free will? I was forced by the univerese and my circumstances to do X.
Ergo i can't be punished.

You mean ergo you shouldn't be punished. You can definitely still be punished

The punishment and the promise of punishment still take part in that initial algorithm that determines whether or not you commit the crime, so the application of the punishment is still a moral good, whether or not you're still at "fault" as such.

 

[Vegosiux]

Alright, even allowing for the particular effect it may have, it introduces an element of randomness. There's a big leap from that to free will.

A leap I did not make. I merely pointed out that within our current model of understanding, there's a hard cap on how much information about the state of the universe you can have, so the exact state of the universe is unknowable. That's it, end of that particular argument.

Also, you missed the opportunity to make a pun and say "There's a quantum leap from that to free will." (excuse me, just kidding around a little)

It isn't very hard to replace the word choice with action, so what's the problem?

"Action" and "choice" aren't interchangeable; current societal order proposes, the way I see it, that actions are consequences of choices, and that we are generally in control of our actions through those choices. That's why we get punished if we choose to take an action that the social contract deems punishable.

With determinism, "actions" are consequences of something we're not in control of. The current societal order doesn't consider "not in control of one's own actions" the norm. But it's not just the norm in determinism, it's an axiom. That's why I say determinism and the current structure of our society are incompatible.

Besides, when it comes to "free will vs. no free will" I'm usually on the "The fuck if I know, but determinism seems rather illogical to me if I look at it from where I'm standing, and I find its fervent supporters a tad silly." boat.

The problem is, I'm not sure where else I could be standing, I can't imagine being an entity that observes the entire universe from the outside, or rather, an entity that is not part of what it observes.

 

[Vegosiux]

Yes, but I'm saying nothing really changes for how society will operate if we make that simple switch. No they aren't interchangeable, but in the concept of responsibility there's really nothing that will effectively change.

Well I suppose it could merely redefine some concepts to fit in with the "new" understanding, while not actually changing how they work, I suppose I can see how that's possible.

The question is if that's actually important, and I'd say it isn't. All it does is change perspective, not how society will have to operate. It won't have to restructure or any such thing.

For example, we can just as easily hold people responsible for their crimes if we decide that people are responsible for their actions. And we can weed out attempting to hold them responsible for crimes that they lack sufficient knowledge for because there's no particularly useful corrective effect that can be had for punishing people for actions we would call accidents. We could view them as some sort of input/output machines, and we attempt to provide a certain input so that the later output will be more to our liking.

Assuming determinism, we can only view them in whatever way our "programming" is written to view them, anyway. And forcing an input to have a more desirable output from others is again not something we do of our own accord, it's an output we ourselves give because of other inputs. It's all pretty mechanical, looks like.

What exactly is illogical about it? It's just saying that all our decisions are really decided by the laws of physics, as they must be unless we're inserting an extra hitherto unknown force that is acting on things.

What seems illogical is that if determinism is true, it doesn't matter whether we discover that and/or accept it, so I see no point in arguing in its favor. If it's true, it doesn't actually matter that it's recognized as true.

Unsure what you mean by that second part really. Or well not sure what that has to do with free will, being unable to imagine oneself as such an entity.

Oh, should have clarified. By that I meant that only such an entity could reasonably answer this entire "free will vs. no free will" dilemma, because it would have an objective standpoint and might be able to gain all the information about the universe from outside the system it's observing, while such information isn't attainable from within the system.

Actually, I think I might go on an entire different line of thought here and say that another thing that bothers me about determinism is that it's, in essence, rather boring.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Was hoping someone could give me a real example of free will, or point me in the direction of a good study that disagrees with me.

I've come to believe we do not have free will. Genes, surroundings and experience dictate every action we make. This has not made me enjoy life less, I find it liberating.

However I love being surprised and am always looking to improve my rational. I challenge you to disprove me!

You can't present something that's not there. This is not a philosophical question we don't know the answer to, it is a fact that free will does not exist. The universe is a culmination of a ridiculously long series of cause and effect which becomes a cause which leads to an effect, endlessly leading from the beginning of the universe until now and continuing through eternity. EVERYTHING we have done, are doing, and will ever do is determined by this endless series of reactions, even what I'm writing now, the fact that I care to write it, the fact that I even CAN write it was determined eons before I was born. Our genes are the result of evolution reacting to the environment around us, our environment is the result of cause and effect, the combination of our genes and environment determine our behavior, our behavior determines the choices we make, and our choices determine the environments of others.

However, our choices are merely us reacting to the world around us, when presented with a choice we will ALWAYS choose the one we believe to be the best, and we make that decision based on our previous experiences and our genetic predispositions. All choices whether minor or not are the only choices we could have ever made in the situations we find ourselves in, we're incapable to truly going off the rail so to speak.

This means that if we were capable of seeing the cause and effect of everything, we'd be able to determine what's going to happen next, but this is impossible. Even if it weren't, what we do with that information would be just as determined as anything else

The reason we believe we have free will is because the cause and effect that results in our choices are far far too complex for us to be able to understand, so we attribute our choices to random chance and our own desires, failing to understand that there is NOTHING which is truly random, and that our desires are there for reasons beyond what we can see. It's a paradox, but even the fact that we have the concept of free will was determined for us.

This does not mean that there's any sort of deity guiding our actions, in fact if such a deity did exist it would be subject to the same cause and effect reactions that we are because it had to have come from somewhere. What it means is we do not have free will, we simply believe we do.

 

[RustyParker]

There really is a lot to take into consideration if you want to take this whole thing down to a science, but in reality it is impractical to really try such a thing in our current state. We are not capable, given our tools and knowledge at the moment, of figuring out just how every bit of the mind and genetics work together to form a decision. Even then, I am sure there would likely be many that in the end would contradict predictions fairly regularly.

And what would make it contradict those predictions? We should, theoretically at least, be able to see more or less all the bits of your brain and know via applying the laws of physics, and accounting for sensory input etc, what the state of your brain should be in the next second and so on. What force could make that prediction fail?

You can control nearly everything about a person's life, but regardless of that, they will still dream. A very important element that we've evolved in our minds is an imagination, and with imagination comes new thoughts and ideas. It's hard to see the inner workings, like I've said, but given that I think it a very real possibility that free will exists.

Your imagination is simply the product of your brain, as is your consciousness and thus your thoughts. Why would dreams and imagination be unpredictable? By what mechanism do you propose they appear that we cannot theoretically predict given enough knowledge and ability to calculate?

Beliefs mean a great deal to a lot of us, and I firmly believe that in each of us there lies the simple ability to make your own choice. To be yourself. To not be yourself. To do what you want with your life. If you can explain to me how every action I've taken was predetermined, I'll assume you won't be able to predict what I'll do next regardless of that knowledge.

And why would they be unable to predict it? If they know the current state of your brain in all aspects, know what input you will receive via your senses, and so on, why wouldn't they be able to predict the next state of your brain via physics?

If we were really that simple, there would never be rebellions against oppressive nations. I think the idea of a lacking for free will to be staggeringly out of the question.

Uh... So does this mean you think all physics is simple? Because it lacks its own will so by your argument it's supposedly simple. You're quite wrong to think that a lack of free will means simple. People can still be complex, but complexity means hard to understand and predict, it does not mean there is free will or impossible to predict.

That's my view of it. Perhaps it is a view dictated by some over bearing factors, but in the end I believe it and I will decide what to do based on it. Weather to run or fight, when facing tooth and nail, one can only choose what they feel is best.

And where do you think those feelings of what is best came from? You feel what your brain tells you to feel based on sensory input and whatever biological things affect the brain. Then it receives that input and reacts and the reaction at the basic level is just a matter of physics and chemistry.

Know what's great? Nothing you've said has the slightest effect on my beliefs. You can't predict a fluid, changing person. Such ability is beyond your or anyone else's comprehension. The mind isn't some tool you can use; it's an organ in a shifting and changing life-form.

Mutation is a factor you don't seem to be accounting for here either. The factor that there can be drastically different changes across generations that have little to nothing to do with the heritage that said organism has.

Given that, what makes you think something equally as complex as the mind can't change as well? The process of evolution is what has run this world and determined what would survive for so long that the creation of a single, complex enough mind has overthrown it.

Tell me this, given the view that everything is predetermined. I gather that, say the oppressed, the poor and the sick. Were they determined to be so? Was it destined that such things happen to them? And by your logic, is it not their fault entirely?

Anyway, this isn't some sort of argument for you to win. A conflict of beliefs is very different, and like I've said, we hold our views closely to ourselves. I will have my view, and you your's. I am simply stating how and why I have my own views.

 

[LostPause]

Personally, the sticking point in this largely irreconcilable debate is the attributing of the term 'free'. The fact is that we do possess a 'will' but it is simply not as 'free' and unattached as the more idealistic amongst us might like. That said, while the 'choices' we make may not be completely unattached to all the factors surrounding them, their influence is far from absolute. We may be able to second [and third and fourth] guess the brain functions of a creature if we are given enough information and ascribe reactions to both its nature and nurture [to varying degrees] but the most that lets us do is tame others, not control them.

While we may not have 100% free will, as yet there is no way for anything alive to govern our thoughts and actions 100% either, so I'd say our will is free enough, given it's about as free as humans being can be while still keep a semi-functioning society going.

 

[Someone Depressing]

That would mean that parents would predict everyone their child did, always, without flaw.

I once threw a brick I found in my apartment building out of the window; it them smashed through someone's car, after falling 8 stories.

Mother certainly didn't see that.

 

[Pebblig]

I suppose it could exist to an extent, but in the end I've always felt that nothing you do is ever "random", you may do it of your own "choice"...but the only reason you made that choice is because of every experience you've had and the environments you've been in making you predisposed to that choice.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

Yeah, I don't really believe in free will either.

Certainly, the environment and our genetics completely determines our choices. The randomness that gets thrown in is just randomness; there's nothing 'free' about randomness.

But that's fine: "you" are still making those decisions. Any decision that has been caused by your personality has been caused by you. It was a free decision.

(The fact that your personality was caused by some other factors is interesting, but doesn't actually change this fact).

Because I have the same views as this guy. Except he considers personality and "you" as the something. Whereas I think of "you" includes your soul as well.

But that's the real question I think. Are you more than what life and genetics conditioned you to be like?
I have also wondered if I had a soul. Something more me than what experiences and genetics gave me. I think a soul would demonstrate free will. But science says no to that.


Which is why I never could understand all sorts of labels like religious vs. atheists, your culture vs. my culture, and hateful things like that. Philosophy, anthropology, and psychology classes have all taught me that the real illusion is that there is a difference between you and me. We are all conditioned by forces outside of our control.

 

[Syzygy23]

In a summer a few years ago i had a roughly 40 hour discussion stretched out over 2-3 weeks about this. Well, basically it was a discussion about "Determinism".

The simple action-reaction principle actually denies free will. Because every action you make is predetermined by the actions happened before. The OP metioned this already: The reason you choose X at a soda vendingmachine is determined by your taste, which is defined by your upbrining/genes, which is defined by many other factors which each also are just a reaction on other factors.
And step by step you can trace this back, basically to the big bang. It's like a trail of dominos that got kicked in motion once and now everything is just part of a ride. You as a single human being have the illusion of a freewill, but actually you don't.

And i hate that. That's why we discussed so long. Because i believe in free will but i could not argue against Determinism, because the prinicple of action-reaction works.

Then i had a discussion with someone about quantum physics and i came to two conclusions. 1. In quantum physics alot of stuff doesn't behave how it should and it's just willy-nilly stuff i only partially remember.
2. From humanities point of view Determinism is always right, because we can only look at things happened in the past and "Well, it was determined that they did X" amounts to "Well, god did it".
Even if someone changes his opinion in the last second, you could say "It was determined by Y factors, that you'd change your opinion in the last second."

So currently the idea is of determinism is pretty solid, but we can't give a definit Yes or No to it, because we do not posses a sufficient method to prove it.

But if you KNOW all this information you can make a choice that was NOT determined by your genes and upbringing simply to prove you can choose as you please. Maybe today I'll buy grape soda even though I never really cared for it and prefer orange soda, just to prove I can make that choice.

If there's no such thing as free will then we are morally obligated to shut down all prison systems and release all prisoners since everything bad they did was not done of their free will, but was predetermined by their genes and upbringing.

 

[Proto Taco]

At the end of the day claiming free will doesn't exist is just a cop-out for taking responsibility for your actions. Environment influences our decisions, but our decisions are still decisions. Anyone who tries to pin our decisions purely on circumstance is really no different from someone who lives by a literally interpreted bible.

Can you do it? Sure

Is it wise or healthy? Of course not

Life is the direct coincidence of chance and choice. Anyone who tries to convince you that absolute control exists, in any form, is wrong; I'm look'in at you Oprah... -_-'