free will

[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... -_-'

 

[FalloutJack]

I'd like to throw in a meta-argument at this time:

Since the OP is arguing against free will, he must declare that he has none, that he is subserviant to that which calls his attention at all times. This thread calls his attention, and he has not been here in a while. His position cannot be maintained while statements go unanswered, therefore if he must answer...but does not...he must have chosen not to, and has free will. Ergo, free will exists.

 

[Womlet]

What is the expression hind sight is 20-20? If I look backward of course I have no free will all my actions will have been made from circumstance or reason. If I look forward all I see is hope and aspirations and that is where you find free will.

 

[Korolev]

Whether or not it exists makes very little difference to our lives. I honestly do not think we have genuine free will - we are made of atoms and atoms obey the laws of physics. Our emotions, our thoughts, our very sense of consciousness are physical things that exist in the world. We're essentially extremely sophisticated computers - we feel that we make choices, but in reality what's happening is that our brain is responding in certain ways to certain stimuli. It feels like a choice - but realistically, given the same set of stimuli, we'd make the same choice every time. Our responses to certain choices are dictated by our neurological make up, our past experiences (past programming if you want to use a computer analogy) and the environment.

But it really doesn't change the way we live our lives. It doesn't matter if there is free will or not - if there is free will, then fine. If there isn't, you're still going to do what you're going to do anyway, so it doesn't matter if you know there is free will or not.

 

[WoW Killer]

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.

Where does the morality of punishment lie in a non-deterministic world? You walk past an old lady, roll a critical fumble, and therefore punch her in the face. We would be essentially locking people up for being unlucky.

 

[sibrenfetter]

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!

FUN!

The real question is, does it matter? When you started the thread, I'm sure it felt like it was your decision, free will might be this feeling of control or more. Plus, as we scientifically progress we find more and more particles, universes and little bits. Each one smaller and bigger than the next and all related in some way. Taken together all these interactions between everything on such a scale basically comes down to an endless list of possibilities all effecting one another, making it difficult to define that everything is already set and there is no free will.

One more thing, scientists have found particles which seem to have sometimes complete random behavior. Now of course, maybe there is a deeper reason we have not discovered yet, but maybe there are particles which are just random, without any other reason than that. Just because we cannot imagine those particles doesn't mean they can't exist (evidence so far says they can).

 

[DanDanikov]

I love that armchair philosophy is a thing.

I don't think 'free' will fits the scientific model, nor do I think it holds up philosophically either. If you muddle about with semantics and using the right words, there are potentially satisfactory definitions for 'choice' and justifications for morality despite a lack of 'free' choice.

The idea of closing jails and not punishing criminals I feel is a well-beaten strawman in this argument- a lack of 'free' will may absolve an individual of ultimate responsibility, but it doesn't terminate the causal relationship between punishment and offence rates nor does it resolve the question of morality.