free will

[Old Father Eternity]

"We are shaped by fate just as we shape it"

Or ... or we are but one version of an incalculable number of possibilities, every single particle somehow taking every single possible route ... something to do with quantum mechanics I believe, could be wrong though.

 

[Therumancer]

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!

Well, in the context of reality if we do not have free will the illusion of it is good enough for most of us that it does not matter. Sort of like "Star Wars" where the lack of free will is pointed out through prophecy and is arguably the entire point of the first six movies (Vader's big turn around being him "bringing balance" to the force... having taken out both the good guys and bad guys, but that's a whole different discussion).

That said, humans are not as complicated as we might want to believe, which is something psychologists and sociologists have pointed out for many years now. Not to mention using things like hypnosis and deprogramming techniques you can literally turn a person into anything given enough time and knowledge. A point which causes a lot of people to rage as it flies in the face of the unique specialness that they want to believe in.

At the end of the day though this becomes a matter of faith however as much as one of science. Despite what I've said above, I *DO* believe in free will, which I believes comes from the soul, which sets us apart from most other animals. It's noteworthy also that once in a while you see things fly in the face of the most in depth sociological predictions and psychological models. While right 99% of the time, to the point of being crazy reliable, once in a while something happens like oh say... The United States, which continues on despite the odds. While it might very well be coming (and probably will be) by rights we should have collapsed into a civil war again before now, any other nation with our level of internal pressures has. Maybe not the most re-assuring point to non-Americans, but it's something to consider. Especially in Europe experts had been predicting our collapse for decades now, saying we could never balance the USSR in The Cold War and would collapse because we lacked their will and unity, then we were supposed to collapse during the 1990s without the threat of the USSR to keep us unified. We are closer to it than ever before, but honestly we weren't supposed to make it by the odds past 2010. That said I wouldn't be surprised if we do see a civil war by 2025... which is neither here nor there.

 

[Olas]

I could give you the traditional quantum mechanics Heisenberg uncertainty principle mumbo jumbo, but I think the real problem is that we're taking the concept of free will way too scientifically.

As originally coined it just means general autonomy, as opposed to having your every action dictated by someone else. It doesn't mean breaking determinism.

 

[generals3]

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!

Unfortunately we believe the same so you probably won't find disagreement from me. This said quantum mechanics tends to disagree with our deterministic view as it dictates that one simply cannot predict the movement of a particle and that its position can only be known for sure once observed.

 

[PromethianSpark]

The moment you get rid of the randomness in QM I think that you would have the global community of physicists proclaim you their new favourite person (Take that Feynman ) because neither I nor any of my classmates or (and this is only a suspicion) my tutors are really comfortable with this. It is all so counter-intuitive but it is the way the world behaves. The thing about the electron was just an example ( and not a well chosen one perhaps). A better one would be an electron trapped in potential well with a lower kinetic energy than the potential well but he would still have a small probability to tunnel out even though from a deterministic/classical point of view he shouldn't be able to do so. The way I see it this electron could be part of your thought process and could influence it and so maybe on some level this is "free will" but as I am saying this is a) just guessing and b) maybe proven wrong in a couple of years (but quantum tunnelling does exist in the real world and we see it's effects (alpha particles and what-not))

Again with this idea of an electron behaving randomly within a set of probabilities somehow equating to free will. Random is random. Indeterminism poses an equal problem for free will as determinism, for even if an electron behaved randomly in my mind that effected my cognitive process, how does this in any way make me have free will rather than being subject to random forces?

 

[PromethianSpark]

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!

Unfortunately we believe the same so you probably won't find disagreement from me. This said quantum mechanics tends to disagree with our deterministic view as it dictates that one simply cannot predict the movement of a particle and that its position can only be known for sure once observed.

I am actually getting sick of quantum mechanics being held up as evidence for free will, because some physicists over stepped their realm of expertise and decided to get involved in a subject matter they where not qualified to do so. There is actually nothing in quantum physics that has any bearing on the discussion. In fact, its threat to determinism leads to a bigger problem for those who believe in free will.

 

[Flutterguy]

I am curious why you find it liberating. Is it because you feel you aren't responsible for your actions? Or something else?

I find it liberating as I can make what I feel are more informed decisions. Allowed me to reform my ideals. Make decisions based on my benefit, not the benefit of my ego.

Determinism does not free someone of responsibility. Criminals will still face trial. Obviously having murderers and rapists suffering no penalty is detrimental to society.

However if everyone was to embrace determinism it only seems logical for rapists and murderers to become less common.

 

[PromethianSpark]

However if everyone was to embrace determinism it only seems logical for rapists and murderers to become less common.

Explain?

 

[generals3]

I am actually getting sick of quantum mechanics being held up as evidence for free will, because some physicists over stepped their realm of expertise and decided to get involved in a subject matter they where not qualified to do so. There is actually nothing in quantum physics that has any bearing on the discussion. In fact, its threat to determinism leads to a bigger problem for those who believe in free will.

Actually QM has a very big role to play as determinism is often based on the look at older scientific theories. Actually determinism is based on the idea you can theoretically predict the future. (Because if things are determined our inability to determine the future is merely caused by our lack of knowledge) But since Quantum mechanics pretty much posits you cannot know certain things for sure one can also not even theoretically conceive the ability to predict the future and this can only be true if the future is not determined. While this doesn't necessarily prove the existence of free will as certain people see it, the impossibility of determinism does give more ground for the pro-free will team.

But one could also off course theorize that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete/false just like many theories which were thought to be true in the past and that we will be able to come up with a more advanced model which doesn't rely on probabilities.

 

[PromethianSpark]

I am actually getting sick of quantum mechanics being held up as evidence for free will, because some physicists over stepped their realm of expertise and decided to get involved in a subject matter they where not qualified to do so. There is actually nothing in quantum physics that has any bearing on the discussion. In fact, its threat to determinism leads to a bigger problem for those who believe in free will.

Actually QM has a very big role to play as determinism is often based on the look at older scientific theories. Actually determinism is based on the idea you can theoretically predict the future. (Because if things are determined our inability to determine the future is merely caused by our lack of knowledge) But since Quantum mechanics pretty much posits you cannot know certain things for sure one can also not even theoretically conceive the ability to predict the future and this can only be true if the future is not determined. While this doesn't necessarily prove the existence of free will as certain people see it, the impossibility of determinism does give more ground for the pro-free will team.

But one could also off course theorize that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete/false just like many theories which were thought to be true in the past and that we will be able to come up with a more advanced model which doesn't rely on probabilities.

As you said it is always possible that QM is incomplete, something I know a great many people would like to believe. But that being said, there is nothing in these ideas that pose any threat to the position that free will does not exist. Indeterminism is every bit as fatal to the idea as determinism. In QM, subatomic particles behave randomly within a set of probabilities. How anyone ever equated randomness to free will is beyond me. If you read my post before the one where I quoted you, you would have become aware of this argument, but I will not rehash it. Just check this,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma_of_determinism

 

[floppylobster]

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!

I agree with you, but you'll have a hard time convincing anyone here who hasn't really let themselves consider the possibility that they have no free will of it. So perhaps you only have 'free will' until you accept you don't?

I can't really offer any examples, even killing yourself would not work. I would say though, that you're part of something larger and that you still have 'influence'. You may be very limited to what you can do but you still have one part to play in any given moment, so continue to do your part and try not to influence others from doing their part.

To those who still think they do have free will - If you want to understand the other viewpoint, start by thinking of all the things you can't do right now. All the places you are not right now. All the things you can't think of right now because you're thinking of something else. Then try to understand that you can only ever do one thing at one point in time and that thinking, however quickly it can happen, is still only doing one thing at one time. And that while you may see two choices in front of you, you only ever get to do one at any point in time so really two choices never existed. There's more to it than that, but think about those things and eventually you may reach the same conclusion as the OP.

 

[BoogieManFL]

We have free will, but are limited by our means.

We aren't be guided by inescapable fate. Sure, things in our society can influence it and make certain things easier or harder to achieve. Or something more or less likely to occur. But I think it's silly to think it's all predetermined. We make our own fate and our ambitions and ability determines how far we can take it.Even if we were stuck in one inescapable path, it can't be proved or disproved and you'll never know. It can't be tested so it comes down to each person deciding what they believe themselves based upon feelings, and not factual data.

I look at a belief in some predetermined fate as surrender or capitulation. A sort cowardice to succumb to the belief you're powerless to change your life. Like it's an excuse to accept things the way they are and saying "oh well that's how it is" instead of doing what you can bring yourself to do.



It's not much different than asking someone their beliefs in Transporter technology. It's what you want it to be. If you were transported Star Trek style from where you stood to 3 feet to your right, some would say the first you is now dead. The act of breaking your atoms down into energy and reassembled anew in a new location "killed" you and now you're someone else. The same memories, body, DNA, the same in every way. But some would say you're a copy and not the real you.

What if a copy of everything you held to be "You" was installed into an amazing detailed and complex robot body, so advanced that it would be impossible for even the people closest to you to be able tell the difference. Is the copy alive, because it now has sentience? Or no, because it's just a machine imitating it, albeit flawlessly?

Then one could turn around and say you're an organic machine with so many bits and pieces that is so advanced that it became sentient and is aware of such a topic and can ponder it's complexities?

You can say we're just machines that emulate life, but life is a concept we ourselves have invented as a result of that sentience. Choose how you want to believe it, but choosing one way or the other in itself will probably affect how your life plays out.

If all of reality is predetermined, what would be the point? So is it that, or is it a story is always being written as time goes on. And at what point should you care about things beyond your comprehension or ability to influence?

 

[Olas]

I could give you the traditional quantum mechanics Heisenberg uncertainty principle mumbo jumbo, but I think the real problem is that we're taking the concept of free will way too scientifically.

As originally coined it just means general autonomy, as opposed to having your every action dictated by someone else. It doesn't mean breaking determinism.

Semantics.

As far as I'm aware the entire free will debate is mostly just a failure of semantics. So yes, the semantics are somewhat important here.

If you want a discussion over whether conscious thought is governed by determinism, then have at it. But lets stop calling it a matter of "free will" because that's just needlessly inflamatory, and causes confusion for people used to the traditional definition of the term.

Also, you'll want to avoid one word posts on this site.

 

[Flutterguy]

However if everyone was to embrace determinism it only seems logical for rapists and murderers to become less common.

Explain?

If the cause and effect of actions was well received on a global scale, a determinist Earth, people would feel more responsibility to not breed these behaviors. Yes people are currently aware of cause and effect, although it would be understood more intimately in a determinist world. Thus people would make a greater effort to acknowledge what causes these actions, and realistic prevention methods could be conceptualized.

 

[PromethianSpark]

As far as I'm aware the entire free will debate is mostly just a failure of semantics. So yes, the semantics are somewhat important here.

If you want a discussion over whether conscious thought is governed by determinism, then have at it. But lets stop calling it a matter of "free will" because that's just needlessly inflamatory, and causes confusion for people used to the traditional definition of the term.

In these philosophical arguments free will is always taken to mean the ability to act unconstrained. To say that we should really be discussing if conscious thought is governed by determinism is to neglect the fact that there are arguments which claim indeterminism is as equally a constraint.

 

[PromethianSpark]

If the cause and effect of actions was well received on a global scale, a determinist Earth, people would feel more responsibility to not breed these behaviors. Yes people are currently aware of cause and effect, although it would be understood more intimately in a determinist world. Thus people would make a greater effort to acknowledge what causes these actions, and realistic prevention methods could be conceptualized.

I think this is being a bit optimistic. It could be equally argued that once we accept determinism as a society, we will start identifying genes that have undesirable effects and then off goes our eugenics program. I think it would be very difficult to predict the sociological effect of embracing determinism, but where I to take a wild guess, I would say nothing would change.

 

[PromethianSpark]

But at that point I'd start wondering how exactly you define "free will" if there's no such thing as an unbiased choice. Haven't you invented an impossible concept? In order for any "will" to exist, there must be a goal. A being that has no goals will not act. A hypothetical God that possesses free will nevertheless does things because of reasons. So what is your concept of a being that does have free will?

As master of skies also points out to you, in this case we mean no choice. At all.

 

[TheIceQueen]

Okay so I compiled a ton of things so I didn't have several posts in a row...

I ascribe to William James' pragmatism. "At any rate, I will assume for the present. . . that it is no illusion. My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will." Meaning, free will exists because one chooses to. Even if free will is an illusion, choosing to believe in it makes it useful (hence the philosophical position's name of pragmatism).

But what is useful about believing in it? What can we do by believing in it that we cannot do if we do not believe in it?

That's the thing about pragmatism, though. It's not about what can we do; it's about what can I do. And before you say that you weren't really using a plural 'we,' I'll just say that I know that you meant it in a more singular fashion. When it comes to personalities and a person's world views, you have to accept that people have different perspectives and that some people feel despair, anxiety, and depression without the perception of free will and choice. That's exactly why William James said what he did.

It's not about free will actually existing or not. In fact, when it comes to science, the world would seem deterministic. Pragmatism is about accepting free will as useful if it's useful for you. If you don't find it useful, then that's great. That's a perfectly acceptable world view and I honor your opinion, but there are those of us out there, such as myself, who do become rather anxious and depressed at the idea that free will doesn't exist. For those that do, free will as a concept is useful for them. There could even be a wider variety of ways that free will is useful, but all of those are highly personal and vary from person to person. There's no we; there's only I.

And the lovely thing about pragmatism is that it even accepts determinism to a degree as well, though mostly only when determinism is in the name of science.

 

[Agayek]

I don't believe we have free will. However I believe that determining our behaviour is far too complex to be ever calculated (I mean we would have to examine trillions of parameters at a quantum level); therefore it appears, on a macro level, that we have free will.

There's one thing I should point out about this:

The human brain is perfectly capable of those calculations. Ergo, they are not complex to the point of incalculability. Ergo, your base premise is incorrect.

It's a simple binary question. Either our behavior is predetermined, and therefore can be predicted with 100% accuracy given sufficient data, or it is not, and our behavior will at some point violate calculated predictions. And that's my biggest issue with people who insist on the absence of free will. From a simple logical standpoint, the odds are very much against it. All you have to do to prove the existence of free will is provide one example where behavioral predictions fail, whereas to prove the absence of it, you would need to prove that every behavior can be predicted.

It's certainly possible to do so (we do it in the sciences all the time), but it's a rather difficult task and highly unlikely.

 

[Naleh]

I wish I had free will.

The price of will at all my local stores is extortionate.