free will
- Thread starter Flutterguy
- Start date
The funniest part about this argument?
The people who think it's either a load of trash, stupid to argue about or just makes no difference in the slightest do this of free will.
The people who believe this do it because their gene's, surroundings and upbringing told them to.
I just find it amusing. And for my half, I find this stupid. I am totally capable of breaking my gene/upbringing/surroundings by suddenly murdering someone. That is free will. It's a stupid thing, but my gene's etc. etc. would never have even remotely influenced me to do something like that.
But in the end, even if you managed to get everyone to believe that free will exists, then all of the sudden everyone realises they were arguing about something that literally effects them in no way, shape or form.
The people who think it's either a load of trash, stupid to argue about or just makes no difference in the slightest do this of free will.
The people who believe this do it because their gene's, surroundings and upbringing told them to.
I just find it amusing. And for my half, I find this stupid. I am totally capable of breaking my gene/upbringing/surroundings by suddenly murdering someone. That is free will. It's a stupid thing, but my gene's etc. etc. would never have even remotely influenced me to do something like that.
But in the end, even if you managed to get everyone to believe that free will exists, then all of the sudden everyone realises they were arguing about something that literally effects them in no way, shape or form.
Free will is many things. Real, it would seem, is not one of them.
Free will, as a concept, is deeply founded in a sense of mysticism. It's based on the idea that there is some "ethereal" force that let's us "choose" the decisions we make. Which, in itself, is rather ironic since that would still play into the concept of determinism. This "ethereal" force would be just another in a long list of factors that play into our decisions.
The more we learn of the universe, and ourselves, the more evidence there is in favor of determinism.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
That said, none of it matters. Just because the very concept of free will is a fallacy it doesn't invalidate our choices. It doesn't make them not our choices.
We are still responsible for the actions we take and the things we say. Just because we don't have "free will", in it's common parlance, doesn't mean we aren't our unique selves.
Now, what I wanted to bring up was my biggest issue from within the debate between free will and determinism.
Namely, that every argument I've seen for free will, in the end, resorted to asking someone prove a negative. As in: asking someone to prove free will doesn't exist.
That's not how things work, people. You don't believe something until it's proven false. The default position is to not accept the claims of somethings existence until those claims can be verified. Don't be this guy. [http://www.scificool.com/images/2012/07/9148130.jpg]
I'm completely open to the idea of free will being real. But until someone can show me evidence of it's existence; quantifiable evidenced that has to stand up to a wealth of evidence in favor of determinism; I won't believe anyone that says it's real.
Free will, as a concept, is deeply founded in a sense of mysticism. It's based on the idea that there is some "ethereal" force that let's us "choose" the decisions we make. Which, in itself, is rather ironic since that would still play into the concept of determinism. This "ethereal" force would be just another in a long list of factors that play into our decisions.
The more we learn of the universe, and ourselves, the more evidence there is in favor of determinism.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
That said, none of it matters. Just because the very concept of free will is a fallacy it doesn't invalidate our choices. It doesn't make them not our choices.
We are still responsible for the actions we take and the things we say. Just because we don't have "free will", in it's common parlance, doesn't mean we aren't our unique selves.
First, I just wanted to say that that was an excellent post. Exquisitely explained the basic view of the universe through determinism. Also, the Foundation series of novels really is both an excellent read as well as an interesting examination of free will and determinism. A good suggestion.Single Shot said:
Now, what I wanted to bring up was my biggest issue from within the debate between free will and determinism.
Namely, that every argument I've seen for free will, in the end, resorted to asking someone prove a negative. As in: asking someone to prove free will doesn't exist.
That's not how things work, people. You don't believe something until it's proven false. The default position is to not accept the claims of somethings existence until those claims can be verified. Don't be this guy. [http://www.scificool.com/images/2012/07/9148130.jpg]
I'm completely open to the idea of free will being real. But until someone can show me evidence of it's existence; quantifiable evidenced that has to stand up to a wealth of evidence in favor of determinism; I won't believe anyone that says it's real.
And you've determined that this DID come from somewhere? That whilst means, limitations and experiance may influence things, you have free will is false? That if one w-Master of the Skies said:
Oh wait, we are pulling the same religion argument as everyone always uses. You can't disprove God but you can't prove him but you can but there's this but there's that.
And by the way, I know where the signals in my brain come from. MY BRAIN. That's something that science can prove, so don't tell me if you had no gene's or whatever you want to argue about now that a brain would not send signals. Experience does not make a brain work, the cells in the brain do.
OP
You seem to forget that nobody is forcing you to go to do anything. Each time you go to work, eat, sleep or anything else you make the decision to do so. Most likely because it's in your own best interest, but the need to have a job is not the same as being forced to do a job.
You seem to forget that nobody is forcing you to go to do anything. Each time you go to work, eat, sleep or anything else you make the decision to do so. Most likely because it's in your own best interest, but the need to have a job is not the same as being forced to do a job.
Well, I've given it some thought, being the philosopher and arbitrator that I am, and I've come up with this...Flutterguy said: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!
To be free, is to not be limited by something. A bird is often referred to as "being free" in the form that they are not earth-bound; they can fly. What it is meant to mean, I believe, is that the bird may have the need to land at times, but has no real need to fly; they just can.
(This isn't practically true though; only metaphorically)
And to summarize, I would suggest an action that does not benefit, or is limited by, yourself, is a completely, truly free action. Not bound by Ying, Yang or anything. Only simply that you can, as apathetically as possible, would be a truly free sense of will.
I feel like I could explain this in greater detail, if only I had the ability to.
The best explanation to come up with that we actually DO have free will (that is observable) is that we're not the borg, we're not a hive mind, and not everyone makes the same choices, social pressures can limit the choices we're able to make, but it doesn't remove them entirely. Free will exists whether you believe in it or not.
Me and my girlfriend routinely have this argument, usually in the pub, and she always says something like that. To which I say, 'prove it. Do it! Do something completely unexpected and of your free will, smash that glass on the floor right now and shout ANOTHER! Prove to me that you have free will.'Lil_Rimmy said:
And she never does.....
I didn't say you brought religion into it. I said you were using the same argument - Hey, the WHOLE argument uses it. You can't prove free will but you can't disprove it but you don't believe in something until proven false blah blah blah.Master of the Skies said:
Anyway, my brain is in a certain state due to upbringing etc. but that does not mean it doesn't work without experience. Again, read = Experience is not a tangible thing. Your brain may be able to recall these things, but they do not power nor control your brain, nor do they effect it. You brain may look at these memories and go "I got burnt the last time I touched the fire, I shouldn't do that". That's influence, because your brain can still go "FUCK IT! I WANT TO TOUCH THE FIRE! IT'S PRETTY!"
I had a great discussion about this one time, me(free will) and my brother (determinism). After several hours of back and froth, we finally came upon this (trying to remember how it went):
Determinism relies on cause and effect (or cause and cause). When we try and work backwards, from a known effect to its causes, we can infinitely keep going backwards in causes. We can do this both in relation to time and space. Any cause has a previous cause in time( i.e. a a billiard ball being hit by the white ball, being hit by the stick, being pushed by the human.etc). But also in relation to space (i.e. the atoms in the pool cue are hitting the white ball, within the white ball each atom is compromised of infinitely smaller parts that are also pushed, etc. An infinity of smaller parts).
Now, the infinity in space makes sense. Each cause has a previous cause.
But, when we go into the micro scale of causes, there is an infinite amount of causes from one cause to the next.
The compromise became that since there are an infinite amount of causes in a single instance that affect the next cause, it is indistinguishable from free will since it is impossible to predict with 100% certainty what happens next.
We never really formulated it well.....
Determinism relies on cause and effect (or cause and cause). When we try and work backwards, from a known effect to its causes, we can infinitely keep going backwards in causes. We can do this both in relation to time and space. Any cause has a previous cause in time( i.e. a a billiard ball being hit by the white ball, being hit by the stick, being pushed by the human.etc). But also in relation to space (i.e. the atoms in the pool cue are hitting the white ball, within the white ball each atom is compromised of infinitely smaller parts that are also pushed, etc. An infinity of smaller parts).
Now, the infinity in space makes sense. Each cause has a previous cause.
But, when we go into the micro scale of causes, there is an infinite amount of causes from one cause to the next.
The compromise became that since there are an infinite amount of causes in a single instance that affect the next cause, it is indistinguishable from free will since it is impossible to predict with 100% certainty what happens next.
We never really formulated it well.....
That's just the parent not being omniscient and ridiculously intelligent, not to mention they only have half the child's genes, don't notice everything their child does or that happens to their child, and sometimes look away from their child. I'm of the same view as the OP. I remember someone explaining the splitting universe theory to me, where in a situation where there are multiple possible outcomes, all occur, in different universes. The example he used was flipping a coin. In one universe it would come up heads, and in another, tails. But the exact physical circumstances of the coin only permit one outcome. the same force would be applied by the thumb, the same wind direction, gravity and landing surface, and only one outcome would be possible from that particular coin flip. That's when I became, as I later learned, a determinist. As far as free will, since everything leads from what came before, there really is no free will and no responsibility, just a bunch of reactants reacting. We need the law and responsibility and so on to maintain society, and it had to be established in the first place to change the way we act (although exceptions would exist, and could not be anything else), but in the end, no-one is responsible for what they do. Everything else is. But everything else depends on its own circumstances, so really, there's nothing that is responsible for anything. Just what had to happen.Dirty Hipsters said:
It's almost fate, except fate brings to mind more of a "this is the endpoint and whatever you do, you will get there", where the reality doesn't have an endpoint in mind, just does what is logical.
But yes, I'm unaware of any good counter-arguments. Most of what I've heard is "But then life would be meaningless". Maybe it is. Doesn't make the truth any less true. But there's no way to test it, so we may never know.
Hence, a failure of semantics. There are lots of ways to define "unconstrained" which can therefore have a huge affect on what you consider having "free will".PromethianSpark said:
Is a person following orders given by a drill sergent constrained?
Is a person who does something because they're being blackmailed constrained?
To believe in free will is to say that somewhere in between, the genetic, the epigenetic, the environmental, the psychological, the sociological, and the neurological, there is a gap,
somewhere, that we exist as a separate entity from all those things (as though we where not composed of those things) that is somehow capable of 'choosing' in defiance of all those forces, while most of the time, being completely unaware of those forces.
Yeah Right!
somewhere, that we exist as a separate entity from all those things (as though we where not composed of those things) that is somehow capable of 'choosing' in defiance of all those forces, while most of the time, being completely unaware of those forces.
Yeah Right!
As much as you must of felt pretty smart with your little picture, I really think you should familarise yourself with the argument. There are many people here who seem to be communicating perfectly with no problems at all. Granted there are some people here who are not on board with the specific meanings in use. This however does not imply a failure in semantics. Every realm of philosophical debate often either begins with or has at some point, a rigorous process of settling upon definitions. Semantics is after all, an important part of philosophy. I suspect of course that not only do you know this, but have a clear understanding and familiarity with concepts in the context of this argument and are being deliberately obtuse. If that is not the case, it is not my duty to educate you in the matter.OlasDAlmighty said:Hence, a failure of semantics. There are lots of ways to define "unconstrained" which can therefore have a huge affect on what you consider having "free will".PromethianSpark said:
Is a person following orders given by a drill sergent constrained?
Is a person who does something because they're being blackmailed constrained?
More or less this I believe. It's not like you can really do anything about it so don't try to think about it too much. It's much funner to believe the illusion of making choices yourself(Which I guess to extent is still kinda true). You can't do anything about it, so just accept it as a fact and move on.Zakarath said:
You're missing the point of what I said, matey. It's not that there are always two options for you two choose between; I'm saying that the reason that you did what you did will always be either predetermined by the law of cause and effect or decided randomly.Syzygy23 said:
Free will vs cause-and-effect isn't the argument. It's Free will vs. Fate. Even Christians deny the existence of fate (on the basis that without free will, you would be unable to damn/redeem your soul). People trying to sell you on fate are gypsies, and not to be trusted.
The capacity for the average person to illicit change drastically diminishes based on the numbers of people from them. As in, I can make life a living hell for my family, which would in turn bother other people (like say, children that my abused child would bully), would in turn mildly inconvenience other people (teachers dealing with the bullied child), and so on.
Yes you have free will. No it doesn't matter.
The capacity for the average person to illicit change drastically diminishes based on the numbers of people from them. As in, I can make life a living hell for my family, which would in turn bother other people (like say, children that my abused child would bully), would in turn mildly inconvenience other people (teachers dealing with the bullied child), and so on.
Yes you have free will. No it doesn't matter.