free will

[Lil_Rimmy]

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.

 

[Vigormortis]

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.

snip

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.

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.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

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.

You've determined that this came nowhere out of your experiences, past, biology, genetics, etc... how? You think it's that easy to analyze? And where exactly do you think it comes *from*? Nowhere? Where do the signals in your brain come from and originate from? Nowhere? Why would your brain react the way it does?

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-

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.

 

[Sofus]

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.

 

[iLikeHippos]

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, I've given it some thought, being the philosopher and arbitrator that I am, and I've come up with this...

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.

 

[lunavixen]

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.

 

[PromethianSpark]

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.

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.'

And she never does.....

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

SNIP

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.

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!"

 

[Ledan]

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.....

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

So lets say that you're right and genes, experience, and surroundings completely dictate every action a person makes.

In theory that would mean that since a parent has the same genes as their child, and shares their child's surroundings, and knows all of their child's experiences up to a certain age (lets say it's a stay at home parent with a single child, and the child doesn't go to school yet), then that parent should be able to predict that child's behavior with 100% accuracy.

Talk to any parent in the world and they will all tell you that children are unpredictable as hell.

Bam, free will.

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.

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.

 

[Olas]

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.

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".

Is a person following orders given by a drill sergent constrained?

Is a person who does something because they're being blackmailed constrained?

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]

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!

 

[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.

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".

Is a person following orders given by a drill sergent constrained?

Is a person who does something because they're being blackmailed constrained?

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.

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.

 

[SadisticFire]

I, personally, rather doubt the existance of free will. After all, the brain is basically a chemical-reaction-driven computer. It takes inputs from your senses, parses them, and directs responses. It's driven by the laws of physics (And it's not like our brains reference the quantum level when doing their processing, which doesn't really leave much capability for randomness). Therefore, though we don't have the capability to at our current level of technology, it is theoretically possible to, with a complete understanding of a person's brain, accurately predict their response to being confronted with a given situation. Therefore, free will doesn't exist.


This did get me down for a while, but I eventually came to stop worrying about it and just live my life and enjoy my path through it, whether or not I'm really 'choosing' it.

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.

 

[Queen Michael]

Free will is supposed to not be predetermined by the law of cause and effect, but not random either. Thing is, those are really the only two options, so this "free will" thing doesn't seem that likely.

THere's as many options as you choose to make. Lets say you're driving your car down a road and see a fork in the road coming up. One has a sign saying "GRIZZLY BEARS" and the other has a sign saying "FALLING BOULDERS". Which path do you take?

Your only options are the boulder path and the grizzly path, right? WRONG. If it's me in that car, I say "Fuck this! I'm taking a THIRD OPTION!". Then I'd do a U-Turn and drive back the way I came. Or I could stop the car and walk through the terrain between the fork on foot.

See? Free will. As long as you keep your mind open to possibilities, you will always have as many choices as you want.

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.

 

[Soundwave]

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.

 

[Vegosiux]

As always I'll say that if you argue hard determinism, you're either wrong, or irrelevant.

It is literally impossible for it to be the superior intellectual position, since it's either wrong, or a result of factors that have nothing to do with your intellect.

Huh suddenly this is starting to look like a very weird variant of Pascal's wager to me.

 

[WoW Killer]

Haven't read the thread, because it's long and I'm drunk. Anyway, the only hard opinion on this I've ever come to a conclusion about is that determinism doesn't mean a lack of free will. Free will means that you make decisions based upon reasons, whether that be emotion, experience, logic, or whatever. What free will doesn't mean is that you make decisions based on a dice roll.

Just think for a moment that you get up and get ready for work. Like a lot of people, you don't always have the breakfast that you should have (according to the latest medical advice anyway; I hate breakfast personally, but you've gotta do it). So you have to make a decision on whether or not you're going to put some bread in the toaster. That decision is based on certain information like how much time you have, and how hungry you feel.

Now lets pretend for a moment that the world was non-deterministic. That would mean, that given the same initial data, that's how much time you have, how hungry you are, the cost of bread etc., that, on occasion, you could make a different decision. In other words, with everything else kept the same, you could replay the same day (like Groundhog Day, but without keeping the data from previous encounters), and randomly decide to do it differently (e.g. putting or not putting bread in the toaster). That is not free will; that is a dice roll.

Free will is to base decisions on information and preference, and that is entirely compatible with determinism.

 

[II2]

It's always struck me the more important question is, does the answer matter?

I suppose what I mean, is regardless whether you'd like to think the glass if half empty or half full, you're still thinking on the same glass. Wherever the 'truth' falls, would your thoughts on the subject be different? The answer is the expression of either truth valid.

 

[PromethianSpark]

Haven't read the thread, because it's long and I'm drunk. Anyway, the only hard opinion on this I've ever come to a conclusion about is that determinism doesn't mean a lack of free will. Free will means that you make decisions based upon reasons, whether that be emotion, experience, logic, or whatever. What free will doesn't mean is that you make decisions based on a dice roll.

Just think for a moment that you get up and get ready for work. Like a lot of people, you don't always have the breakfast that you should have (according to the latest medical advice anyway; I hate breakfast personally, but you've gotta do it). So you have to make a decision on whether or not you're going to put some bread in the toaster. That decision is based on certain information like how much time you have, and how hungry you feel.

Now lets pretend for a moment that the world was non-deterministic. That would mean, that given the same initial data, that's how much time you have, how hungry you are, the cost of bread etc., that, on occasion, you could make a different decision. In other words, with everything else kept the same, you could replay the same day (like Groundhog Day, but without keeping the data from previous encounters), and randomly decide to do it differently (e.g. putting or not putting bread in the toaster). That is not free will; that is a dice roll.

Free will is to base decisions on information and preference, and that is entirely compatible with determinism.

Like all people who believe in free will, you presuppose its existence in your very argument for it. You are making the assumption there exists a special kind of thing that is you, that exists independently from all the many determining factors (and believe me, there are many), and then in turn negotiates with these determining factors in a 'choice/decision-making' process. What the determinist is claiming, and it really is just simple materialism, is that you are not some ethereal thing separate from the world, but are rather the composite of all the these determining factors. That is to say, you are a composition of the physical, the genetic, the epigenetic, the environmental, the psychological, the sociological, and the neurological, all of which determining factors that make you. How can you be anything else other than this with out some reference to the soul? For only a plea to something that exists external to this world, but some how mediates with it, could possibly liberate you from what you otherwise are.

As for your point about randomness, you are completely right, and this is why those believing in free will can find no solace in the findings of Quantum Mechanics, as they only offer the cold randomness of indeterminism in place of determinism.