free will

[PromethianSpark]

SNIP

See above for how I feel about the variables.

For the sake of an experiment to yourself, choose not to believe in free will. Of course do not start spamming us with posts of your dramatic conversion, as we will always see this as being disingenuous. No, do it merely for yourself. If you are self honest, I believe you will come to the realisation that you simply cant.

 

[broca]

SNIP

See above for how I feel about the variables.

For the sake of an experiment to yourself, choose not to believe in free will. Of course do not start spamming us with posts of your dramatic conversion, as we will always see this as being disingenuous. No, do it merely for yourself. If you are self honest, I believe you will come to the realisation that you simply cant.

I can't speak for PromethianSpark, but i don't believe in free will. It's not impossible to do, but (at least for me) deeply depressing and makes stuff really complicated, so i usually try to forget about it. I actually would rather not, but i can't change that, at least i haven't found a way yet.

 

[Flutterguy]

To take this on a somewhat serious note, I give you human curiosity.

It is my belief that without it, without the desire to grow beyond oneself, we would stagnate and be as the primates we humans came from, changing and doing nothing. It is that existence that I must state has no free will, for it does not think, learn, and grow. But everywhere in life from then on was one humanform or another thinking "No, I want to do something better, or make this more convenient, or figure out why this does what it does!". Nobody told us to do that and nothing in genes made it so. In fact, if you want to go biblical on this, the very god - our frigging creator - said not to pursue this, but to live in peace and harmony with the world forever. We did not, we continue to not, and we will not in the future I'm sure...because we will it so. It's a double-edged sword and very slippery on that slope, but nonetheless true.

You cannot say animals do not also strive to improve, and do not have desires. Humans are ahead on the food chain by lucky mutations and many happy accidents. Animals are not so different from us, they are able to analyze their surroundings to the best of their cognitive ability and act accordingly. Their current capacity may be behind us, yes. However a human with no social interaction, no teaching is of animilast intelligence.

Humans were lucky enough to have been high on the food chain and were the first known species to record information. Animals make use of tools, build houses and pass on survival tips. Seeing as mankind claimed itself king and now effects every habitat negatively for other animals. Thus it is harder to evolve intelligently for other species now (outside of our intervention).

Observations recorded to prove my reasoning:
There is a case I of of where a person is girl was confined to a bathroom from infancy until she was 13. Due to the situation she was capable only of animal like behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)

Koko the gorilla is a good example of animals exhibiting human behavior and cognitive thinking. She could speak in sign language, understood over 1000 English words, had pets which she was able to care for. When her first pet cat slipped out her cage and was killed by a car she cried, when she watches certain emotional movies she cries or feels happier. She did many activities which only humans can do, comprehended many things only humans can comprehend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)

Now imagine either being done on a mass scale, release say 20 'feral humans' into an area devoid of major predators or human contact.
At the same time release 20 educated gorillas into identical condition.
You cannot say for sure which one would advance in culture faster, I will put my money on Planet of the Apes.

Thus are we smarter then animals, yes. Does this make us more divine, does this mean we have a soul and they do not, not by any means. Do not think your god loves you anymore then any of the bugs you have killed. Why would you or I be any more special to him then a plastic bag, because you think you are more special then a plastic bag? Plastic is made of stardust like yourself, plastic will be around for hundreds of years, if not thousands. Humans wish they could be more like plastic, look at mummification. Clearly god likes plastic more then humans, clearly plastic has a soul and we do not.

Faith decides what is true. Truth is not decided.

SNIP

See above for how I feel about the variables.

Ignorance is not an answer, it is a scapegoat to avoid thought.

 

[FalloutJack]

Animal kingdom debate

Now see, there I'm not so certain. The improvement you're thinking of is not the same as any being that has ever used tools, say. Lemme explain first that when I said animals that I meant in general, not necessarily meaning all of them. There are animals with their own KIND of intellect, but I was referring to the bulk which does not change much. Tigers, for instance, do not change. They're perfectly suited to their needs and environment. They move fast, kill quick, and can defend themselves. Wolves are very sophisticated, but they have no need to go beyond the pack mentality, so they do not, have not. That which has tried to improve itself will be the exception to the rule, but only humans have been so drastic. For you see, I AM aware of Koko the gorilla, and was not negating that fact.

Clarifications aside, the girl in the bathroom is the exception made to MY rule, not a total disproval of all things said. It's an attempt to use the metaphysical argument of the man trapped in the box with only a certain means of communicating with the outside world as a statement for non-development as being normal. Not the case. Every person stuck in a box inherently wants to know what's out there, even if everything they need is in the box. Some days, you have to go out, have a laugh. Neither does plastic hold any particular meaning for me even if it exists for longer than I do. My life is far more meaningful than it, unless it's actually a pan-dimensional being for whom the focus of its material existence is a plastic bag. That not being provable, I will leave that one aside as something of a red herring. Red herrings also do not hold more meaningful lives than people do, unless you can show me something about them too. However, I advise you not to, as my mention of them IS a red herring.

But I'm afraid your comment on faith and truth cannot be. Faith allows others to decide what is truth FOR you, because you are waiting for such a sign. Truth is something that somebody postulates and can either be proven or unproven. Hume said that reality is how we perceive it. I'm not entirely certain that that is true, but what IS true is that human beings tend to change perception ALOT. This would not be possible if they did not possess free will, for those who allow somebody else to take the reigns in faith do NOT change their views. Does this mean those in faith cannot have free will? Not at all. I speak of the sliding scale of faith as per how devout a person is and how flexible they are. We can all do things, but the question is...do we let ourselves? There are people who do things just because, for no actual reason at all. You can't tell me that they don't have free will. Frivolous behavior is at the heart of such.

 

[persephone]

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.

How exactly do you define determinism?

If you made more informed decisions and reformed your ideals, isn't that choice? How exactly do you define free will, if those things you listed fall outside its province?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

My theory: free will doesn't exist if you think time is a real thing and not just a useful construct for making sense of the world. We only ever even think about free will through the lenses of "what will I do" and "what did I do". Those considerations sort of disappear if you think of past and future as helpful concepts rather than observable reality.

Also, the discovery of the circuitry responsible for a behavior or an event doesn't invalidate or destroy that behavior or event. We know what happens to the human brain, chemically speaking, when it falls in love. This doesn't mean love isn't real. It means we have a better understand of love. We can also trace the factors that might have led a person to make a particular decision, but that understanding doesn't mean a decision wasn't made.

Anyways, you can't change the mind of a person who doesn't believe in free will because their arguments rely on concept confusion/raw semantics. They will always have some avenue of escape from the debate because we are all saddled with the imperfections of language.

 

[Dwarfman]

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 bring up an interesting argument. However I find it a circular one. The very fact that you came to believe this theory upon your own and feel liberated by it kind of demonstrates a measure of free will does it not?

 

[WoW Killer]

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.

Well I wasn't really taking a stance on the existence of free will in that last post. There isn't an agreeable enough definition of the term for me to take a side on that. My only argument is that what we intuitively think of as free will (I have to talk loosely here because it isn't well defined) is much more alien to a non-deterministic world than it is to a deterministic one. So I reject the idea that free will (whatever it may be) is opposed to determinism. If we try to define free will as (and this is often how it is viewed) a non-deterministic aspect of cognition, then we end up with something that is very far removed from what the concept of free will was supposed to represent.

 

[Flutterguy]

You bring up an interesting argument. However I find it a circular one. The very fact that you came to believe this theory upon your own and feel liberated by it kind of demonstrates a measure of free will does it not?

Not at all. It was the inevitable sum of all experience. The realization cause and effect rules our universe.

Our actions may determine the future, but experience determines our actions.

I'll try to explain my reasoning with time. You cannot change time, it can be measured and understood but not changed. We could fake time travel, We could turn the date back to 0 if we wanted. This would accomplish nothing but making our records harder to understand.

 

[Ieyke]

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!

There is no such thing as free will.

Given enough information, the knowledge to understand it, and the ability to process it all, you could predict everything that has ever happened and ever will happen.

There are simply too many variables for any non-omniscient being to ever do it, so it functionally appears as though we have free will.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Vegosiux]

Given enough information, the knowledge to understand it, and the ability to process it all, you could predict everything that has ever happened and ever will happen.

There are simply too many variables for any non-omniscient being to ever do it, so it functionally appears as though we have free will.

Actually, even an omniscient being would never be able to have all that information, there's a hard cap on that, in form of the uncertainty principle.

A more practical concern is that the idea determinism, true or not, is incompatible with the way our society is structured.

 

[WoW Killer]

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?

Chaos [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory]. Deterministic doesn't always mean predictable. You could only ever know the current state of the brain within a certain degree of accuracy. In a chaotic system, two initial states that differ by an arbitrarily small amount can exhibit completely different results over time. Even very simple mathematical systems can be chaotic; it's all but guaranteed that a system as complex as cognition would be chaotic.

So no, even theoretically, we wouldn't be able to predict someones actions.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

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.

 

[Vegosiux]

The uncertainty principle works at the quantum level. It's more of a jump to say that this uncertainty is going to have any real effect on a higher level.

Who knows? We've delved down onto the quantum level precisely because we did not understand fully why matter behaves the way it does on a scale orders of magnitude larger than that and we very much know that the quantum-level events do affect the events on larger levels - we wouldn't have been able to observe them otherwise.

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.

Incompatible as in, if there is no free will, there is also no responsibility, as responsibility implies a conscious choice. Something that cannot actually exist in hard determinism. In hard determinism, you don't "choose" anything, you just take the input and return the output, like a program.

And well, responsibility is one of the concepts our society's order is built on. You know, everyone must accept that there will be consequences to their every choice? In determinism, choice does not exist.