Poll: Does free-will exist?

[Daffy F]

I'll not say any more apart from this fun fact - A man in America once avoided the Death Penalty by using the argument that, as we have no free will, he was going to end up murdering either way.

Really? That seems like a total miscarriage of justice to me. How could he have possibly won that appeal?

He didn't get off completely, he just didn't get killed.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I think predeterminism needs a better descriptive argument. Here's my take on it:

If you were given a tool of infinite sensitivity and processing power, and could somehow go back to the very moment of the Big Bang that created the universe as we know it, you could predict how every last quantum particle would interact with each other through infinity. In essence: Say that this morning, you went into the kitchen and accidentally knocked over a 12-ounce bottle of soda while making breakfast. With that tool, right at the moment of the Big Bang, someone could say "at X point in time, this collection of quantum particles that forms a human being will go into this collection of quantum particles that forms a kitchen, and knock over this collection of quantum particles that forms a 12-ounce bottle of soda".

Short version: Predeterminism treats reality as an infinitely complex yet ultimately predictable game of quantum billiards, and once the first impact is made, all future impacts can be predicted- including impacts such as your neurons firing to bring you to make a choice.

It's not a disprovable argument (nobody we know of has, as of yet, created a tool of infinite sensitivity and processing power), but the problem lies in that many people will take this argument as proof that no one is ever accountable for their actions (since we're all simply doing what we are fated to do) and thus personal responsibility is a fiction. (See Daffy F's post above for an instance of this.)

 

[Dana22]

I like the way you put 'Actual Science' in truth, 'Science' is more like 'Actual Philosophy'

Thing is that it's not a philosophical question, whether everything is pre-determined is more of a mathematical question and the answer has been shown to be 'no'.

How has it been 'shown' may I ask?

By Quantum Physics.

 

[mechanixis]

I am of two minds on this subject because although I believe in free will, I have had dreams that became reality in the course of time (possibly predetermined?) I do not believe that science can reliably prove this theory because they always give the subject limitations to what they can do. In Gaz's video the scientist speaks of the conscious and the unconscious mind deciding together what the interviewer's decision would be, but they only give him two choices - probably yes and no. Binary choice is already predetermined, and doomed to simplicity, the lack of choice in the test is not based on reality so I do not know how it could possibly be useful data.

Of course we have free will, we can choose to counteract almost everythign we do if we want.

Counteracting something means you never did what you were going to do, therefore you were never going to do it.

Pre-determinism - 1.

It's a theory and not even a particularly good theory, it's deliberately unprovable.

I think GG has hit the nail on the head here, the theory is deliberately unprovable, or at least only provable through circular logic that states since you made x decision instead of y or z, you were always going to make x decision.

For example: You meet someone, doesn't matter if they are a man or woman, gay or straight, white or black - well you get the picture.

Do you:

A - Ignore them, they are a stranger.

B - Say Hello

C - Actively move away from them, they look creepy.

D - Walk up and push them as hard as you can.

E - Give them a kiss/hug.

F - Dance like a Leprechaun around them in circles screaming, "Sausages!" in an Irish accent with limbs flailing in all directions.

G - They look like an easy mark, try to pick their pocket.

Every single option here is predetermined by me, and is therefore is invalid proof like that of the scientists' test. This test is limited by a factor of seven different options, and some of these options would probably not occur to a lot of people to do. Alternatively, people might have millions of different choices to make when meeting a stranger, and mapping that on a computer is unlikely to be possible in the course of time. Some are more likely than others to be acted upon, dancing like a Leprechaun may not be considered by many people, but the option is still on the table. The free-will to execute such a ridiculous activity, or vicious one like pushing or stealing from someone is a choice any person can make, but it is always their choice to make. People always have circumstances/influences that are predetermined, pulling them towards or away from these seven options but they don't always have to do what is normal/natural.

Having a lot of options is not the same as free will. The point is that, if you had sufficient knowledge of the situation and background of a person, you would be able to predict whatever they did.

Yes, you are able to do a lot of ridiculous things, but why would you think of them or choose them? Maybe you choose to be friendly when you meet someone because your life has led you to have a positive outlook on human beings. Maybe you back away because you've been led to have a negative outlook on them. Maybe you have a positive outlook on them, but punch them in the face because you had a discussion about free will on the internet and feel like you should exert your ability to behave irrationally.

The point is that everything you do has a reason, even if it's purely psychological. And therefore you'll never be 'free' of reason.

 

[Hazard12]

In a word no. I don't think it does.

Moreover, I don't see what the big deal about it is. It seems to me we want to be able to choose our actions, and we do. I think things are pre-determined, but that means it was determined that we'd make the choice we made. That doesn't mean we didn't make our choice or that it was any less ours.

 

[Sewblon]

Of course I do. For the simple fact I don't believe in any supernatural forces that might act on the universe or control our actions. The whole idea of no free will is actually rather ridiculous to me.

Thats a pretty weak argument. What about the possibility that some causally fixed set of natural conditions and events dictates your every action?

 

[joshthor]

why do people over think everything? its ridiculous. of course we have free will. for instance, i could choose to chuck pennys at my brother. i think i will, but later. this website makes me sad sometimes. i mean sure, its great to have an open forum to discuss important stuff, like politics, war, video games, cheese, ect.. but why do some of us put so much thought into asking easily answerable questions: do we have free will? yes

 

[Daffy F]

I like the way you put 'Actual Science' in truth, 'Science' is more like 'Actual Philosophy'

Thing is that it's not a philosophical question, whether everything is pre-determined is more of a mathematical question and the answer has been shown to be 'no'.

How has it been 'shown' may I ask?

Sure, the initial instance was when the Met office (I believe, may have been another country's equivalent) attempted to map weather patterns using computers. When doing this they'd find that within days of starting a simulation the weather wouldn't match at all. The reason for this is that even when set up the same two systems would rapidly deviate. Initial small changes occurring at random in the system would alternately go one way or another. Even a single molecule in the air could collide with another and fly off at a slightly different angle. Individually small changes in a system mean almost nothing but added together two identical systems can end up radically different.

Your actions may be determined by your surroundings at the atomic level but they cannot have been pre-determined, even a being that knew the position of every atom in the universe at the instant of creation would not have a way of predicting what would happen afterwards. The only way your actions could be determined is if a higher power had been determining the course of all events since the creation of the universe as they happened.

Hence it's not impossible that your actions are determined but they are not pre-determined.

EDIT: add in that it isn't possible to examine a particle without changing it and you see the problem, any observation changes the event in unknown ways.

By Quantum Physics.

Or, in brief, this.

This isn't about predicting things that are going to happen though. It's possible for people to not have free will. What you're saying is that it's impossible for people to know what we're going to do.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

Of course I do. For the simple fact I don't believe in any supernatural forces that might act on the universe or control our actions. The whole idea of no free will is actually rather ridiculous to me.

Thats a pretty weak argument. What about the possibility that some causally fixed set of natural conditions and events dictates your every action?

Then once it's been proven I'll accept it.

 

[Angryman101]

This video goes some way to answering the conundrum I think. Free will should in theory be a conscious thing, this proves it's otherwise.

So...your brain actively makes a decision based around your beliefs and values a little bit before you consciously decide to do it? That's so close to being surprising and interesting. How is that not free will again?

 

[Arrogancy]

The idea of free will is a tricky one. I'd like to take this time to tell everyone one this thread that listing decisions you have "made" doesn't prove that free will exists. Saying that "I made decision X Y time ago. If free will doesn't exist how can I do that?" is stupid. If free will doesn't exist you would have wound up doing the same thing anyway, you wouldn't be aware that you were going to make the decision at the time. Another thing, this is not about time-travel. while the question relates to the future and the past, free will is not a solidly time-based concept. Now to my point. The thing that makes the concept of free will so tricky is that it isn't one question, it's two. Free will has scientific and philosophical roots. If people choose to believe that free will does not exist, then it does not. Scientifically, does free will exist? We have yet to see evidence to the contrary, so technically, yes. Without more evidence then the question is pointless. People will simply accept that they have free will regardless of whether or not they do.

 

[Angryman101]

Of course I do. For the simple fact I don't believe in any supernatural forces that might act on the universe or control our actions. The whole idea of no free will is actually rather ridiculous to me.

Thats a pretty weak argument. What about the possibility that some causally fixed set of natural conditions and events dictates your every action?

That is in itself a pretty weak question. What if I'm a fluffy pink rhinoceros? Speculative questions do not create a valid counterpoint, they merely suggest new avenues of discussion.

 

[Chrinik]

Every SINGLE one of our actions, thoughts and random brain-storms, are caused as a reaction to our surroundings, teaching, our own understanding of "self", the possible consequences, determining the outcome or possible outcomes, past experiences etc. and other such factors.
Really, OUR DECISION is actually totally influenced by surrounding input, true "free will" is therefore nonexistant.
The theory that we cannot predict human behavior is actually very false...everyone in the marketing and PR departments do so AS THEIR JOB, and not to say the social experiments carried out by scientists to study human behavior.
When presented with a given situation, we are XX% likely to act (Way A)...
Our conciousness is NOT free will...it is all determined by other factors, which are so numerous and diverse that you cannot effectively and accurately meassure it, but you can do a prediction.

I also like how there seems to be only "Free will or Pre-determination"...when there could be NEITHER (and is, in my understanding). Because it is not entirely free because it is very constrained and limited, and not pre-determined because our own life and those interacting with us forms that frame.

 

[6unn3r]

My brain slug told me to say that "Yes we all have free will."

Would anyone else care for a brain slug?

This festive season they come with hats.

 

[Angryman101]

I think predeterminism needs a better descriptive argument. Here's my take on it:

If you were given a tool of infinite sensitivity and processing power, and could somehow go back to the very moment of the Big Bang that created the universe as we know it, you could predict how every last quantum particle would interact with each other through infinity. In essence: Say that this morning, you went into the kitchen and accidentally knocked over a 12-ounce bottle of soda while making breakfast. With that tool, right at the moment of the Big Bang, someone could say "at X point in time, this collection of quantum particles that forms a human being will go into this collection of quantum particles that forms a kitchen, and knock over this collection of quantum particles that forms a 12-ounce bottle of soda".

Short version: Predeterminism treats reality as an infinitely complex yet ultimately predictable game of quantum billiards, and once the first impact is made, all future impacts can be predicted- including impacts such as your neurons firing to bring you to make a choice.

It's not a disprovable argument (nobody we know of has, as of yet, created a tool of infinite sensitivity and processing power), but the problem lies in that many people will take this argument as proof that no one is ever accountable for their actions (since we're all simply doing what we are fated to do) and thus personal responsibility is a fiction. (See Daffy F's post above for an instance of this.)

This isn't true at all, because particles on the atomic level only behave rationally this way when you observe them. When they are left unobserved, they phase in and out of existence, they exist in multiple areas at once, and they show both properties of light and of matter. When you observe this occurring, then it's you who is creating the predetermination, not the molecules themselves as you are conjecturing.

 

[Jroo wuz heer]

I want to believe in free will because anything else is simply too depressing. No, I don't really have a clever answer. That said, I give myself little choice in what I do, what with my brain being 95% guilt.

Also: There is no mind control, citizen. Or something to that effect.

free will is mind control. if asked to make a choice about anything (aside from favorite color and stuff like that) noone would be able to without having previously been influenced.
free will without being influenced would be random guessing. humans have only the opinions they have come in contact with.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Does it occur to anybody else that this poll is possibly the most futile one ever put into words? I mean, if free will exists, the correct answer is "yes", and anybody who answers "no" is either delusional or lying. And if free will doesn't exist, the answers are completely irrelevant anyway since we're not actually capable of choosing one... so... there you go.

 

[Kazaazz]

I like to think "to each their own" So therefore saying free will does exist and we were free to do what we like, theoretically.

But a lot of things we do aren't a matter of choice. Look at reflex actions.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Indeterministic philosophy usually admits that much of what happens in the universe is due to either the laws of nature or chance, but supposes that human beings still have free will.

Predeterminism says that the future was set in stone by causality at the beginning of the universe. Some other forms of determinism deny Predeterminism because of quantum indeterminacy but still argue that free-will doesn't exist because everything we do is determined by random collisions of particles and chemical reactions in our brains.

Compatibalism attempts to redefine either "determinism" "causality" "free-will" or some combination of these terms to reconcile determinism with free-will. The only form of this that I am that familiar with is Many-worlds Compatibalism, which says that every time you make a choice you create two alternate time-lines, one where you made the choice and another where you didn't make the choice. So you can choose which time-line to inhabit but you can't actually change any particular timeline. Sorry about the lack of poll, my computer has been having a hard time interacting with The Escapist lately.

It is not really knowable. I mean, we cannot make a falsifiable hypothesis to test whether or not we have free will.

Ultimately, it doesn't seem that we could possibly have free will. What 'decision' would we make that wouldn't be simply based on the makeup of our body at that moment? When you 'decide' to do something, is there any reason to believe you could have 'decided' to do something else with the EXACT SAME conditions?

Sure, we are complicated machines, but still machines.

 

[lacktheknack]

Do I feel I have free will? Yes.

Should I care whether or not it exists?