Poll: Does free-will exist?
- Thread starter Sewblon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Schopenhauer said that the most radical of freedoms (I do whatever I want and I am whom ever I want) it's actually a "deatachment" of the most purely determinism (I am who I am cause I have no choice) so, acording to that guy our free will is purely based on the way we are so we are not actually free, cause we depend on other factors to act the way we act; kind of a mess.
It depends on how you picture the concept of time. If there is only a present and no past or future, then there can be no predestination since there is no future. However, since math can determine how things will work from the tiniest particle to the grandest events, what may happen should technically be mathematically predictable (it would just be almost impossible to apply mathematic principles of physics at such extreme levels).
If there is a past or future, then that in itself should suggest that there is predestination.
I guess what I'm saying is if you want to decide if there is free will or not, you have to consider what "time" really is.
I personally believe in free will, since I only believe that there is no time, only the present.
If there is a past or future, then that in itself should suggest that there is predestination.
I guess what I'm saying is if you want to decide if there is free will or not, you have to consider what "time" really is.
I personally believe in free will, since I only believe that there is no time, only the present.
You didn't read the OP did you....Generic Gamer said:
OT: I've been studying Philosophy for a while, but I haven't learned about this yet. We did touch on this with the idea of God section of the course, and are scheduled to start 'Free will and determinism' next term. It does sound interesting, although I don't like the idea of having no free will myself...
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.
good point I have wanderd about it myself too. I personaly think freewil doesnt truly exist because we cant go back to a choice to change it
heredity and environmentGeneric Gamer said:
you thinke you have free will but all your actions are determined due to heredity and environment.
if somebody knew all about you, they would know what you would do in any situation, before you knew it. but the illusion of free will is a nice thing
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.
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.
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.Generic Gamer said:
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.
In my opinion Free will doesn't exists.
Ah I was trying to put it nicely but i really don't care, I don't think it exists simply because everything you do is a calculation of your previous experience and your personality, which is determined by your birth and early years.
p.s
I know I wrote it really unclear and sloppy but no one reads it anyway.
Ah I was trying to put it nicely but i really don't care, I don't think it exists simply because everything you do is a calculation of your previous experience and your personality, which is determined by your birth and early years.
p.s
I know I wrote it really unclear and sloppy but no one reads it anyway.
The answer to this question is "No, it doesn't, but that's okay and will not in any capacity affect your life."
But you only counteracted it because something made you feel like you should counteract it. So what you did was still just the product of predictable circumstances. You're still being controlled by your stimuli. Human behavior is as logical and constant as gravity.Generic Gamer said:
I could post a long story in which psychology, (historical) counterfactuals and philosophy all play a part, but that would be TL;DR. I'll be brief:
In a sense it doesn't, in a sense it does.
If you think that humans are ultimately rational creatures, than yes. If you think that humans are ultimately irrational, than no.
Although, if we're gonna be all post-modernist: Than still yes.
In a sense it doesn't, in a sense it does.
If you think that humans are ultimately rational creatures, than yes. If you think that humans are ultimately irrational, than no.
Although, if we're gonna be all post-modernist: Than still yes.
Really? That seems like a total miscarriage of justice to me. How could he have possibly won that appeal?Daffy F said:
I've fasted and pulled all nighters. And we've all been in a situation where we've post-poned going to the bathroom...For example, someone goes to the theater and orders a large coke. He finds he showed up way early--the previews haven't even started. Absent-mindedly, he continues to drink it. The movies about to start, and the cup is already empty. He quickly grabs a refill and enjoys his second large coke during the movie. Near the end, he needs to go to the bathroom...but the movie is so good! Despite how uncomfortable it is, he waits through the movie and goes afterwards.minemin said:
Given the right inspiration, even basic needs can be postponed, despite discomfort or pain.
Agreed. If the judge had the slightest modicum of intelligence, he'd have claimed that they couldn't make the choice not to execute him.Bullfrog1983 said:
Besides, punishment for crime is also about preventing it happening again, discouraging others from trying it and so on.