It is definitely complicated. It depends on what you mean by “free will” and it also depends on the definition of “self” or “I” or “you”. While I certainly live my life as though free will exists, if I really drill down into the subject I find myself believing it doesn’t REALLY exist. For example, we know through experimentation that the brain seems to commit to decisions before the conscious self is aware of that decision. It is estimated this delay is about half a second. It is an illusion that your conscious self is making choices. But if you consider it free will when your subconscious makes choices then that isn’t an issue.
And then if you REALLY drill down to the cellular (or smaller) level, you could theoretically just explain “choice” as a matter of cause and effect at the microscopic level.
But your belief in free-will caused you to post this, and his denial of free-will has already determined he will ignore your conundrum. This was decided at the beginning of the universe and the prophecy has now been fulfilled. Even my comment, whether you take it as serious or factitious, which you were already going to do, was decided before our ancestors even began to think that they might be able to do something besides respond to stimuli.
Freewill to me is the ability is to do whatever you want, whenever you want without restrictions.
But that is an absurd definition. Even the Christian God is not supposed to have such ability: He is constrained by logic and His own nature. He cannot make 2+2 equal 7, not anymore than you can turn into a giant fire-breathing panda at will.
Free will refers to our capacity of making choices between available options - as opposed to following some kind of programming/instinct.
But that is an absurd definition. Even the Christian God is not supposed to have such ability: He is constrained by logic and His own nature. He cannot make 2+2 equal 7, not anymore than you can turn into a giant fire-breathing panda at will.
Free will refers to our capacity of making choices between available options - as opposed to following some kind of programming/instinct.
I believe the idea is that a long chain of causal events lead to our making the decision. It only appears to us that we made a choice because of that long chain of events.
Right. Anything influenced is not free.
I believe the idea is that a long chain of causal events lead to our making the decision. It only appears to us that we made a choice because of that long chain of events.
So were you free when you wrote that response without me determining your reaction?
So you are saying free will is not free because it is influenced from us (i.e., we arrange for the direction of it)?
I "believe" this is complete nonsense.
I can finish this paragraph and click "Post Quick Reply", or I can say, "Oh, why bother", and post nothing.
You can, of course, insist that the choice that have actually made was 100% determined by what I had for breakfast last Friday - and that, in turn, was completely guaranteed by the fiscal policies of Sargon the Akkadian (we just cannot quite discern all the influences), but that would mean a flat denial of all the randomness and chaos of real life that manifest themselves abundantly, all around us.
What is more incredible - A system of the world that defies a mountain of empirical observations and laws of thermodynamics, or The volitional faculty of human mind that we observe in action every waking moment of our lives?
Of course. You have posed a question. You could not possibly determine my answer - or lack thereof.
Yes. I believe in the determinist view in that choices are caused by factors and in that choices that we make are determined by extraneous factors.
I didn't have to determine your answer I influenced your participation. My point is that your freedom is an illusion. As long as something influences you, you do not have freewill.
The randomness of the universe does preclude the idea of perfect prediction (especially long range prediction since the randomness "builds up" over time) but it does not provide evidence of free will. Randomness is just as much the antithesis of free will as predetermination.I "believe" this is complete nonsense.
I can finish this paragraph and click "Post Quick Reply", or I can say, "Oh, why bother", and post nothing.
You can, of course, insist that the choice that have actually made was 100% determined by what I had for breakfast last Friday - and that, in turn, was completely guaranteed by the fiscal policies of Sargon the Akkadian (we just cannot quite discern all the influences), but that would mean a flat denial of all the randomness and chaos of real life that manifest themselves abundantly, all around us.
What is more incredible - A system of the world that defies a mountain of empirical observations and laws of thermodynamics, or The volitional faculty of human mind that we observe in action every waking moment of our lives?
One way to validate free-will in a purely materialist universe is to deny the "rule" of cause and effect.
This makes no sense.
"No influences" would mean "no information". Rendering the very act of choice impossible. Influences are both always present and necessary for the free will to manifest itself. They don't negate free will - they set a stage for it.
Randomness is just as much the antithesis of free will as predetermination.
The first question I'd have to ask is do you believe in an objective (or universal, if you prefer) morality? From what I've seen, that's the first large separator.
The later. Our genes are the general program and our environment is the input for that program. Because of our intelligence and memory capacity our environment usually adds to the general programming. For example, we learn that walking into the street without accounting for cars can cause injury or death and we learn that even though most of our ancestors never saw car or anything like it. (Well, maybe a stampeding herbivore but they usually come in herds.)
The nature and topic of this discussion insures that. If you look at my posts in the morality threads I think you'll find a different take than what you're seeing here. Like most people, I don't normally think about my everyday delusions. From my viewpoint those delusions are usually there to help me so I don't question them, I just run with the ball. But when we talk about free will or consciousness I have to consider my delusions and account for them.
There is one major benefit in believing in free will and consciousness or at least acting most of the time like you do - it allows you to be part of the tribe. Buts that's no different than believing 1000 years ago that the world was flat or believing 500 years ago that illness was caused by demons or believing in Christ 200 years ago. To not believe those things was a hindrance to living (you'd be thought "a little strange" at best!) and in some cases downright dangerous.
Do you then believe that a tree chooses where it's branches grow? And if you do then just how far down the food chain do you go? Bacteria? DNA strands? RNA strands and viruses? Any self-replicating molecule? Where is the line because the closer we look at the difference between organic and inorganic the more blurry the line between them gets.
I have to believe that you're real, that the whole world is real, except that thing that seems to hover behind my delusional eyes.
But that wasn't exactly what I was talking about. There seems to be MRI proof from various studies that what we believe to be our conscious choices and reactions are nothing more than an after-the-fact story we're telling ourselves. ((And from another idea, that's most likely because we remember events better in the form of stories.)) If that is indeed true, then at this point it's not some mental illness or abstract thought that leads us to free will and consciousness being delusional. They're now real scientific questions and, seemingly, ways to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
Never read Nietzsche except in bits and pieces.
Whether we believe people are accountable for their actions or not doesn't usually change the gross outcome.
The violent criminal still ends up banished from the community (in jail) "because they deserve it" or "because they're a menace". It may change the way we justify the things we do but most of the time it leads us where we already are or where we're headed, anyway.
Hypersonic said:Because choice or the idea that we choose is illusory. For example I "chose" to attend college for higher learning and a better opportunity. I did not spontaneously think higher education leads to a better opportunity, someone had to tell me. Just as someone who is a vegatarian we are largely influenced by something. Your thoughts betray you because I determined, no, willed your to response.
I have no idea what you're saying here.Nope. I does contradict predetermination.
That's right, if you don't believe in free will than it is impossible in your world view.
Thats a great theory but then how come we can make decisions? A rock is unarguably mindless, we humans though can think. The rock can never for any reason decide that it doesnt want to fall into the water. We and other animals have motor skills and can avoid water altogether. The key attribute that allows that to happen is a brain. Organisms with brains can decide to go into water or not. The rock is just a rock and will do nothing but what physics says it will do.
Yes I know that you will say that organisms with brains are just more complicated but still are determined by the same physics to do whatever physics dictates, which is true. But along that chain of events decision making organisms exist. Again dont confuse all of this with the idiotic concept that people call free will. The fact that an organism can make a decision doesnt somehow mean that the decision was outside of the laws of physics.
Forget about free will its nonexistent and pointless, just a fantasy. Many moons ago I tried to argue for free will but I came to realize that the concept lacked any real foundation in reality. So when you start denying observable concepts like decision making or throwing around concepts like agent and what not you really are not talking about my assertions just trying to assign my assertions to the concept of free will. Its like arguing about the heavenly sphere, it will get nowhere as long as you maintain a dogmatic theory of existence. Again I am fine with my thoughts on the subject, I just believe that brains have functions and that rocks are nothing more than a inanimate object. A organism with a brain will react on a profoundly different level than a rock to its surroundings. The rocks reaction to its surroundings can be predicted given all the data. A organism with a brain can be predicted too, perhaps if we had all the data. But that is just a theory that has not been proven to be correct.
If you want to claim that brains can be predicted you are going to need to show that they can be predicted. Theoretical and philosophical pondering's cant show that a brain can be predicted to do anything. While we are at it your theory that everything is predetermined on into infinity starting perhaps with the big bang needs to be proven as well. The obvious proven problem with a predetermined universe is on the quantum scale. The theory was really good up until it was shown that true indeterminism in quantum mechanics exists. The best that you could say is that existence is somewhat predetermined. To what extent does quantum mechanics play in the universe? After all small exists everywhere.
"uncertainty" and "certainty" a combination of both allows the existence of a certain amount of the predetermined and the undetermined. You cant with any believable certainty tell me how much of our existence is predetermined by physics and how much quantum mechanics have screwed with those physical determinations. So I find it very doubtful that every cause and effect going back to the big bang can be predicted mathematically not when there exists true indeterminism in nature even if its at a quantum scale.
So are my thoughts predetermined exclusively by physics alone? Doubt exists that every thought is predetermined. Does it point to free will? lol no it points to cracks in the theory of Determinism. The Universe does not revolve around the Earth or the Moon.
My argument is we don't make decisions .... we think we do, but it's all just mechanical. We don't think, it's all just mechanical, we have thoughs, they exist, but they are all caused mechanically, they don't cause actions ... (epiphenominalism).
A brain, doesn't change that, since a brain is still ONLY matter, and like a rock, will do nothing but what physicas and chemistry tell it to do, a brain is complex ... yeah.
Also ithe reason animals and humans avoid the water, is physical and chemical reactiosn in the brain, all caused physically and chemically.
the fact that it can be predicted in theory is a logical necessity .. it it is just a more complex form of matter ... I mean EVERYTHING that is just physcial and subject to physical laws can by necessarily predicted.
Of coarse they can show, unless you think that they are the ONLY physical object in nature that cannot be understood ... THAT is an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence (using the battle cry of atheists), what your saying is that the brain is the only unique physical object that cannot be fully understood theoretically.
With Quantum mechanics, it becomes determined on a larger scale do to probibilities, but quantum mechanics can still be predicted, but just based on probibilities which when compounded lead to accurate predictions.
Even if indeterminism is primary ... it doesn't show that the brain is any more indeterminate than a rock ...
Also what does your last sentance have to do with anything?
Because throughout most of human history, helping our tribe members did help the tribe as a whole. Whether that still holds true or not is a different question.So why do you think we defend segments of the population even though its not advantageous? For instance the mentally ill or the physically disabled? Our reproductive capacity is that which we could easily replace these individuals with those who could have a greater contribution to society.
Do you believe protecting the weak is merely a leftover from the population crisis of the dark ages?
Most humans are egocentric in one way or another. Our genes make us that way. Is it so very far to go to believe we could easily delude ourselves into thinking we actually have conscious control over our surroundings?And how do you account for the delusion of free-will?
What benefit do you find for its denial?
That's the ONLY disadvantage? You can't think of some other reasons why an acceptance that one has no control over themselves would be self destructive?
Some people believe they require God to get by in their day-to-day lives. In fact, many religious people continue to tell us that we must listen to God and follow The Word or all will be lost! The fact is that atheists are just as moral and responsible as religious people - maybe even more so in many ways. How did that happen without God to guide them? IMO - you're trying to draw the same parallel. Are you a religious person?Really? Do you think addicts could kick their addiction if they believed they had no control over it at all?
Then I'll back up. You said you believed animals had free will. Do you believe a sponge has free will?I don't know where it begins and ends. I'm not a tree so I couldn't tell you what the internal processes are.
You misunderstood my response - and looking back at it I can see how. Let me add this to clear things up. I don't have to believe in "that thing that seems to hover behind my delusional eyes" because I take that as a given; I am.You have to believe in that too. Your denial of it is based in some form of nihilism which you demonstrate only in a philosophical discussion. I can justify a denial of everything. There's no basis of certainty to justify everything's existence. Descartes adherence to reality relied on a benevolent god which would not lie to him. That's not exactly the most infallible justification. Instead, you've drawn the line at the scientific method, which is not nearly as flimsy but it's just as logically flawed.
You mean stories being easier to remember than unrelated facts? You know the moral of the story, don't you?Hmmm, don't know about that. That simply calls into question the capacity of our memories.
You can look at it in whatever way makes you feel warm and comfortable inside.Possibly, though I'd still say they can choose not to act.
We dont make decisions you say? Its all mechanical you say? Well then how come in that study where those decisions were made before the person making the decision knew were not 100%? I forget the percentage but a certain amount were not a few minute moments before consciousness was aware, but were in real time.
So there is a problem with your argument. If what you say is true then our brains defy the law of physics sometimes. But since that obviously isnt happening then I think you need to go back to the drawing board. The evidence says that we sometimes are able to make real decisions and this has to be a 100% situation for you. Either the brain cant do it and you are correct or even the smallest chance that the brain can make decisions blows your argument out of the water.
AT any rate I still am not asserting that the brain acts outside of the laws of physics or that quantum mechanics makes the brain explainable. In fact most of your complaints about my argument are fictitiously thrown at me and will not stick since they are not mine. I clearly argued that the brain is bound by the laws of nature and cannot act outside of those limits. You then turned around and tried to say that I said otherwise. Shame on you. I was careful to make sure that I said what I did so that you wouldnt try this.
You would have to prove that we are merely robots which is what you seem to be arguing. But clearly we are not robots. You equate this study as being your proof. Your argument relies on assuming the nature of thought that you havent at all shown to be the truth. Your assumption is that when the brain comes to a decision before the person is aware of said decision that, that is the result of physics showing itself. I will need more than you just saying so for your argument to be worth my time. So give me something to work with.
Again my assertion is that decision making exists as a element of nature. There isnt any magical part that is required since the decisions are just the core part of what makes a sentient being sentient. As I have said before a delusional mind may make irrational decisions that defy all logic or a mind may think up a solution that took years of thought to figure out. Yes its just a overly complicated cause and effect I agree and wasnt denying that fact. But I am not talking about magical behavior like you seem to want me to be saying. But I do remain skeptical that a human mind could ever be 100% mathematically predictable. All it takes is one random thought to throw a curve ball, or a 0.00000000001% success rate. Your argument demands 100% predictability. But the problem is that your argument isnt provable right now by any stretch of the imagination, so you cannot back up your argument at all really. You could throw some theories and some damn good ones that I know are going around right now but thats as good as you could do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?