Argue for Free Will
- Thread starter Toemassa
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think you should pose an argument against free will first, since you're the one starting the discussion.
I'm no leading expert on the topic, but I'll try winging it. My best argument for it would be that the brains of many animals have been shown to use quantum superposition, that is particles existing in multiple possible states at once, to help speed up it processes faster than traditional mechanics would allow. It's possible then since these or similar quantum effect likely give rise to human consciousness, and also defy traditional laws of mechanics and therefore determinism, that it's possible for consciousness itself to operate outside of determinism.
I'm no leading expert on the topic, but I'll try winging it. My best argument for it would be that the brains of many animals have been shown to use quantum superposition, that is particles existing in multiple possible states at once, to help speed up it processes faster than traditional mechanics would allow. It's possible then since these or similar quantum effect likely give rise to human consciousness, and also defy traditional laws of mechanics and therefore determinism, that it's possible for consciousness itself to operate outside of determinism.
I think first you're going to have to define "free will." And not by saying "the ability to choose freely" or "being able to make choice," because those are really just synonym.
The freedom to be able to do actions you think and do what your desires lead to and self-determination in general. That is in essence, free will. But I dot think I have enough of it, as I am on this forum instead of doing what is responsible and studying physics.
Daddy, I want off this forum.
Daddy, I want off this forum.
Rather than answer your question, I'm going to recite Coleridge.
I love the way I think.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers were girdled round:
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree;
And here were forests ancient as the hills,
Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.
But oh! that deep romantic chasm which slanted
Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover!
A savage place! as holy and enchanted
As e'er beneath a waning moon was haunted
By woman wailing for her demon-lover!
And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,
As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,
A mighty fountain momently was forced:
Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst
Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,
Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher's flail:
And 'mid these dancing rocks at once and ever
It flung up momently the sacred river.
Five miles meandering with a mazy motion
Through wood and dale the sacred river ran,
Then reached the caverns measureless to man,
And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean:
And 'mid this tumult Kubla heard from far
Ancestral voices prophesying war!
The shadow of the dome of pleasure
Floated midway on the waves;
Where was heard the mingled measure
From the fountain and the caves.
It was a miracle of rare device,
A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice!
A damsel with a dulcimer
In a vision once I saw:
It was an Abyssinian maid,
And on her dulcimer she played,
Singing of Mount Abora.
Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight 'twould win me
That with music loud and long
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome! those caves of ice!
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed
And drunk the milk of Paradise.
A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers were girdled round:
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree;
And here were forests ancient as the hills,
Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.
But oh! that deep romantic chasm which slanted
Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover!
A savage place! as holy and enchanted
As e'er beneath a waning moon was haunted
By woman wailing for her demon-lover!
And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,
As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,
A mighty fountain momently was forced:
Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst
Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,
Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher's flail:
And 'mid these dancing rocks at once and ever
It flung up momently the sacred river.
Five miles meandering with a mazy motion
Through wood and dale the sacred river ran,
Then reached the caverns measureless to man,
And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean:
And 'mid this tumult Kubla heard from far
Ancestral voices prophesying war!
The shadow of the dome of pleasure
Floated midway on the waves;
Where was heard the mingled measure
From the fountain and the caves.
It was a miracle of rare device,
A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice!
A damsel with a dulcimer
In a vision once I saw:
It was an Abyssinian maid,
And on her dulcimer she played,
Singing of Mount Abora.
Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight 'twould win me
That with music loud and long
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome! those caves of ice!
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed
And drunk the milk of Paradise.
I love the way I think.
I considered that possibility myself, and it got me to wondering if the consciousness can, but the body can't. As in, what if our thoughts were (to some degree, at least) our own, but our actions are not?OlasDAlmighty said:
And, yes, you're right, I should add my own argument to the top. It'll take some time to word out, though, so it likely won't be until later.
The funniest bit about hard determinism is that you're being hypocritical if you call compatibilism a misguided belief while arguing for hard determinism, because you're either wrong, or the person arguing in favor of compatibilism is the only possible outcome, and can therefore not be held at fault, since the person has no control over their actions and thoughts.
But yes it would be helpful to see which definition of "free will" we're talking about.
All in all tho, hard determinism destroys the concept of personal responsibility, and killing that one wouldn't bode well for the society.
But yes it would be helpful to see which definition of "free will" we're talking about.
All in all tho, hard determinism destroys the concept of personal responsibility, and killing that one wouldn't bode well for the society.
Of course, the problem with that becomes that when you're hungry, you'll need to eat said sandwich to stay alive.Feedmeketamine said:
Granted, you might not need to eat a sandwich specifically; But the point still remains.
There is too much utterly random chaos at the quantum level for matters to be purely predetermined.
There is too much order at our level of existence for matters to be purely random.
Therefore, the truth must lie somewhere in between.
There is too much order at our level of existence for matters to be purely random.
Therefore, the truth must lie somewhere in between.
When encountering people like that, I just argue that I'm hard coded to treat everyone as if they did have personal responsibility. Them attempting to convince me otherwise just undermines their own argument.Vegosiux said:
Technically we are all fated to doing what we do because we only get one point in time to actually do it and it was what we did at that point in time.
Are we being directed by some divine being? It depends on how much direction they have. Are they making others do something? If so we have no free will. Can this divine being only manipulate the "natural" world? Floods, disease, earthquakes, storms, animals? Then I guess we can have free will and the divine entity is just trying to nudge us in certain directions.
Ultimately I believe we are both masters of our own fate but also slaves to it. Warden and prisoner combined. The decisions we make today we make because of the experiences we had yesterday. It's the perfect excuse to deny personal responsibility. But that supposed lack isn't due to a divine origin.
Are we being directed by some divine being? It depends on how much direction they have. Are they making others do something? If so we have no free will. Can this divine being only manipulate the "natural" world? Floods, disease, earthquakes, storms, animals? Then I guess we can have free will and the divine entity is just trying to nudge us in certain directions.
Ultimately I believe we are both masters of our own fate but also slaves to it. Warden and prisoner combined. The decisions we make today we make because of the experiences we had yesterday. It's the perfect excuse to deny personal responsibility. But that supposed lack isn't due to a divine origin.
Hey hey hey! I got this! My proffesor wrote a famous (in a very small circle of academia) paper on the subject.
His argument was that the chaotic nature of certain particles could act "higher up" at the brain level due to its fractal like nature. It's quite complicated, but I'll be damned if it isn't what your looking for.
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link it, but just type into google "Mark Pestana Complexity Theory, Quantum Mechanics and Radically Free Self Determination"
His argument was that the chaotic nature of certain particles could act "higher up" at the brain level due to its fractal like nature. It's quite complicated, but I'll be damned if it isn't what your looking for.
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link it, but just type into google "Mark Pestana Complexity Theory, Quantum Mechanics and Radically Free Self Determination"
Either you're wrong and hard determinism isn't in effect, or you're right and hard determinism is in effect and the other person is wrong. But since hard determinism is in effect, they're not wrong because they're stupid or misguided, they're wrong because there's simply no way for them to be right, as they can't influence their thoughts or change their thought process. So it'd be hypocritical to treat them like "Lol, idiots believing free will exists".Toemassa said:
It's funny isn't it...implying that people taking the compatibilist stance are stupid or ignorant, actually implies they have a choice. Which is exactly the implication you shouldn't be making if you argue in favor of hard determinism.
It's simple really. I'm fine with your free will unless you violate my or someone else's free will; then you are deserving of a fair and just punishment.
I would question how many people have willingly starved themselves to death when they had ready access to perfectly fine, moderately healthy food, but I'm sure even that has happened.Agayek said:
It raises questions about common sense and the basic instinct for survival, though.
People who starve to death because the only alternative is eating something that's like to kill them anyway, I'm not sure it really matters what choice they make.
People who starve to death because they were stranded and couldn't or didn't want to fend for themselves in the wild, I'm not so sure it's really that much of an active choice on their part, unless they're physically capable of bringing down whatever they come across and literally just decided to lay back and die, and I can't imagine that number is shockingly high.
People who starve to death because of some belief they hold, are they really acting under what we might believe to be "free will"?
And people who starve to death just because usually have some other sort of problem that served as a catalyst. I'm not inclined to call psychological issues just another manifestation of free will.
