free will

[generals3]

I am actually getting sick of quantum mechanics being held up as evidence for free will, because some physicists over stepped their realm of expertise and decided to get involved in a subject matter they where not qualified to do so. There is actually nothing in quantum physics that has any bearing on the discussion. In fact, its threat to determinism leads to a bigger problem for those who believe in free will.

Actually QM has a very big role to play as determinism is often based on the look at older scientific theories. Actually determinism is based on the idea you can theoretically predict the future. (Because if things are determined our inability to determine the future is merely caused by our lack of knowledge) But since Quantum mechanics pretty much posits you cannot know certain things for sure one can also not even theoretically conceive the ability to predict the future and this can only be true if the future is not determined. While this doesn't necessarily prove the existence of free will as certain people see it, the impossibility of determinism does give more ground for the pro-free will team.

But one could also off course theorize that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete/false just like many theories which were thought to be true in the past and that we will be able to come up with a more advanced model which doesn't rely on probabilities.

 

[PromethianSpark]

I am actually getting sick of quantum mechanics being held up as evidence for free will, because some physicists over stepped their realm of expertise and decided to get involved in a subject matter they where not qualified to do so. There is actually nothing in quantum physics that has any bearing on the discussion. In fact, its threat to determinism leads to a bigger problem for those who believe in free will.

Actually QM has a very big role to play as determinism is often based on the look at older scientific theories. Actually determinism is based on the idea you can theoretically predict the future. (Because if things are determined our inability to determine the future is merely caused by our lack of knowledge) But since Quantum mechanics pretty much posits you cannot know certain things for sure one can also not even theoretically conceive the ability to predict the future and this can only be true if the future is not determined. While this doesn't necessarily prove the existence of free will as certain people see it, the impossibility of determinism does give more ground for the pro-free will team.

But one could also off course theorize that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete/false just like many theories which were thought to be true in the past and that we will be able to come up with a more advanced model which doesn't rely on probabilities.

As you said it is always possible that QM is incomplete, something I know a great many people would like to believe. But that being said, there is nothing in these ideas that pose any threat to the position that free will does not exist. Indeterminism is every bit as fatal to the idea as determinism. In QM, subatomic particles behave randomly within a set of probabilities. How anyone ever equated randomness to free will is beyond me. If you read my post before the one where I quoted you, you would have become aware of this argument, but I will not rehash it. Just check this,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma_of_determinism

 

[floppylobster]

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!

I agree with you, but you'll have a hard time convincing anyone here who hasn't really let themselves consider the possibility that they have no free will of it. So perhaps you only have 'free will' until you accept you don't?

I can't really offer any examples, even killing yourself would not work. I would say though, that you're part of something larger and that you still have 'influence'. You may be very limited to what you can do but you still have one part to play in any given moment, so continue to do your part and try not to influence others from doing their part.

To those who still think they do have free will - If you want to understand the other viewpoint, start by thinking of all the things you can't do right now. All the places you are not right now. All the things you can't think of right now because you're thinking of something else. Then try to understand that you can only ever do one thing at one point in time and that thinking, however quickly it can happen, is still only doing one thing at one time. And that while you may see two choices in front of you, you only ever get to do one at any point in time so really two choices never existed. There's more to it than that, but think about those things and eventually you may reach the same conclusion as the OP.

 

[BoogieManFL]

We have free will, but are limited by our means.

We aren't be guided by inescapable fate. Sure, things in our society can influence it and make certain things easier or harder to achieve. Or something more or less likely to occur. But I think it's silly to think it's all predetermined. We make our own fate and our ambitions and ability determines how far we can take it.Even if we were stuck in one inescapable path, it can't be proved or disproved and you'll never know. It can't be tested so it comes down to each person deciding what they believe themselves based upon feelings, and not factual data.

I look at a belief in some predetermined fate as surrender or capitulation. A sort cowardice to succumb to the belief you're powerless to change your life. Like it's an excuse to accept things the way they are and saying "oh well that's how it is" instead of doing what you can bring yourself to do.



It's not much different than asking someone their beliefs in Transporter technology. It's what you want it to be. If you were transported Star Trek style from where you stood to 3 feet to your right, some would say the first you is now dead. The act of breaking your atoms down into energy and reassembled anew in a new location "killed" you and now you're someone else. The same memories, body, DNA, the same in every way. But some would say you're a copy and not the real you.

What if a copy of everything you held to be "You" was installed into an amazing detailed and complex robot body, so advanced that it would be impossible for even the people closest to you to be able tell the difference. Is the copy alive, because it now has sentience? Or no, because it's just a machine imitating it, albeit flawlessly?

Then one could turn around and say you're an organic machine with so many bits and pieces that is so advanced that it became sentient and is aware of such a topic and can ponder it's complexities?

You can say we're just machines that emulate life, but life is a concept we ourselves have invented as a result of that sentience. Choose how you want to believe it, but choosing one way or the other in itself will probably affect how your life plays out.

If all of reality is predetermined, what would be the point? So is it that, or is it a story is always being written as time goes on. And at what point should you care about things beyond your comprehension or ability to influence?

 

[Olas]

I could give you the traditional quantum mechanics Heisenberg uncertainty principle mumbo jumbo, but I think the real problem is that we're taking the concept of free will way too scientifically.

As originally coined it just means general autonomy, as opposed to having your every action dictated by someone else. It doesn't mean breaking determinism.

Semantics.

As far as I'm aware the entire free will debate is mostly just a failure of semantics. So yes, the semantics are somewhat important here.

If you want a discussion over whether conscious thought is governed by determinism, then have at it. But lets stop calling it a matter of "free will" because that's just needlessly inflamatory, and causes confusion for people used to the traditional definition of the term.

Also, you'll want to avoid one word posts on this site.

 

[Flutterguy]

However if everyone was to embrace determinism it only seems logical for rapists and murderers to become less common.

Explain?

If the cause and effect of actions was well received on a global scale, a determinist Earth, people would feel more responsibility to not breed these behaviors. Yes people are currently aware of cause and effect, although it would be understood more intimately in a determinist world. Thus people would make a greater effort to acknowledge what causes these actions, and realistic prevention methods could be conceptualized.

 

[PromethianSpark]

As far as I'm aware the entire free will debate is mostly just a failure of semantics. So yes, the semantics are somewhat important here.

If you want a discussion over whether conscious thought is governed by determinism, then have at it. But lets stop calling it a matter of "free will" because that's just needlessly inflamatory, and causes confusion for people used to the traditional definition of the term.

In these philosophical arguments free will is always taken to mean the ability to act unconstrained. To say that we should really be discussing if conscious thought is governed by determinism is to neglect the fact that there are arguments which claim indeterminism is as equally a constraint.

 

[PromethianSpark]

If the cause and effect of actions was well received on a global scale, a determinist Earth, people would feel more responsibility to not breed these behaviors. Yes people are currently aware of cause and effect, although it would be understood more intimately in a determinist world. Thus people would make a greater effort to acknowledge what causes these actions, and realistic prevention methods could be conceptualized.

I think this is being a bit optimistic. It could be equally argued that once we accept determinism as a society, we will start identifying genes that have undesirable effects and then off goes our eugenics program. I think it would be very difficult to predict the sociological effect of embracing determinism, but where I to take a wild guess, I would say nothing would change.

 

[PromethianSpark]

But at that point I'd start wondering how exactly you define "free will" if there's no such thing as an unbiased choice. Haven't you invented an impossible concept? In order for any "will" to exist, there must be a goal. A being that has no goals will not act. A hypothetical God that possesses free will nevertheless does things because of reasons. So what is your concept of a being that does have free will?

As master of skies also points out to you, in this case we mean no choice. At all.

 

[TheIceQueen]

Okay so I compiled a ton of things so I didn't have several posts in a row...

I ascribe to William James' pragmatism. "At any rate, I will assume for the present. . . that it is no illusion. My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will." Meaning, free will exists because one chooses to. Even if free will is an illusion, choosing to believe in it makes it useful (hence the philosophical position's name of pragmatism).

But what is useful about believing in it? What can we do by believing in it that we cannot do if we do not believe in it?

That's the thing about pragmatism, though. It's not about what can we do; it's about what can I do. And before you say that you weren't really using a plural 'we,' I'll just say that I know that you meant it in a more singular fashion. When it comes to personalities and a person's world views, you have to accept that people have different perspectives and that some people feel despair, anxiety, and depression without the perception of free will and choice. That's exactly why William James said what he did.

It's not about free will actually existing or not. In fact, when it comes to science, the world would seem deterministic. Pragmatism is about accepting free will as useful if it's useful for you. If you don't find it useful, then that's great. That's a perfectly acceptable world view and I honor your opinion, but there are those of us out there, such as myself, who do become rather anxious and depressed at the idea that free will doesn't exist. For those that do, free will as a concept is useful for them. There could even be a wider variety of ways that free will is useful, but all of those are highly personal and vary from person to person. There's no we; there's only I.

And the lovely thing about pragmatism is that it even accepts determinism to a degree as well, though mostly only when determinism is in the name of science.

 

[Agayek]

I don't believe we have free will. However I believe that determining our behaviour is far too complex to be ever calculated (I mean we would have to examine trillions of parameters at a quantum level); therefore it appears, on a macro level, that we have free will.

There's one thing I should point out about this:

The human brain is perfectly capable of those calculations. Ergo, they are not complex to the point of incalculability. Ergo, your base premise is incorrect.

It's a simple binary question. Either our behavior is predetermined, and therefore can be predicted with 100% accuracy given sufficient data, or it is not, and our behavior will at some point violate calculated predictions. And that's my biggest issue with people who insist on the absence of free will. From a simple logical standpoint, the odds are very much against it. All you have to do to prove the existence of free will is provide one example where behavioral predictions fail, whereas to prove the absence of it, you would need to prove that every behavior can be predicted.

It's certainly possible to do so (we do it in the sciences all the time), but it's a rather difficult task and highly unlikely.