Poll: Does free-will exist?

[Daffy F]

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

You didn't read the OP did you....
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.

Yes I did, I'm just looking at it from the angle of actual science.

Instead of finding my first post and insinuating I'm stupid, why don't you then read my other posts. It's two pages, there's no real reason not to.

Unless you didn't want a discussion, you wanted to be right.

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

 

[godevit]

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.

 

[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?

 

[mechanixis]

The answer to this question is "No, it doesn't, but that's okay and will not in any capacity affect your life."

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

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.

 

[Spinozaad]

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.

 

[Bullfrog1983]

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?

 

[starwarsgeek]

But let's think this out a bit:do we do anything out of free will?Take for example all the little things you do in your daily life like eating and sleeping and...going to the bathroom.Do we consider those to be out of free will?If free will does exist,then we should be able to have it in every moment of our life.

That is all.

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.

Given the right inspiration, even basic needs can be postponed, despite discomfort or pain.

 

[Redingold]

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?

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.

Besides, punishment for crime is also about preventing it happening again, discouraging others from trying it and so on.

 

[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.