Poll: Does free-will exist?

[Cpt_Oblivious]

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?

Then once it's been proven I'll accept it.

 

[Angryman101]

This video goes some way to answering the conundrum I think. Free will should in theory be a conscious thing, this proves it's otherwise.

So...your brain actively makes a decision based around your beliefs and values a little bit before you consciously decide to do it? That's so close to being surprising and interesting. How is that not free will again?

 

[Arrogancy]

The idea of free will is a tricky one. I'd like to take this time to tell everyone one this thread that listing decisions you have "made" doesn't prove that free will exists. Saying that "I made decision X Y time ago. If free will doesn't exist how can I do that?" is stupid. If free will doesn't exist you would have wound up doing the same thing anyway, you wouldn't be aware that you were going to make the decision at the time. Another thing, this is not about time-travel. while the question relates to the future and the past, free will is not a solidly time-based concept. Now to my point. The thing that makes the concept of free will so tricky is that it isn't one question, it's two. Free will has scientific and philosophical roots. If people choose to believe that free will does not exist, then it does not. Scientifically, does free will exist? We have yet to see evidence to the contrary, so technically, yes. Without more evidence then the question is pointless. People will simply accept that they have free will regardless of whether or not they do.

 

[Angryman101]

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?

That is in itself a pretty weak question. What if I'm a fluffy pink rhinoceros? Speculative questions do not create a valid counterpoint, they merely suggest new avenues of discussion.

 

[Chrinik]

Every SINGLE one of our actions, thoughts and random brain-storms, are caused as a reaction to our surroundings, teaching, our own understanding of "self", the possible consequences, determining the outcome or possible outcomes, past experiences etc. and other such factors.
Really, OUR DECISION is actually totally influenced by surrounding input, true "free will" is therefore nonexistant.
The theory that we cannot predict human behavior is actually very false...everyone in the marketing and PR departments do so AS THEIR JOB, and not to say the social experiments carried out by scientists to study human behavior.
When presented with a given situation, we are XX% likely to act (Way A)...
Our conciousness is NOT free will...it is all determined by other factors, which are so numerous and diverse that you cannot effectively and accurately meassure it, but you can do a prediction.

I also like how there seems to be only "Free will or Pre-determination"...when there could be NEITHER (and is, in my understanding). Because it is not entirely free because it is very constrained and limited, and not pre-determined because our own life and those interacting with us forms that frame.

 

[6unn3r]

My brain slug told me to say that "Yes we all have free will."

Would anyone else care for a brain slug?

This festive season they come with hats.

 

[Angryman101]

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.)

This isn't true at all, because particles on the atomic level only behave rationally this way when you observe them. When they are left unobserved, they phase in and out of existence, they exist in multiple areas at once, and they show both properties of light and of matter. When you observe this occurring, then it's you who is creating the predetermination, not the molecules themselves as you are conjecturing.

 

[Jroo wuz heer]

I want to believe in free will because anything else is simply too depressing. No, I don't really have a clever answer. That said, I give myself little choice in what I do, what with my brain being 95% guilt.

Also: There is no mind control, citizen. Or something to that effect.

free will is mind control. if asked to make a choice about anything (aside from favorite color and stuff like that) noone would be able to without having previously been influenced.
free will without being influenced would be random guessing. humans have only the opinions they have come in contact with.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Does it occur to anybody else that this poll is possibly the most futile one ever put into words? I mean, if free will exists, the correct answer is "yes", and anybody who answers "no" is either delusional or lying. And if free will doesn't exist, the answers are completely irrelevant anyway since we're not actually capable of choosing one... so... there you go.

 

[Kazaazz]

I like to think "to each their own" So therefore saying free will does exist and we were free to do what we like, theoretically.

But a lot of things we do aren't a matter of choice. Look at reflex actions.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Indeterministic philosophy usually admits that much of what happens in the universe is due to either the laws of nature or chance, but supposes that human beings still have free will.

Predeterminism says that the future was set in stone by causality at the beginning of the universe. Some other forms of determinism deny Predeterminism because of quantum indeterminacy but still argue that free-will doesn't exist because everything we do is determined by random collisions of particles and chemical reactions in our brains.

Compatibalism attempts to redefine either "determinism" "causality" "free-will" or some combination of these terms to reconcile determinism with free-will. The only form of this that I am that familiar with is Many-worlds Compatibalism, which says that every time you make a choice you create two alternate time-lines, one where you made the choice and another where you didn't make the choice. So you can choose which time-line to inhabit but you can't actually change any particular timeline. Sorry about the lack of poll, my computer has been having a hard time interacting with The Escapist lately.

It is not really knowable. I mean, we cannot make a falsifiable hypothesis to test whether or not we have free will.

Ultimately, it doesn't seem that we could possibly have free will. What 'decision' would we make that wouldn't be simply based on the makeup of our body at that moment? When you 'decide' to do something, is there any reason to believe you could have 'decided' to do something else with the EXACT SAME conditions?

Sure, we are complicated machines, but still machines.

 

[lacktheknack]

Do I feel I have free will? Yes.

Should I care whether or not it exists?

 

[Cogwheel]

I want to believe in free will because anything else is simply too depressing. No, I don't really have a clever answer. That said, I give myself little choice in what I do, what with my brain being 95% guilt.

Also: There is no mind control, citizen. Or something to that effect.

free will is mind control. if asked to make a choice about anything (aside from favorite color and stuff like that) noone would be able to without having previously been influenced.
free will without being influenced would be random guessing. humans have only the opinions they have come in contact with.

Very well-put, though I've been thinking that for some time. The mind control thing was more of an Orwell-themed joke, but still.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I like to think "to each their own" So therefore saying free will does exist and we were free to do what we like, theoretically.

But a lot of things we do aren't a matter of choice. Look at reflex actions.

For the sake of argument, how is a reflex action different from a non reflex action? Because you 'do it without thinking'? What process is going on when we think? Is it not just the reaction of our brain to a stimulus?

 

[Xaio30]

Sometimes I feel like I'm doing things that suprise even myself, so yes, I think we all have free will.

 

[Tokzic]

Just like consciousness itself, free will is an illusion granted by high-level abstraction from low-level chemical processes. You simply cannot do something that you are not inclined to do. Every decision you make is the result of your current brain state following laws of energy and matter.

 

[malfernion]

Okay, this is me paraphrasing a lecturer from imperial college london in a colloquium at my university a couple of weeks back, talking about symmetry breaking in the early universe. The example is:

If theres a donkey stood on a perfectly symmetric hill and there are carrots placed at opposite sides at the bottom of the hill. If the universe is predetermined by prior events the donkey should starve, as there is no deterministic way to say which carrot to eat first. But ofcourse in real life the donkey won't starve as it chooses which to eat first.

 

[Kazaazz]

I like to think "to each their own" So therefore saying free will does exist and we were free to do what we like, theoretically.

But a lot of things we do aren't a matter of choice. Look at reflex actions.

For the sake of argument, how is a reflex action different from a non reflex action? Because you 'do it without thinking'? What process is going on when we think? Is it not just the reaction of our brain to a stimulus?

Well reflex actions bypass the brain in order to reach the Central Nervous System but anyway this is off-topic.

I honestly try not to think too deeply into things like free will, as thinking is a process I like to think I do, and no one else does. Non reflexive actions are like this, as we take a choice to do these things, however miniscule in time these choices take to be made.

As for the fundamentals of the process in which we think...who knows? Reaction of our brains to a stimuli is all very technical and rather superficial, but it's plausible.