Poll: Free will, does it exist?

[Maveleye]

The key problem is that I don't think you can reconcile God's loving nature with this doctrine. If we are not free, then I don't think we can be morally responsible for our actions. If we are not morally responsible, then it is not fair for God to blame us. God does blame us for our sin though, which would be unfair if we are not free.
That's just not the Jesus I know!

Well, when you are talking about an all-powerful, all-knowing being, "fair" doesn't really play a role in the situation. There are more characteristics than just loving. He is also just. Which taking into consideration, no single person is free of charge (even from birth). I know that sounds harsh, but it's not our choice... it's one with all the power. Trying to say that we can change that is folly. It's his loving nature that he chooses whomever he wants.

 

[Hyper-space]

I was unsure whether this should go here or the religion sub-forum; mods: feel free to move this.

Some time ago I used this quote in another thread, it is a translated quote from a book written by a physicist. I am not a physicist, however, his view seemed so reasonable I have more or less adapted this point into my amalgamation of beliefs I call "me".

I believe that my psyche is a process, a capitalist system of molecular factories with no hard core, no five year plan, and no designer I could call my "self". It is not seated only within my brain but my whole body is involved in maintaining my sense of self. I believe that my experience of myself is a patchwork of small pieces, that I've been many people and that even as we speak, different versions of myself appear in my brain, versions that take control of me depending on the situation. I believe that my will is not free but that all my actions, opinions, needs and thoughts are the results of a dance of atoms and molecules governed by the laws of physics, lacking any spiritual guidance. I believe that my sense of self is a comforting lullaby selected in evolution, a narrative echoing in my consciousness, constructed by my brain in order to maintain an illusion of continuity and control.

Do you agree with the idea or not? And how so?

yes, and so does the anti-life equation;

loneliness + alienation + fear + despair + self-worth ÷ mockery ÷ condemnation ÷ misunderstanding x guilt x shame x failure x judgment n=y where y=hope and n=folly, love=lies, life=death, self=dark side

the anti-life justifies my hate!

 

[Zacharine]

Whether or not there is perceivable randomness within the system, how does that leave us in control of our actions in any way?

That by itself does not, but it does prove false the premise that all is pre-determined by the laws of physics.

I do believe in free will. Because to do otherwise would mean to no one is really responsible for their own actions. And I find that thought repugnant.

It may be a repugnant thought but how would that make it any less real?

It wouldn't, but also it has yet to be proven real as well. In that statement you are assuming that there is no free will. Before doing, please prove it

I personally cannot prove that there is free will, neither can I prove its nonexistance. This is almost purely a philosophical question. On those grounds, until further knowledge comes to light, I choose to believe in free will. You may choose otherwise, but until there is proof neither of us can be held to be more wrong or right.

Science has shown us that humans thoughts can have a direct and measurable effect on ones own brains. Thinking certain things causes certain neurons to fire. Thus, the act of thinking chaces the current state of the thinkers brain, introducing a non-predeterminable variable to the system.

Yes, absolutely, but aren't all thoughts and actions and events in the universe merely movement of atoms and sub-atomic particles governed by the laws of physics?

Yes and no, depending on ones philosophical viewpoint. Determinism and free will can coexist if one is not a materialist.

However, even if there would be no free will due to physical determinism, the laws of physics aren't deterministic. Even in purely Newtonian systems it is possible for events to go uncaused.


Also, "On Indeterminism, Chaos, and Small Number Particle Systems in the Brain" by Lewis and MacGregor (http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~lewis/LewisMacGregor.pdf) might prove an interesting read. The beginning of the abstract:

'This paper presents rational, theoretical and empirical grounds for doubting the principle of determinism in the nature and in the brain, and discusses the implications of this for free will and the chaos model of the brain.'

Not everything is deterministic, proving the hidden assumption presented false: There is no free will, because all thoughts and actions are simply movements of particles and energy, that follow the laws of physics. The lack of free will implies that there are no other alternatives to 'choose' from, that the laws of physics are deterministic.

But since the laws of physics clearly aren't deterministic, what does actually determine the outcome of certain non-deterministic systems?

Observation, chance and free will. Because closed non-biological systems have no free will, the element of chance is the greatest variable. In quantum mechanics, obervation alone is enough to cause possibility waves to collapse and be reduced to a single option. See double-slit experiment.

Spoiler: Double-slit experiment explained

But in biological systems, or more precisely thinking biological systems, the brain's ability to affect itself based on a factor that is not deterministic outrules quantum chance due to its direct macro-level effect. I call free will a result of this ability brain has to change its own states in a non-deterministic manner.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Yes, my will is free, all the other wills (including your) are secretly enslaved to my will, even though you might not notice, but that's because I hide it too well, like you not remembering what happened and how you found yourself waking up in a cheap hotel room, you just blame it on drunkenness and being too stoned anyway...

 

[SqueeFactor]

this pretty much sums it up for me. im not saying i believe it, im not saying i dont. it's interesting to listen to though ^^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U

 

[Real_horrorshow]

So free will exist because you feel uncomfortable to the idea of a non-existent free will...

 

[Real_horrorshow]

it's quite simple really

Your body obey laws
Your brain, who is part of that body does too
Your mind is part of that brain also, and thus is bound to follow the same rules

If on every of those term your are not free, how come you can have a free will ?

If you believe in free will, you probably believe in choices and responsibility. Again you have believes and moral values who will always influence or dictate your behavior. So again you are not free

 

[Real_horrorshow]

I get the impression that the concept of Free Will is only release in your mind to make you feel more comfortable with yourself, so that you don't think that you are not a bad person. It's quite a feeling to think "I did that and I am proud of that because I did what I believed in". But at the same time, could you have done it otherwise ? If you have a free will then you would be able to abstract yourself from your own morality, which goes against your very existence. So "YOU", your identity, exists only because you are a slave to some principle that are part of you. If we can be "everything", then we are "nothing"

 

[Twad]

My two cents..

Free will is a true thing. YOu -can- freely choose to do anything, at any time, just because.

BUT

YOu dont necessarily WANT to.

We all have our culture and values, beliefs, laws, fears and whatever that act as "barriers" for our behaviors. People acting on such (destructive/chaotic) impulses arent welcomed by society, if not actively put down by the authorities.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Having a free will (or the burden of choice as defined by existensialism) does not mean you are free to do everything at any time. Rather it means I have the ability to make the choices I want when they present themselves. You can't tell me what to think, you can't tell me what to do (but you can impose conditions that make me more likely to do what you want) and that is the basics of free will. I make my own choices. But no choice is ever made in a vaccuum, what has happened before, what I believe, what is happening and what I want to happen all play a part in my decision making. The free will is no less there, I am merely using my (oh so vaunted on this forum) logic and reasoning to make the decision that I think will offer me the most benefits or least drawbacks.

Free will is not the ability to magically do anything I want without repercussions. It is the ability to think for myself and make decisions from those thoughts. Just because outside influence determines what I decide to do, that doesn't make my will any less free. It only proves I am able to adapt to my surroundings.

 

[Muffinthraka]

Awww no, my philosophical subroutines are starting up, aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhhh Free will cannot exist because our will is defined by wants and needs. If you were a formless shapeless thing in a nothing you would be free, as soon as you are in a body you are less free, you are a prisoner of the nothing. If we put something in the nothing it must then have a definition, so dimensions and space appear, since there are dimensions you are still less free.
However, what you may want will also be affected by your surroundings, you have a body so you need food so you must find it, you have space and dimensions so you must work to get it, these things are not part of your wants. If you meet people a society will be formed and you may not be satisfied with your position in it

To put it less abstractly anything you want or need to exist will be balanced by a reduction of freedom. However, freedom is also defined by yourself, if you enjoy your job and can a number of things you want and need you will feel free, whilst a criminal will not.

eg I WANT to travel, NEED money for car, NEED driving license, now I have my license but I am restricted once ageed, NEED to: buy petrol, stick to the speed limit, pay for insurance, pay for parking etc, obey the rules of the road. But, if you can afford topay and are happy to obey the rules you feel more free, but many of us aren't (I have no car).

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Sad Robot]

snip

I don't feel it's an entirely philosophical question, I do think it's a scientific question, yet I can't prove I'm right; like stated in the OP, it is a belief. I'm just saying that in light of all the evidence, to me, this trail of thought seems the most reasonable.

I'm not claiming an entirely deterministic universe where nothing is left to chance, I find that an interesting argument either way but nevertheless irrelevant to what I'm talking about in this thread. I am claiming that our consciousness is merely a side effect of our body, this biological machine we call our "self"; a useful attribute that has been selected in evolution that maintains the illusion that there is a "me" that is in control, when all I really am is an experience, not a governing body or spirit. Like I said, whether or not there is perceivable randomness within atoms and what ever that might imply is irrelevant to this trail of thought: we are not in control of the movement of our sub-atomic particles.

Furthermore, I think it is something like an average of seven years in which every single atom in your body has been replaced; you are an entirely different being now as opposed to what you were then. So why do you still remember things from before seven years? Why do these events that happened so long ago still define you as a person? Why are there cells in your body that seem virtually unchanged? We are in a constant state of flux, but we are nevertheless extremely orderly constructs, beings that continuously maintain themselves and indeed their sense of self. It would seem that memories are something that we constantly uphold (and distort) because it is, as far as I understand, a mutation that was selected in evolution because it was useful for our species.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

I believe in free will.

Or perhaps slightly more accurately, I choose to believe in free will.

It seems logical to conclude, when looking at the physics of things, that everything we are and everything we do is simply a reaction to what came before. A simple cause-and-effect. Infinitely complex perhaps, but beyond the reach of our ability to influence things. In fact, following this reasoning we have no inlfuence. We do things because we believe things, we believe things because that's what we've learned, we learned it because we were told so or because we experienced something that made us believe it, and of course there was a reason that made that person teach us and a reason why we experienced what we did. This can go on forever, and if you assume that every single event is simply the effect of one or more other events that happened before, it follow that the future is forever unchangable and set in stone. If the exact reasons why somehting happens today lie in the past, then nothing unexpected (it might be unexpected to us, but not in the grand scheme of things) can ever happen, on any scale. This is all fairly logical.

Then why do I choose to believe otherwise?

The answer is responsibility. If you believe there is no such thing as free will, you are giving up all responsibility for your own actions. You're saying that everyhing you've ever done and will ever do is not really your doing, because it was meant to happen anyway. You only did it because you had no choice. You reduce yourself to causality's puppet. This goes for the good stuff and the bad stuff. A murderer isn't a criminal anymore, just a victim of circumstances. A genius or an extraordinary athlete isn't special anymore, the cards were just stacked in his advantage.

Even if this is true (and I'm not making any claims that it is or isn't), it's counterproductive to act like you believe it to be like that. If you give up the concept of free choice, cannot take responsibility for your actions, take pride in your accomplishments, or strive for something that seems to be out of your reach. After all, if it's meant to happen, it's meant to happen. That's not a world I want to live in.

Now, of course it's possible that it's fated that I hold this opinion, and that me typing this text is purely an effect caused by a series of prior events. I'm at least willing to accept that it's a possibility. But in that case this entire discussion, like everything else, is entirely irrelevant, and me being wrong to believe I have free will has no meaning. On the other hand, if I'm right it's very significant, even if just to myself. That's why I choose to believe I have free will, regardless of pseudo-scientific reasoning telling me it makes no sense.

 

[are.you.the.god.its.me.vader]

Sometimes, it's better that you don't think too much about it.

The overlords will be cross.

 

[teisjm]

Well, the body is made of molecules and atoms. And your body is you, therefore you are those atoms and molecules your body consists of, they're all a part of you, and togeather they are everything you are.

there is no fully free will. we are only presented choices from which we can choose. hence there is no "true free will".

So free will is limited to omnipotent beeings, who isn't limited by the laws of physics or anything?

Free will, according to me at least, is exactly what you describe. The abillity to choose what way to react to your surrondings, you may not succeed in doing what you choose to do, you may not be able to do it the way you imagined, but noone is holding you back from making your own choice, trying the best way you can with the limited "tiils" you have and facing the consequences, whether it's succes or faliure.

Do i have no free will cause i can't fly if i feel like it?
Well, i'm free enough to try, the laws of physics will ensure though, that i just stand on the groudn with a fist in the air while, looking liek an idiot while humming the superman tune. But i'm still free to chose to do so. (or i jump off a cliff and dies, but i prefer failing the otehr way)

The free will you're talking about is impossible, cause it would conflict with the free will of others.
What if i wish my dick was inside Scarlet Johansons mouth right now, but she wished that it wasn't. At least one of us would've lost our free will.
Therefore i think defining free will as the abillity to succesfully do anything you want is a really bad definition, as it makes the word obsolete. Hence, i would rather use it in a way that's actually useable.

 

[Zacharine]

I am claiming that our consciousness is merely a side effect of our body, this biological machine we call our "self"; a useful attribute that has been selected in evolution that maintains the illusion that there is a "me" that is in control, when all I really am is an experience, not a governing body or spirit.

I can somewhat agree with that: consciousness is a function of the biological body.

However, that 'experience' as you called it, has been proven to have a counter-effect on the biological. As in, it is not a one-sided relationship. Consciousness is created by the brain, but the brain in turn can be slightly modified, certain neurons fired, based on the consciousness (no matter whatever that really fundamentally is). Even if counsciousness is nothing but an experience, a false sense of control the brain provides for itself, it still mean that the brain is modifying itself.

So even by reducing the sense of self to a purely materialistic expression, it still means there is an 'I' that can think and act even if that 'I' is nothing more than the individual brain. It is still a cognisant entity capable of making decision.

Like I said, whether or not there is perceivable randomness within atoms and what ever that might imply is irrelevant to this trail of thought: we are not in control of the movement of our sub-atomic particles.

And as I rhetorically asked, since the universe is not purely deterministic, what does eventually decide the outcome that did happen?

I would like to hear your answer to this. The universe has a degree of variability, so what does determine the outcome? Why did A happen, instead of B or C which also were possible.

Furthermore, I think it is something like an average of seven years in which every single atom in your body has been replaced; you are an entirely different being now as opposed to what you were then.

No I am not. Because I am more than just the materials that make me, just as water is more than hydrogen and oxygen. The structure is as important as the materials themselves and as time goes by, the structure of my body does change somewhat, but not radically. Memories are stored within the very structure of the brain, hence individual neurons could be completely replaced but as long as the structure stays intact, so would the memory.

But as you said, we are in a state of flux, the microstructures that make us are changed and modified all around our bodies. Skin grows and renews, dead cells make more nails etc. It is a slow degeneration, as the entirety of our body changes. And as the totality of our structure changes too far from the original, problems begin to occur. Amnesia, rheumatism and so forth.

So I would say that we mostly agree on the starting point and even arrive at a somewhat similar result, but fundamentally view the result from a different angle.

 

[Washboard]

Proving i have free will i refuse to vote lol

 

[Sad Robot]

I can somewhat agree with that: consciousness is a function of the biological body.

However, that 'experience' as you called it, has been proven to have a counter-effect on the biological. As in, it is not a one-sided relationship. Consciousness is created by the brain, but the brain in turn can be slightly modified, certain neurons fired, based on the consciousness (no matter whatever that really fundamentally is). Even if counsciousness is nothing but an experience, a false sense of control the brain provides for itself, it still mean that the brain is modifying itself.

So how does "the brain modifying itself" constitute free will?

So even by reducing the sense of self to a purely materialistic expression, it still means there is an 'I' that can think and act even if that 'I' is nothing more than the individual brain. It is still a cognisant entity.

Again, I don't understand how this contradicts the idea that there is no real free will.

And as I rhetorically asked, since the universe is not purely deterministic, what does eventually decide the outcome that did happen?

How is this relevant to what I proposed?

I would like to hear your answer to this. The universe has a degree of variability, so what does determine the outcome?

Whether it is set in stone, based on probability or simply chance, I fail to see how this is relevant to our discussion.

No I am not. Because I am more than just the materials that make me, just as water is more than hydrogen and oxygen.

Water is not more than hydrogen and oxygen. Just because we perceive emergent properties that stem from different molecular structures, doesn't mean they become something "more" than a sum of their parts.

snip

So I would say that we mostly agree on the starting point and even arrive at a somewhat similar result, but fundamentally view the result from a different angle.

I'm not sure what this different angle of yours entails, how does it support the idea of free will?

 

[Zacharine]

So how does "the brain modifying itself" constitute free will?

The brain is aware of itself. It can modify its structure and state to a limited degree. Because it is both aware of itself and can manipulate itself, it can direct those manipulations without causation from external stimuli. Hence, it can choose how it manipulates itself, but naturally within the confines of its physical structure.

That is free will, the ability to choose to do A instead of B.

So as long as we have something that is aware of itself and can affect its own functions even to a limited degree, we have free will.

And as I rhetorically asked, since the universe is not purely deterministic, what does eventually decide the outcome that did happen?

How is this relevant to what I proposed?

As I have understood it, you propose there is no free will, that everything is a product of physical laws, with a degree of random chance.

In that case, why did you choose to eat for example cereal for breakfast, instead of coffee and bread? Why did A happen, and not B? Of two equally possible outcomes, what is the deciding factor between the two happening? Or does one not exist?

I propose that free will of living beings is one such contributing factor, when it comes to possibilities affecting their actions. The entity chooses to do A, instead of B: Therefore A, and not B.

Water is not more than hydrogen and oxygen.

But it is. Seperately, hydrogen and oxygen are gasses in STP conditions. Yet water is a liquid. Take 2 mols of hydrogen and 1 mol of oxygen, mix them and the result is still gasses, with some amouts of water forming spontaneously. Yet the water phase behaves in an entirely different manner than the gas phase.

The difference is entirely due to the structure.

What is the difference between pure fuel coal and a diamond: According to you, apparently nothing! Both are made of pure carbon and according to you the structure it has formed does not matter!

Just because we perceive emergent properties that stem from different molecular structures, doesn't mean they become something "more" than a sum of their parts.

Then how on earth do you define something, if not by the properties it has? How do you separate between a chair and a table made from uniform synthetic materials, when the properties of the matter forming them are absolutely identical?

You cannot, not without using properties such as height, width, form and overall mass as identifiers.

Or are you willing to claim that the chair and the table are one and the same?

If you are not, then you are implicitly admitting that the structure as well as the materials define what something is and what it isn't.

I'm not sure what this different angle of yours entails, how does it support the idea of free will?

See the beginning of my post.

 

[ThreeWords]

Yes and no.

Yes, because we can choose what we want, and we are able to select our course and determine our actions. Even those actions which are 'forced' are still our choices, which we have made freely because we prefer alone result to another

No, because in each unique case, there will be one choice that you will always choose. The factors, both inside and outside your head, in each individual circumstance, would, if re-run, always add up to the same thing. God, being omni-cognisant, knows all the factors that can effect our decisions, and therefore knows the choices will we will make, now and I the future. This is closer to pre-determination than control, but I fell the two stand rather close.

Therefore, since I cannot decide, I say "stuff it", both out of laziness, and out of the realisation that if I have Free Will, I'll use it, and if I don't, then I wouldn't be able to realise

Also, since this thread likely contains the religious thinkers of the Escapist, could someone explain pre-destination to me, and tell me the objections?