Sorry, and no worries. I'm not one of those prats that starts an argument over such arbitrary things.Downfall89 said:
Poll: Free will, does it exist?
- Thread starter Sad Robot
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'll shorthand it for you. I believe the reason that evolutionary psyche has an impact on animals (to the extent they possess a psyche) and not humans is that our greatest evolutionary gift was our sentience. I would argue that, because of instinct, monogamy is not natural per se, but that our sentience allows us to achieve monogamy to live a better life.Sad Robot said:
As for free will, yes, I believe that if I experience something there is far more evidence that it actually occurred than that it did not. What evidence do we have that if we experience something it is an illusion? Science dictates that, in the absence of irrefutable evidence, we have to side with the most likely outcome until it can be disproven.
Also, free will being the exclusive realm of the mind, I don't think involuntary bodily mechanisms have an impact either way on the argument.
Okay, that wasn't short. Sorry.
Many animals are sentient. The arbitrary divide between us and other animals would be sapience. Are we more intelligent and self-aware than other animals we know of? I would certainly think so. However, that doesn't mean our actions aren't based on the same mechanics as everything else in the universe. I think you're thinking too macro-scale.funguy2121 said:
I would argue that we're driven towards hanging around long enough to raise our children and also fuck around as much as possible. Naturally, we don't all behave like this. To say that what drives us is little more than sub-atomic and molecular movement, isn't to say we all behave according to the exact same behavioral mould. There are many speculations about why certain individuals behave they way they do; when it seemingly goes against the survival of our species, it might actually not. Furthermore, evolution doesn't always pick whatever is reasonable but anything goes if it manages to succeed for whatever reason.funguy2121 said:
A lot of people "experience" god as well. Although I realize that this is hardly the same scenario, we cannot assume our sensory experiences are the ultimate judge of what is "real" and what isn't, the natural sciences made this realization a long time ago.funguy2121 said:
Yes, we agree there, absolutely. I just find lack of free will more likely than its existance.funguy2121 said:
"The mind" isn't something separate from the body, it is a part of the body, like everything else that we are.funguy2121 said:
In the end this is what I see problematic here: many people seem to refuse the idea of no free will on the basis that they can feel it, so it must exist, surely the universe can't be that counter-intuitive. But it can. It is. That doesn't mean there is no free will, but many things in the world aren't what they seem or feel like at first glance. At least not according to our current understanding.
The second issue seems to be that people find the thought personally offensive and ethically disturbing, which of course has no bearing on the topic whatsoever.
True, it is a "dangerous" notion, which is what attracts me to the debate in the first place. For me it's more offensive because the notion suggests that I have little to no control over my own choices in life, or that said choices are an illusion. I found the dialogue relating to this in the Matrix to be far more interesting than the fight sequences.Sad Robot said:The rest snipped, but not for lack of relevance
The second issue seems to be that people find the thought personally offensive and ethically disturbing, which of course has no bearing on the topic whatsoever.
But I'm glad to have found a thoughtful person on the opposite side of the debate, and not a random troll sourcing wikipedia and telling me I'm stupid for disagreeing with him (which is of course fairly common).
Yes or no. With no proof existing, and only interpretation as the possible true answer...you don't even give a maybe choice?!
/fail
The truth to this question may simply be an issue of size, scale or complexity. At one degree we may have preordained existances. As preordained as a cell's DNA creates specific RNA. Specific choices we make or breaths we have taken may have no direct consequence to an outcome or every consequence...right down to the molecules we move. I have no idea how specific the butterfly theory would actually be. I have no idea even how if energy is not created nor destroyed....only changed, how then life has a beginning or end. It seems as though we live in a moment, but actions simply dictate where time goes, and what reality each of us experiances and interprets. And in that case, everything is preordained for all potentials have been exhausted in that one moment. Although to each of us, what occures can easily be our own choice. See what I mean, scale. What is the scale of the question you ask for starters?
But the truth is, even then I don't know. I do not have enough information to even throw a guess out there. But if anyone comments that they do know, I would be highly suspicious about what they think they do know. More over, all that the polls response will actually show is what the majority of people have been led to believe culturally.
To me, the correct answer IS 'maybe'.
/fail
The truth to this question may simply be an issue of size, scale or complexity. At one degree we may have preordained existances. As preordained as a cell's DNA creates specific RNA. Specific choices we make or breaths we have taken may have no direct consequence to an outcome or every consequence...right down to the molecules we move. I have no idea how specific the butterfly theory would actually be. I have no idea even how if energy is not created nor destroyed....only changed, how then life has a beginning or end. It seems as though we live in a moment, but actions simply dictate where time goes, and what reality each of us experiances and interprets. And in that case, everything is preordained for all potentials have been exhausted in that one moment. Although to each of us, what occures can easily be our own choice. See what I mean, scale. What is the scale of the question you ask for starters?
But the truth is, even then I don't know. I do not have enough information to even throw a guess out there. But if anyone comments that they do know, I would be highly suspicious about what they think they do know. More over, all that the polls response will actually show is what the majority of people have been led to believe culturally.
To me, the correct answer IS 'maybe'.
Thanks, you too.funguy2121 said:
Sorry that I "failed". Technically, I can understand that sensible people always ought to answer "maybe" to pretty much everything, especially the more conjecture is involved.Samcanuck said:
That, however, isn't very interesting a question to ask. Add to the fact that most people do side with one or the other, intellectually or emotionally, you get a debate going.
I have to admit, I'm not quite sure I understand most of what you're saying in your post... but as for life: Life isn't the same as energy at all. Although life is dependent on energy, energy is in no way dependent on life.funguy2121 said:
While I don't think it's the only reason to why people believe what they believe, I didn't expect the poll to solve anything, I am not an idiot. Well, not that much of an idiot anyway. I just find it interesting to see how and why people's opinions are divided on the matter.funguy2121 said:
It's true that all your thoughts and actions are based on physical interactions and can be predicted mathematically.
You're free will however is simply what you desire, you will follow you're free will. The fact that what your free will could be precisely calculated is irrelevant.
You're free will however is simply what you desire, you will follow you're free will. The fact that what your free will could be precisely calculated is irrelevant.
Sad Robot said:
Hmm...fair enough, good topic. I understand you are creating a topic of discussion, but whether 'maybe' was a choice or not, the debate would have continued. I'm not hung up on it, just dont see any other answer existing but maybe, unless some hard evidence has actually been found that I am unaware of. I don't see what energy not being dependant on life has to do with our interpretation of destiny. We are simply products of the whole energy turned to mass thing, right? Energy makes up our beings. Whether the soul exists is a whole different question altogether (life being all energy or sparked by something else). Most would say yes...but what if you were raised to believe that the complexity of the human mind and body are the results of individual identity....soul does not exist. Then you would probably believe something along those lines instead. Thats what I meant by the 'product of culture is that which can be interpreted from the poll' comment. In my probably incorrect view, all things are products of energy. God is simply that ever existing energy. Whether an effort through a conscience higher power or preordained responses through a specific calculation are what controls that energy are up for grabs. My view on life is simply if life never begins or ends, only changes....then it must have always been. I can understand if you cant wrap your head around it...I'm still trying to figure it out aswell. But one thing I cannot understand is how humanity hopes to even solve this question...or has solved it. Entertaining though, thanks for making it.
I'm guessing you probably came into the question with that view anyways though. Am i wrong?
The question is impossible to answer because it is impossible to prove that any action is free will as opposed to a very complex set of predetermined parameters. As such, I default to my answer to any question that is impossible to answer based on current data: Whatever makes me feel better! So God exists, there is an afterlife, I have free will and the aliens are not abducting people!
Why is there no maybe option?
Yes free will could be an illusion, and we are only directed by instincts. But are you willing to believe your just an animal, have all that humanity and you have worked for branded as the natural progression of a species?
Choice is yours, and it always will be.
Yes free will could be an illusion, and we are only directed by instincts. But are you willing to believe your just an animal, have all that humanity and you have worked for branded as the natural progression of a species?
Choice is yours, and it always will be.
The last 2 quotes are definitely not me. I've accidentally posted in this way myself, not sure if it's just the Escapist glitching up or what.Sad Robot said:
I don't really either, which is why I don't understand why you brought it up.Samcanuck said:
What do you base this idea on, though? As far as what current scientific understanding suggests, the universe is a lot older than life. So at some point life began. And likely it will end at some point. And as far as we know, life, not to mention intelligent life, is a an incredibly rare phenomenon. It's more of a footnote in the history of the universe, rather than its centrepiece.Samcanuck said:
No, I don't think I can quite wrap my head around it. Maybe that's a fault of mine, but I can't seem to understand how you suggest that life never began or never ends. Furthermore, I don't see how it relates to this topic.Samcanuck said:
What view..? That I don't understand how humanity could ever hope to understand how to solve this issue? No, I can't really understand how you can prove that something doesn't exist.Samcanuck said:
After thinking about this for awhile I posted no. I think people are in a way 'free' to choose from whatever the choices they are given, however, the time and place in which a person is has a big influence in their choice so it's not done out of complete 'free will'.
Think about abortion. This person wants to keep the baby but the time and place in which she is determines that she must have an abortion. (Say she is in bad health and having the baby would risk her own life, their quality of life would be so bad they have no chances of surviving whatsoever...) Later when this person thinks about the situation; she could've kept the baby seeing that everything turned out alright afterwards. Yet when you put the same person in the same situation could she actually choose differently wihtout knowing the outcome before hand? Probably not.
So it's a "yes and no" answer from me.
Think about abortion. This person wants to keep the baby but the time and place in which she is determines that she must have an abortion. (Say she is in bad health and having the baby would risk her own life, their quality of life would be so bad they have no chances of surviving whatsoever...) Later when this person thinks about the situation; she could've kept the baby seeing that everything turned out alright afterwards. Yet when you put the same person in the same situation could she actually choose differently wihtout knowing the outcome before hand? Probably not.
So it's a "yes and no" answer from me.
People get free will mixed up with chaos and predictability. It is possible to predict behaviour, or an individuals reaction to a given situation, but this in and of itself does not disprove the existence of free will.
When I leave a room, for example, I could dive out of the window, but I'll smash it, slice myself up and piss off the owner, so its safe to say I'll take the door. This doesn't mean I'm predestined to take the door, or incapable of deciding to take the window, it merely highlights the fact that most of my decision making tasks are of an executive nature, and as such are influenced by certain concerns, such as self-preservation. With this in mind, the notion of total, chaotic free will may not exist, but seems pretty worthless anyway.
When I leave a room, for example, I could dive out of the window, but I'll smash it, slice myself up and piss off the owner, so its safe to say I'll take the door. This doesn't mean I'm predestined to take the door, or incapable of deciding to take the window, it merely highlights the fact that most of my decision making tasks are of an executive nature, and as such are influenced by certain concerns, such as self-preservation. With this in mind, the notion of total, chaotic free will may not exist, but seems pretty worthless anyway.
Calhoun347 said:
Aphroditty said:
But, arguments between circuitous positions make for the most interesting threads!
I mean, a question like, "Do you have free will?" can only be an argument of opinions. To explore the question beyond the level of I-think-I-freely-chose-"A"-over-"B," we need to refer to suppositions beyond our own knowledge and beyond the realm of testable hypothesis.
It isn't a scientific question, it's a philosophic one.
So of course you have to "just choose" a position, and of course the position with better rhetorical flourishes wins.
The position with better rhetorical flourishes ALWAYS wins. Even in science.
You are either predestined to take the door, or you only appear to be predestined to take the door, essentially. That's at least one read I took from this.MiserableOldGit said:
I think your rhetorical example is a little dry though. Usually, the choice where we'd actually want to talk about whether or not we have free will is when the two options are valid. I.E. your decision to kill someone, or discriminate against someone, or etc, etc.
I disagree and I think it does mean we don't have freewill, but I think that if we continue in this particular vein it would sidetrack the conversation. So... I withdraw my previously stated position on the issue.Mad World said: