Does free will exist?

[Wreckarooni]

Yes free will does exist. The free will to live out your predetermined fate.

Seriously though of course there is free will, and because of that there are multiple branching timelines that are splitting 100s of times a day for each and every single unique choice you make.

 

[Zale]

Yes free will does exist. The free will to live out your predetermined fate.

Seriously though of course there is free will, and because of that there are multiple branching timelines that are splitting 100s of times a day for each and every single unique choice you make.

You say that, as if it's fact.

You are claiming it exists without proof. To make a claim, the burden of proof lies upon YOU. Please at least have some substance to your argument, instead of just claiming something. Blissful ignorance will not get you anywhere.

s( ' _ ')-y

 

[Wreckarooni]

You say that, as if it's fact.

You are claiming it exists without proof. To make a claim, the burden of proof lies upon YOU. Please at least have some substance to your argument, instead of just claiming something. Blissful ignorance will not get you anywhere.

s( ' _ ')-y

Actually it can get you everywhere. Pondering inconsequential questions won't.

As for free will: There is no proof that would satisfy you and at the same time there is no need for any. If you believe in free will then it is so, if you don't then it is so.

 

[Zale]

Actually it can get you everywhere. Pondering inconsequential questions won't.

As for free will: There is no proof that would satisfy you and at the same time there is no need for any. If you believe in free will then it is so, if you don't then it is so.

You are missing my point.

You made a CLAIM without proof. In a debate, that makes literally no sense.
I have no problem with you believing in free-will. xP

 

[Holder of the Heel]

If you believe in free will then it is so, if you don't then it is so.

That's not how reality works I'm afraid.

As for Flustered, here's another fun parallel for you: what other group of people think that believing in something enough changes reality?

Indeed, this is an incredibly religious sentiment towards oneself and the world.

 

[Wreckarooni]

That's not how reality works I'm afraid.

As for Flustered, here's another fun parallel for you: what other group of people think that believing in something enough changes reality?

Indeed, this is an incredibly religious sentiment towards oneself and the world.

Well if you have that mindset then you won't go far in life and your time on this Earth won't be as productive or fulfilling as it could have been.

For example: Even if it is a placebo affect, choosing to be positive whenever you can and being kind to those around you can indirectly manipulate your luck and make your reality a happier and more satisfying place to be (same goes for those around you, it's infectious).

In the end arguing whether free will exists or not is actually one of the most useless exercises. Neither you or I will ever change our opinions, there is no proof from either side that would be satisfactory. So other than you wanting to be a contrarian or argumentative, there really is no point in even responding to any inflammatory or condescending replies. You basically become a troll who never gets the reply or reaction they want.

 

[Zale]

Well if you have that mindset then you won't go far in life and your time on this Earth won't be as productive or fulfilling as it could have been.

For example: Even if it is a placebo affect, choosing to be positive whenever you can and being kind to those around you can indirectly manipulate your luck and make your reality a happier and more satisfying place to be (same goes for those around you, it's infectious).

In the end arguing whether free will exists or not is actually one of the most useless exercises. Neither you or I will ever change our opinions, there is no proof from either side that would be satisfactory. So other than you wanting to be a contrarian or argumentative, there really is no point in even responding to any inflammatory or condescending replies. You basically become a troll who never gets the reply or reaction they want.

Every sentence you typed, was just another claim.

And deciding to tell someone he won't go far in life isn't my idea of a good debate. Also, how can you know his "mindset", if you DON'T EVEN KNOW HIM.
---------------------------------------------
This is a debate thread, not a teasing/trolling/ethics thread.
^

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Because I believe that if I think the sky is green it doesn't become green I won't go far in life? Yeah I don't think so. Actions can change reality, but there is no such thing as thoughtform. The topic is about the mechanism through which we make decisions. Believing there is something arbitrary or transcendent doesn't manifest it into reality, same with all things.

I don't think you understand the concepts at play here like Flustered, your placebo affect statement reveals this because it doesn't show any indication of either stance.

I agree with your last few statements, what I'm taking issue with is the misconception of the subject at hand here. The topic is pointless, yes, but what we're discussing now isn't because it isn't the actual topic.

 

[Lazerith]

This was a fun topic in the philosophy course I took in college and it got a lot of people riled up.

My stance on this is the following:

As we do not see the future, and we do not have a recollection of every single thing that has led to our current mindsets, we have an "illusion" of free will.

But the reality is that every single choice we make is a result of previous experiences, which are a result of previous choices we make, which ultimately are the result of how we were raised, the people who were near us, etc.

So no, free will is just an illusion.

 

[FlusteredBat]

In the hypothetical instance that we are able to perfectly predict all human behavior for all time with some master equation, what is stopping us from defying our supposed destiny once we're made aware of it?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm not sure I understand your point. With a master equation, that implies no free will no matter what. Determinism doesn't say that people can't react to stimuli, like receiving a predictive model of any scale, it just says that reaction itself can fit into a predictive model. While you think witnessing the script of the universe exempts you from being a part of the script, as if analyzing yourself means you step outside of yourself, but just like how you'd still be yourself analyzing yourself, you'd be defying a script while enacting out another one that factors in how you'd respond to that information because that's all it is, just like looking out the window. You can't move your consciousness out of your own brain just as much as you can't step out of reality. Actually, the master equation itself would be capable of telling you of your own rebellion to it. You could theoretically constantly divert from the results using such a hypothetical computation consistently, but that can only mean that you are in fact a part of the system.

 

[Sucumbio]

Perhaps it is a matter of size. As in, in the micro sense, we can make small decisions that may have short term consequences but in the larger scheme of things a rock is still a rock.

So for instance even if Hitler got into art school or whatever he'd still end up killing 6 million Jews.

I think someone alluded to this idea earlier in the thread but I can't remember. But other stories in fact have similar takes in destiny and destination. Each choice is a ripple in the water from a stone, but the water is not a pond, it is a river. What effect can a single stone's ripple have on the river itself? None. But it may change the path that debris in the river take as they float atop the surface.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

In the hypothetical instance that we are able to perfectly predict all human behavior for all time with some master equation, what is stopping us from defying our supposed destiny once we're made aware of it?

If we were able to defy it then we'd simply have failed to perfectly predict all human behavior.

 

[FlusteredBat]

If we were able to defy it then we'd simply have failed to perfectly predict all human behavior.

Exactly. If we accept that individuals are always capable of defying their predicted future then any scientific attempt to prove Determinism is futile.

Is the irony not apparent enough?

 

[AfungusAmongus]

If we accept that individuals are always capable of defying their predicted future then any scientific attempt to prove Determinism is futile.

That's sort of true. We might be able to prove determinism in general (despite apparent indeterminacy in quantum mechanics) without generating any specific predictions about human behavior; in that case people's actions could be practically unpredictable yet completely fated or predetermined by the laws of physics. I think determinism is true in the sense that physical brain states explain all of what we perceive as "free will", and we don't need further explanations like souls or quantum randomness.

 

[FlusteredBat]

I am under the impression that most humans are born with a propensity toward choice, although it may degrade over time alongside destructive habits and/or a consistent lack of discipline. One should not deny the significance of a healthy brain when it comes to exercising free will.

Also... Truth is binary, not a continuum.

 

[Zale]

No evidence for free-will. Therefor I will not believe.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

You once again ignore what is said and try to take it a more personal direction because your original attempt to argue didn't go the way you already decided it has to go because of how it fits with your ideology. Accusing people of having destructive habits and no discipline (without evidence), just like before when you ran out of anything constructive to say fell back on pleading that I admit to just plain being "uncomfortable" with the idea, in response to all of my best efforts to have an actual discussion with you (usually people would make such an exasperation when the opposition defies without making any arguments as opposed to being the reverse). The latter of which was right before you excuse yourself from responding appropriately because you're quite ironically fed up with my supposedly offensive psychoanalyzing, which I tried to use as a supplement for analogical use based on information that I actually knew about you rather than what I fantasize you to be. What is it that Stefan and his followers say? Oh, "that's not an argument."

The mention of "a propensity toward choice" just tells me that you insist on not understanding what the topic is about, although the analogy of the master equation did so as well.

 

[Sucumbio]

Well he's arguing that at birth the state of choice potential is 100% and degrades the longer we live due to the cementation of choices we make leading to inevitability. I find this to be logically apt, though there's something to be said of the fact that humans are not typically born in a social vacuum, meaning their choice of choices may be affected before they're even conceived.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

I am under the impression that most humans are born with a propensity toward choice, although it may degrade over time alongside destructive habits and/or a consistent lack of discipline. One should not deny the significance of a healthy brain when it comes to exercising free will.

True enough! But as a consequence, while the brain develops throughout childhood, our capacity to exercise free will develops as well. Infants just have reflexes. Toddlers begin to make decisions, but in emotional/impulsive ways. In time we learn to gather information and weigh options before making decisions. This last stage is the full exercise of free will, and the toddler stage bears some but not all features of it.

 

[FlusteredBat]

True enough! But as a consequence, while the brain develops throughout childhood, our capacity to exercise free will develops as well. Infants just have reflexes. Toddlers begin to make decisions, but in emotional/impulsive ways. In time we learn to gather information and weigh options before making decisions. This last stage is the full exercise of free will, and the toddler stage bears some but not all features of it.

"Potential aptitude for" would be a more appropriate way to put it than "propensity toward".

 

[Itvara]

Free Will is what makes us Unique anyway, it gives us freedom of our body and mind. If it didn't exist , we would all be the same.

 

[Sucumbio]

Genetics accounts for most of our unique qualities. Environment too. We have ni control over our genes. So how does free will play a part in our being unique?

 

[FlusteredBat]

Genetics accounts for most of our unique qualities. Environment too. We have ni control over our genes. So how does free will play a part in our being unique?

Did you choose to respond to Itvara or were you predetermined to do so?

If you were predetermined then please explain how such a claim is falsifiable.

 

[Sucumbio]

Genetic testing can and does show quite clearly how our unique traits developed. So perhaps my issue is with his assumption that my body and physical appearance is unique because of free will and not because of genetic predisposition.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Genetic testing can and does show quite clearly how our unique traits developed. So perhaps my issue is with his assumption that my body and physical appearance is unique because of free will and not because of genetic predisposition.

Of course individual free will does not make us genetically unique, that would imply ascribing spontaneous choice to the evolution of all different forms of life. No animal is responsible for being born in a particular environment or selects its divergent mutations.

Itvara never mentioned genetics anyway, I think he actually meant the "unique" life stories which shape us as individuals. Somewhat irrelevant, but whatever. The "If [free will] didn't exist, we would all be the same" part is simply incorrect given the inherent exceptionality of choice within the animal kingdom.

I asked--how does one go about falsifying determinism in relation to society?

 

[Sucumbio]

If that's what he meant then it's a moot point, I was assuming he meant our uniqueness in the genetic sense which is why I questioned his assumption.

Free will is what makes us unique. Were his words.

Genetics is what makes us unique. Is the correct statement.

Also to beat a dead horse, dogs are no less capable of the same kind of free will that he's ascribing humans in that sentence, so again, it's not at all unique to humans. Dogs just can choose to turn their nose up at a meal, to play fetch or not, etc etc.

As for your question: what? I don't follow...

 

[FlusteredBat]

As for your question: what? I don't follow...

Where does one start if they wish to test the validity of human determinism? Under what circumstance could human determinism be disproved?

It's supposed to be scientific, right?

 

[Sucumbio]

Where does one start if they wish to test the validity of human determinism? Under what circumstance could human determinism be disproved?

It's supposed to be scientific, right?

First some light reading.

http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-e...e7bevQ.2&utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/...ot-an-argument-against-determinism-35884.html

The answer to your question is in one way, disappointing much like the answer given by Stephen Hawking to whether or not time travel is possible. Let's break it down:

1. The chain of events method. This method relies on the perfect observation of material objects. It starts at the outcome, and traces backward it's journey through the cosmos to the point of the first cause, the big bang.

2. The first article looks at free will from a neurological viewpoint. In determining that the brain makes decisions sometimes well in advance of one being conscious of said decision one can say that by design the brain precludes the possibility of true free will.

3. What does this mean, socially? Absolutely nothing. Just because the mechanism by which we make decisions is neither truly independent, nor are we able to break free of the chain reaction started by the big bang, (even at the quantum level), does not give us license to break socially agreed upon rules. This is largely in part due to the fact that we DO experience a sense of choice even if it's an illusion. Since we feel this sense of choices we ought act upon the assumption that we have these choices to make.

 

[FlusteredBat]

First some light reading.

http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will?trending_test_b&utm_expid=66866090-62.H_y_0o51QhmMY_tue7bevQ.2&utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/...ot-an-argument-against-determinism-35884.html

The answer to your question is in one way, disappointing much like the answer given by Stephen Hawking to whether or not time travel is possible. Let's break it down:

1. The chain of events method. This method relies on the perfect observation of material objects. It starts at the outcome, and traces backward it's journey through the cosmos to the point of the first cause, the big bang.

2. The first article looks at free will from a neurological viewpoint. In determining that the brain makes decisions sometimes well in advance of one being conscious of said decision one can say that by design the brain precludes the possibility of true free will.

3. What does this mean, socially? Absolutely nothing. Just because the mechanism by which we make decisions is neither truly independent, nor are we able to break free of the chain reaction started by the big bang, (even at the quantum level), does not give us license to break socially agreed upon rules. This is largely in part due to the fact that we DO experience a sense of choice even if it's an illusion. Since we feel this sense of choices we ought act upon the assumption that we have these choices to make.

Disappointing? My question should not be difficult to answer if human determinism is scientifically valid. For example, The Theory of Gravity can be falsified upon observation of matter behaving in a manner contrary to its predictions. By what basic criteria can determinism be hypothetically falsified?

Here's another question--What are the practical consequences of accepting human determinism if we're still required to act as if free will is valid? Are you implying some sort of schizophrenic exclusivity between our imprisoned thoughts and how our bodies' uncontrollably behave?

 

[Sucumbio]

Disappointing? My question should not be difficult to answer if human determinism is scientifically valid. For example, The Theory of Gravity can be falsified upon observation of matter behaving in a manner contrary to its predictions. By what basic criteria can determinism be hypothetically falsified?

Well that's what the Neurologists arw doing. Their research is bent on proving that decisions are made precognitively. To falsify this we'd look for examples where this isn't always the case.

Here's another question--What are the practical consequences of accepting human determinism if we're still required to act as if free will is valid? Are you implying some sort of schizophrenic exclusivity between our imprisoned thoughts and how our bodies' uncontrollably behave?

I'm suggesting that true free will is irrelevant when justifying one's actions. We need not say oh, I murdered him because I had no real choice. Because having no real choice isn't something we cognitively recognize. We are all living in a displaced sense of reality, removed by an undetermined amount of time from when we go from pseudo choice to action.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Well that's what the Neurologists arw doing. Their research is bent on proving that decisions are made precognitively. To falsify this we'd look for examples where this isn't always the case.

There's no scientific integrity in assuming a conclusion then seeking evidence to back it up. This is a question which should be answerable well before any testing occurs. Can human determinism be falsified or not? Yes or no?

I'm suggesting that true free will is irrelevant when justifying one's actions. We need not say oh, I murdered him because I had no real choice. Because having no real choice isn't something we cognitively recognize. We are all living in a displaced sense of reality, removed by an undetermined amount of time from when we go from pseudo choice to action.

Again, you didn't answer my second question. What does it mean to accept determinism? What are the consequences? How is it practically different from accepting free will instead?

 

[Sucumbio]

Wait that makes no sense. The scientific method assumes a conclusion (hypothesis) then seeks evidence to back it up.

Determinism can be falsified by observing matter that behaves contrary to its predictions.

There is no discernable difference, cognitively, between free will and determinism.

It means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Though they say this discovery has grand implications I believe it has only semantic ones.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Wait that makes no sense. The scientific method assumes a conclusion (hypothesis) then seeks evidence to back it up.

It's the other way around--compile evidence first, then create a falsifiable hypothesis for further testing. The scientific method does not assume a conclusion then seek validation, that would be the creationist method.

Determinism can be falsified by observing matter that behaves contrary to its predictions.

How do we prove whether a human is demonstrating self-determination? There is always a justifiable chain of causality in hindsight regardless of one's conscious decisions in the present.

There is no discernable difference, cognitively, between free will and determinism.

Then why set up a dichotomy?

What do you mean by "cognitively"?

It means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Though they say this discovery has grand implications I believe it has only semantic ones.

I do not consider this inconsequential, it denotes psychological differences between the parties involved.

 

[Sucumbio]

If you're proving something you first have to know what it is, that's the hypothesis part, right? Then you gather evidence. Otherwise you're left with no idea where to begin.

To prove if someone is demonstrating self-determination (this is free will, yes?) we'd attempt to predict an outcome and see if it's met or not.

The importance of the question is in understanding our limitations. Free will gives us this idea that we are in control of our destination, that in hindsight we could have better or differently. Determinism says this isn't the case. By cognitively I mean, we are incapable of being consciously aware of the difference between true free will (an illusion) and fake free will (what we actually experience.

 

[FlusteredBat]

If you're proving something you first have to know what it is, that's the hypothesis part, right?

Science starts with observation which provokes a hypothesis which demands further observation. The cycle repeats.

To prove if someone is demonstrating self-determination (this is free will, yes?) we'd attempt to predict an outcome and see if it's met or not.

Self-determination cannot be proven by testing whether predictions fail, that only conclusively indicates a flawed experimental method. Although the reality of choice would be falsified if a particular method never fails.

The discovery of a perfect master equation could prove the validity of determinism through a direct falsification of free will. Similarly, the basis of religion may be proven if a deity objectively appears before us and demonstrates its physics-defying role in creation.

To falsify human determinism means undeniably proving free will, though any demonstration of free will must inevitably include an unbroken chain of causality. Likewise, the only way to falsify an extra-dimensional deity is to achieve omniscience.

Summary--in order to falsify determinism one must prove free will, but free will can only be proven if determinism is falsified.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Disappointing? My question should not be difficult to answer if human determinism is scientifically valid. For example, The Theory of Gravity can be falsified upon observation of matter behaving in a manner contrary to its predictions. By what basic criteria can determinism be hypothetically falsified?

It's the same as the topic of God. By what basic criteria can God be hypothetically falsified? None, but I'm still an atheist because it defies all of the mechanical knowledge we possess thus far and is something that we cannot even properly define in the first place. And ultimately, just like with this topic, believing in God or not isn't what's important.

Here's another question--What are the practical consequences of accepting human determinism if we're still required to act as if free will is valid?

What does it mean to be required to act as if people can make decisions from arbitrary factors that don't come from a causal chain? Aren't we actually doing the opposite--assuming everyone is coming from a physical foundation in their brain? Otherwise, there is no longer any objective basis for understanding and connection. Society hinges upon the conditions that imply determinism.

I do not consider this inconsequential, it denotes psychological differences between the parties involved.

Only because you believe so, and that you continue to equate pessimistic fatalism with the perception that all things have causes. I must be awful at debating though, because I can't seem to make you reconsider your views on this. Really just came back here because I'm bored. And off I go again.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I've been blocked at this point. You're better than that Flustered!

 

[Corigames]

I'd like to rephrase the opening question.

Free will as a concept is a misnomer. It's presented as an all or nothing game where you either have it or you don't. Rather, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of deciding potential. The more possible decisions a creature can make, the greater their deciding potential is. A plant, for example, has nearly no deciding potential since the actions it performs are done strictly based off direct stimuli without any other factors being accounted for. From there, we can also look at insects. These creatures also work on a very limited framework, but they do have brains that check information before making an action. They have minimal deciding potential.

When asking if we have "free will," I would instead frame the question thusly:
How much deciding potential does that average human have.

 

[FlusteredBat]

I'd like to rephrase the opening question.

Free will as a concept is a misnomer. It's presented as an all or nothing game where you either have it or you don't. Rather, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of deciding potential. The more possible decisions a creature can make, the greater their deciding potential is. A plant, for example, has nearly no deciding potential since the actions it performs are done strictly based off direct stimuli without any other factors being accounted for. From there, we can also look at insects. These creatures also work on a very limited framework, but they do have brains that check information before making an action. They have minimal deciding potential.

When asking if we have "free will," I would instead frame the question thusly:
How much deciding potential does that average human have.

Can humans act in opposition to their impulses? Yes.
Do all humans act in opposition to their impulses? No.

 

[Murlough]

Yes, free will exists. Fate has not been proven and can't be proven.

We all have the ability to choose our actions and what path to take in life. People who go and blame the mistakes they made on "fate" are just looking for excuses.