Does free will exist?

[Sehnsucht]

Assuming quantum physics work in a predictable way that is just beyond our grasp, and therefor everything truly is predetermined, that doesn't mean humans lack self control.

When people say everything is predetermined, they look at the world as one long equation, all the factors are guaranteed to have a certain result and therefor it's predetermined. However in such an equation, the person is a factor, and therefor they partially dictate what the result is, what they do still matters, if it is predetermined it's just because they are who they are, and they make the choices they want to. Maybe put in the same situation they always make the same choices but that is inherent to who they are.

My concern is that while humans are one variable in the equation, every variable acts upon every other.

Emotions are reactions to prior stimulus. And emotions motivate us in certain ways. We are bound by the rules of space, time, biology, matter, energy, weather, and various other overlapping and intersecting systems.

So the question is how much of an influence do all of these things in tandem have on our actions, thoughts, emotions, and experiences? How bound are we to antecedent causes?

This is why I find agency to be a bit suspect, at least in the sense the term is usually used. To say that we have free-will is to say that, to some extent, we are exempt from cause and effect. That somehow, we are independent of the causal chains in and around us, such that they don't necessarily impact what we say and do.

This is a vexing notion. Why would we humans be any more, or any less, exempt from the thrust of antecedent causes than anything else? Is it consciousness, or self-awareness, that allows for such a phenomenon? Do minds, like quantum phenomena, possess a certain amount of indeterminacy or probability that allows for the expression of more than one outcome, even when antecedent causes come knocking at the door?

This is why I think elucidating how time (and timelines) are actually structured is the best bet for figuring out the influence of antecedent causes. But I also think we're a long ways from getting to that point, such that I'm not holding my breath for it to start happening within my lifetime.

But anyway, just thought I'd bring up this point. Does anyone else have insights on the Problem of Antecedent Causes?

 

[Braydon]

The way I see it we don't have to act independently from causal chains, if we're a part of the causal chain, therefor we influence the result. Things do not simply happen as if we didn't exist, being predetermined doesn't mean our choices aren't influencing the result it would just mean we were predictable to a degree, that you could predict our will, not that our will does not exist.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The way I see it we don't have to act independently from causal chains, if we're a part of the causal chain, therefor we influence the result. Things do not simply happen as if we didn't exist, being predetermined doesn't mean our choices aren't influencing the result it would just mean we were predictable to a degree, that you could predict our will, not that our will does not exist.

In a similar vein, I can't shake the feeling that the question is inconsequential. Sure, my actions may not be my choice, but we cannot run society as if they aren't. What's more, a policeman's response to arrest me when I murder someone is of equal imperative if we both have a choice or if we neither have a choice. If we both have a choice, then my choice was clearly something that justified his choice; if neither of us have a choice, then my actions were not worth arresting me for, but he didn't have a choice to act otherwise.

 

[Sehnsucht]

The way I see it we don't have to act independently from causal chains, if we're a part of the causal chain, therefor we influence the result. Things do not simply happen as if we didn't exist, being predetermined doesn't mean our choices aren't influencing the result it would just mean we were predictable to a degree, that you could predict our will, not that our will does not exist.

The question is not that we are part of a causal chain. It's whether my choices are molded by what I perceive to be "me", or whether they are the inevitable (i.e. determined) product of whatever came before. I certainly feel like the former, but it's the latter that requires further investigation.

Suppose all that I am -- thoughts, impulses, desires, reactions, memories, emotions, etc. -- are being "experienced" on autopilot. Or that what I call "this experience" is like a animated flipbook where the pages of emotions and thoughts and so on are being flipped through. When I say "I will do X", I was always going to do "X", or could do nothing else but "X". This is determinism. Agency, on the other hand, implies that in some sense, I could have done "Y" when "X" was before me.

We have "will", a term that embodies the sum of human experience and perception. And within time, this will is what drives human action. Do we control this will? Does this will control us? Are we synonymous with our will? Or are they distinct entities?

It's a subtle thing to try and capture. Perhaps "agency" is simply a term to describe human action, and not a "force" that we command. Agency is not us sitting in a boat on the river of causality, able to steer and direct our own course in spite of the river's currents; agency is one part in the grand chain reaction that is causality.

That's a way to think about it, I suppose. But now I ramble.

In a similar vein, I can't shake the feeling that the question is inconsequential. Sure, my actions may not be my choice, but we cannot run society as if they aren't. What's more, a policeman's response to arrest me when I murder someone is of equal imperative if we both have a choice or if we neither have a choice. If we both have a choice, then my choice was clearly something that justified his choice; if neither of us have a choice, then my actions were not worth arresting me for, but he didn't have a choice to act otherwise.

I have the same sentiment. In all scenarios, we have the experience of agency, and that's what ultimately matters, pragmatically speaking. It may be interesting, perhaps even useful, to verify it for sure one way or another. But we all go about our lives just fine either way.

Not that we shouldn't try to uncover the greater context of agency and determinism, of course.

 

[Desu_Maiden]

Sorry to break it to you, but free will is nothing more than an illusion. I realized this several years ago. Watch the following Youtube video to find out why free will is an illusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf9eGUWGtyo

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Sorry to break it to you, but free will is nothing more than an illusion. I realized this several years ago. Watch the following Youtube video to find out why free will is an illusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf9eGUWGtyo

Please summarize the arguments in the video.

 

[Braydon]

Sorry to break it to you, but free will is nothing more than an illusion. I realized this several years ago. Watch the following Youtube video to find out why free will is an illusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf9eGUWGtyo

First of all, you have to assume quantum mechanics are truly predictable and we just don't know how quantum physics works. It's perfectly possible there is a level of randomness on the quantum level, which could well lead to random non-predetermined events in your life. It might only take a couple of electrons moving a tiny distance in your brain to change a choice you make.

Second, read the recent posts before responding please... I've already explained how human will is not an illusion.

 

[WalkOnARainbow]

Oh... what a deep and existential subject. And maybe a little bit sad or depressing.

Um, well.. where things are very small or quantum, things don't seem to fit traditional cause and effect very well, since space and time are different. So some people believe we have free will because of that. I don't know much about quantum mechanics or physics, but a universe where cause and effect doesn't make much sense. Even if some particles are entangled and some things travel through space faster than the speed of light and can travel through time, there must be some causes and some effects somewhere, right?

I've been told that we don't know enough about things at the very small because or measurements are too big.

And I think, even if cause and effect are kind of fuzzy at the very small level. Everything else we measure seems to be "deterministic", or a bunch of measurable and predictable causes and effects together. Quantum mechanics and the bigger universe don't seem to fit together very well right now. Because everything other than the small fuzzy stuff that we see and measure fits traditional physics, which is deterministic and cause and effect. Which is why some quantum physicists believe in multiple universes and things like that.

Quantum Mechanics and Physics are two things that don't fit together yet, like a circle block and a square hole in a toy set. Traditional Physics and everything we measure with that is based on the universe being deterministic. So, it seems to me that the universe is deterministic and is based on cause and effect. Since very small things seem to be the only exception, and we don't understand them as well as traditional physics. I think it's better to base more of our understanding of the universe and things like us and our free will on the big things we understand better, rather than the small things we don't understand as well.

For free will, what does that mean? It would be nice if I guess our choices weren't based on cause and effect and the way the universe works, which is full of cause and effect at least as the bigger levels. It can make you feel powerless and like your choices don't matter. I think that's why it's fun to believe in that kind of free will. But it seems like to me that most things are cause and effect, including us, ourselves. And we're riding the tides of cause and effect.

So I guess we don't have free will, depending on how you interpret it. Even in a random universe without cause and effect, I'm not sure we could influence the randomness and have free will.

But I like to think that our choices still matter, even if they were already determined in a big series of dominoes and cause and effect. We're still ourselves and we still make choices. And our choices still feel free to us. It's kind of like being stardust, it's kind of also pretty in a way, even though it would be nice to have free will, and have more choices, or not be only determined by the past. It took trillions and trillions of things to make you who you are, and even if we're pre-determined, we're very complex and complicated, and unique and special, and we change every day, doesn't that feel kind of special and pretty and beautiful, too?

 

[AfungusAmongus]

But I like to think that our choices still matter, even if they were already determined in a big series of dominoes and cause and effect. We're still ourselves and we still make choices.

Agreed. The point is nicely illustrated here:

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/70

 

[Sehnsucht]

Nice comic.

To break the message down to its simplest form, everything that we do and are may well be invariably determined by antecedent causes, but we nevertheless experience making our own decisions. Which is the only thing that really counts, in the end -- because that experience remains whether human intention is or is not (pre)determined.

 

[kiteinthesky]

I'll summarize the Determinist position:

1. All physical phenomena can be explained causally. Atoms behave in a consistent and predictable manner.
2. Human beings are composed of physical atoms.
3. Therefore human behavior is pre-determined.

Fair enough.

...but is a Determinist willing to accept the consequences of Determinism? These are the consequences:

- Ethical judgement is impossible, nobody is responsible for their actions in the absence of choice. In other words, in the deterministic paradigm, somebody wrecking your car with a sledgehammer is no different than it being crushed by a stray boulder. Would you take a boulder to court?
- It's ridiculous for a Determinist to debate anything because that implies a desire/ability to correct an opposing pre-determined perspective which was neither right or wrong to begin with (due to the lack of choice). A Determinist cannot exclude themselves from Determinism which is supposed to encompass everything, such is to acknowledge the possibility of free will.
- There's no reason to be emotional about anything. Love, happiness, sadness, fear, anger, etc. all of these feelings have no place in a Deterministic universe because they all assert a preference of some sort as well as assign responsibility to specific individuals. There are no preferences or responsibilities in Determinism, everything is what it is and could not have been any other way.

I have never met a Determinist who accepts the inescapable consequences of what they believe. Do they exist? I'll probably never know.

But those consequences are irrelevant because according to determinism, everyone is already pre-determined to carry those things out. They'll still make ethical judgments, debate and experience emotional responses under the illusion that they have a choice because they're pre-determined to do so.

 

[LarsINTJ]

But those consequences are irrelevant because according to determinism, everyone is already pre-determined to carry those things out. They'll still make ethical judgments, debate and experience emotional responses under the illusion that they have a choice because they're pre-determined to do so.

Sorry, can't have your cake and eat it too, that's bad philosophy. If somebody truly commits to determinism then they cannot cherry-pick the benefits of accepting free will as it suits them, that would be to express preferences which do not exist under a deterministic paradigm.

Oh, but it's all predetermined, right? Determinism is valid because determinism, so convenient in the way it frees us from the burden of bad decisions while somehow permitting moral outrage against others who also lack responsibility for their actions.

I see how it works now - the illusion states that we are both responsible or not responsible unless it means taking responsibility. What? It makes perfect sense.

 

[kiteinthesky]

Sorry, can't have your cake and eat it too, that's bad philosophy. If somebody truly commits to determinism then they cannot cherry-pick the benefits of accepting free will as it suits them, that would be to express preferences which do not exist under a deterministic paradigm.

Oh, but it's all predetermined, right? Determinism is valid because determinism, so convenient in the way it frees us from the burden of bad decisions while somehow permitting moral outrage against others who also lack responsibility for their actions.

I see how it works now - the illusion states that we are both responsible or not responsible unless it means taking responsibility. What? It makes perfect sense.

Arguing from consequence is bad philosophy too. It doesn't change the fact that determinism could very well manifest as an illusion of choice. Under determinism everything that happens, everything people do, every choice they make, etc. is already predetermined, yes? That is what determinism means, does it not? If that is what it means, then there's no way what I said couldn't be true because even acts that would seem like independent choices were already set out. That's just what determinism means. You are presupposing that those choices people are making when you claim that my argument is "having your cake and eating it too" are free will when they very well could not be if determinism is a thing.

I don't even believe in complete determinism or complete free will. I'm just going on the definition of determinism.

 

[Sucumbio]

Deterministic world view is not without culpability. Just because I was always destined to make this post, does not mean I'm not responsible for it.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Deterministic world view is not without culpability. Just because I was always destined to make this post, does not mean I'm not responsible for it.

Nope, mixing up the language does not change the fact that humans are all essentially boulders crashing down a mountainside under determinism. Would you ascribe responsibility/culpability to an inanimate object? If you create an exception for humans then that is to implicitly admit we possess properties which separate us from base matter thus the justification for determinism falls apart.

You can't magically have it both ways, compatibilists. Either commit to full-blown robotic determinism or accept the validity of our direct experience like sensible people.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Lars, you need to stop watching Stefan, at least when it comes to free will. Also I think his movie reviews are laughable, but I digress.

You've not yet formulated an actual argument for free will. All you have said is that it is needed for responsibility, and it is a nonsensical view that has nothing to do with reality. I myself at the start of this thread explained why we don't bring rocks into the courtroom even though they are equally material and determined; you left because you had nothing you could say. The same logic applies to interacting with society, choosing your friends, forming relationships with lovers, everything literally remains exactly as is without a free will and all you're doing is repeatedly insisting it changes, yet you cannot explain how. It's like how I mentioned before about this doublethink you have in parallel to the topic of theism with your logic: for example, I'm sure you'd say this world is suspiciously the same as one without a God when arguing with a theist. Right now, you cannot demonstrate a free will because all remains precisely as is without it. If you believe as such, again, it'd be like theists claiming they'd be rapists and murderers if they found out God wasn't real because nothing would be stopping them (no "moral responsibility"), but in this case it is free will. There are incredibly humanistic and, ahem, "universally preferable behavior" reasons to treat determined beings as we've always have by holding them accountable for their actions for protective and deterring measures. This is basic fundamentals with social interaction in general.

 

[Zale]

Determinism has more scientific evidence behind it. Therefor I am a determinist.

Some people are afraid to accept it, because it means their lives are pre-determined. But I suppose blissful ignorance is more fun, so I'll let people think what they like without bashing their silly opinions.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Lars, you need to stop watching Stefan, at least when it comes to free will. Also I think his movie reviews are laughable, but I digress.

You've not yet formulated an actual argument for determinism. All you have said is that it is needed for selectively removing responsibility, and it is a nonsensical view that has nothing to do with reality. I myself at the start of this thread explained why we don't bring rocks into the courtroom even though they are equally material and possess free will; you left because you had nothing you could say. The same logic applies to interacting with society, choosing your friends, forming relationships with lovers, everything literally remains exactly as is without determinism and all you're doing is repeatedly insisting it does not change, yet you cannot explain how. It's like how I mentioned before about this doublethink you have in parallel to the topic of theism with your logic: for example, I'm sure you'd say this world is suspiciously the same as one without a God when arguing with a theist. Right now, you cannot demonstrate determinism because all remains precisely as is without it. If you believe as such, again, it'd be like theists claiming they'd still be good people if they had not found God because they have control over the direction their life takes, but in this case it is actually deterministic. There are incredibly humanistic and, ahem, "universally preferable behavior" reasons to treat determined beings as we've always have by holding them accountable for their actions for protective and deterring measures. This is basic fundamentals with social interaction in general.

(Still Lars here, account changed with permission)

The quote was edited to demonstrate something I find rather annoying.

My issue: determinists dismiss free will for no good reason given how they behave and the contradictory principles they wish to uphold. I'm not here to prove what is beyond comprehension and have nothing else to add on top of what has already been said.

Did I ever attribute something to Stefan Molyneux ad vercundiam? No? Then you certainly do digress. The general inadequacy of Stefan's critics is nothing new to me, but thanks for the reminder.

 

[Sucumbio]

Humans are what make the equation complex. Our self awareness gives us the illusion that every moment in time presents us with infinite choices. And our penchant for social interaction makes us feel responsible. Our limited brains, however, cannot see the future. Therefore we're left to wonder what could have been.

Knowing that our every molecular trajectory is just a domino in a long chain dating back to the big bang, is not am excuse to do wrong. Because we still live in the moment. And in the moment we still HAVE to choose coke or pepsi, or to do wrong or right. This is one of the reasons I loved the Matrix. We've already made our decisions. Now we simply need to understand them. What that really means is, we've already lived out our entire lives. We just have to let time catch up. Being a mass murderer is a choice, insofar as we can direct ourselves in our actions. But determinism means that one was always going to make the choice to not be a mass murderer.

This is why you cannot make a defense in court over well we don't have free will, so it doesn't matter. Of course it matters! People must accept the inevitably of life, while also accepting the inevitably of everyone else's lives crashing into yours. It's not having it both ways. It's playing nice with others because inevitably takes forever to come to pass and there's lots of room left for decisions to play out in the meantime.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

(Still Lars here, account changed with permission)

The quote was edited to demonstrate something I find rather annoying.

Once again the parallels between theism and this grow. Determinism is atheism in that it is not an argument but the consequence of there being no other argument that can be raised.

Also, I explained before on the first page, but I'd like to remind you that inanimate objects don't have consciousness, and thus it is useless to try and influence their behavior through social relations. Whether we have a "free will" or we are "determined", being able to influence behavior is possible all the same. Again, we're arguing about what the process is, not what ought to happen or what is to happen. Just how we get where we do.

The Stefan remark is amusing because I didn't have any direct evidence but I was still able to pin that you follow him. You use the same expressions and hold all the same stances from what I've seen. Of course that wasn't me accusing you of using him as an authority, twas just a harmless aside to see if I was correct. I'm not one of his "critics" lol.

 

[Zale]

My issue: determinists dismiss free will for no good reason

Wrong . . .
There are so many GREAT reasons; too many actually to list here.

Here are a couple:
1. Nothing is random. Nothing we observe is actually random. Nothing we can create is random.
There is NO proof of randomness in this world.

2. The idea that everything is a giant chain reaction, comes from our many observations of the quantum world around us.

Barely able to understand how anyone could think there is free will if they are educated on the subject. It is pretty clear!

d-(^_^)z

 

[FlusteredBat]

Wrong . . .
There are so many GREAT reasons; too many actually to list here.

Here are a couple:
1. Nothing is random. Nothing we observe is actually random. Nothing we can create is random.
There is NO proof of randomness in this world.

2. The idea that everything is a giant chain reaction, comes from our many observations of the quantum world around us.

Barely able to understand how anyone could think there is free will if they are educated on the subject. It is pretty clear!

d-(^_^)z

Rejecting a conclusion is not the same as addressing an argument.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I guess I'll chime in with a general reiteration of my stances, since the thread's flared up again:

[collapse=ON DEGREES OF INFLUENCE]
So the notion is that if agency in itself is determined, there's no use in calling it "agency", since the term denotes having some kind of control over (our) causality with some degree of independence from prior causes. Is that right?

To be absolutely divorced from prior causes would be impossible, since it would mean we aren't part of the system. If we can enact effects, but we are immune to effects, then there is a break in the chain. Whatever the big picture may be, we certainly have the experience of agency. But there are factors and variables that influence and act upon us and our decision making -- neurological, physiological, societal, etc. The extent to which we have agency will correlate to the extent these variables perform backseat driving on our choices.

Though as @ FlusteredBat notes, if we are utterly the product of antecedent causes, then the use of ethics starts to break down. If an agent intentionally harms another, how are we to respond? This is the question ethics is concerned with. Yet if this "intention" was (pre)determined, can moral fault truly lie with the perpetrator? The pitfall is that someone could appeal to determinism to permit or excuse any action or consequence, and you'd be unable to contest or counter that appeal.

All that said, the most important thing to factor is that regardless of what the big picture entails for us, we do currently experience agency, whether that agency is emergent or manufactured or some combination thereof. Even in a scenario of predetermination, that experience remains. If we feel as though we are in control of our actions, and we experience benefit and harm done unto ourselves and unto others, then ethics and morality are still useful tools for us -- even if the use of those tools are in themselves preordained.

Practically, then, the question of determinism VS free-will is not interesting. It may be neat to discover the truth of things from an academic standpoint, and we might be able to apply what knowledge we derive to our benefit. We currently haven't found a way to validate our sense of agency beyond our own experience, but that experience is certainly there, and so we can work with that (not that we can do much else).

As for the academic context, I see the key to the question's resolution residing in finding out A) how time works (e.g. if the whole of a timeline is laid out, if time coalesces one moment at a time, etc.), and B) the mechanism for agency in light of how time works (e.g. probabilistic, quantum effects? Multiverse branching? Etc.). I suspect we won't be making much progress on these fronts for some time, though.
[/collapse]

So yeah. TL;DR: we gotta work with what we got, and we only really have the sense of agency as this point.

 

[Zale]

This feels like an innocent until proven guilty type of thing. There is zero evidence suggesting we have free will, so why believe it?

Until there is actual evidence of "randomness" in our environment, then I personally don't see a reason to believe. Just as I don't believe in Santa Claus, unless I were to witness Santa myself of course.

 

[Sucumbio]

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/quantum-randomness

This a good article. It describes the reason why it is believed that true randomness can exist at the quantum level (and only the quantum level). It also presents reasoning behind the idea that everything is predetermined, and who helped pioneer this philosophy (Newton). At present there's no evidence to say true randomness exists, nor is there any to say it doesn't. So while it may seem obvious to trust in your senses and say nothing is random, it is still a belief system dependent on intuitive observation, not reproducible tests.

 

[Sehnsucht]

This feels like an innocent until proven guilty type of thing. There is zero evidence suggesting we have free will, so why believe it?

Until there is actual evidence of "randomness" in our environment, then I personally don't see a reason to believe. Just as I don't believe in Santa Claus, unless I were to witness Santa myself of course.

Well, the only thing we have going for free-will is that we have the experience of free-will. Which could indicate that the universe operates on a free-will mechanism, to whichever extent.

Though the problem is that it's hard to validate that experience of agency using tools other than our experience. It would be circular to affirm that I experience free-will, ergo the universe runs on free-will. We don't currently have the means or knowledge (that I'm aware of) to empirically prove that free-will is indeed a component of human experience, and not just a feeling produced by determined factors.

Lacking empirical tools, we can only rely on philosophy (i.e. our reasoning). And yet it's our reasoning faculties in themselves that are suspect. So we're kind of at a standstill on this topic until we make more strides in figuring out things like time, consciousness, and causality.

Which is why my stance is that the actual answer isn't too important, since we experience agency anyway.

 

[Zale]

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/quantum-randomness

This a good article. It describes the reason why it is believed that true randomness can exist at the quantum level (and only the quantum level). It also presents reasoning behind the idea that everything is predetermined, and who helped pioneer this philosophy (Newton). At present there's no evidence to say true randomness exists, nor is there any to say it doesn't. So while it may seem obvious to trust in your senses and say nothing is random, it is still a belief system dependent on intuitive observation, not reproducible tests.

This is assuming these things are random. It isn't ACTUAL randomness.

Sometimes we label things incorrectly. So for instance, there are some things we cannot determine... so we call them "random".
But they aren't "random" they are simply indeterminable with current technology. Just because we cannot predict or find a pattern, doesn't mean it is actual randomness per say. Although I do find it interesting.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/quantum-randomness This a good article. It describes the reason why it is believed that true randomness can exist at the quantum level (and only the quantum level). It also presents reasoning behind the idea that everything is predetermined, and who helped pioneer this philosophy (Newton). At present there's no evidence to say true randomness exists, nor is there any to say it doesn't. So while it may seem obvious to trust in your senses and say nothing is random, it is still a belief system dependent on intuitive observation, not reproducible tests.

That article was horrible.

 

[zpxociv]

And how exactly would you define "free will"? Is it a will that somehow operates on its own as some sort of mystical intelligent will spirit-soulmind that is somehow both not a process of a mind construct like a brain(which would then deny free will as a deterministic process) and at the same time capable of the logical thought processes that would enable the will to form coherent desires? Free will doesn't even make sense unless it is truly random.

Therefore true free will could only be expressed by randomness and insanity because it is a will that is not bound to rules and logic but instead is truly random. This also disproves free will, except insane people do exist, so perhaps not but the point is you don't want free will; you want to be bound by a logical mind that affects your actions even if it's just chemicals and atoms processing sensory information. Also: no, you don't have free will.

 

[Zale]

And how exactly would you define "free will"? Is it a will that somehow operates on its own as some sort of mystical intelligent will spirit-soulmind that is somehow both not a process of a mind construct like a brain(which would then deny free will as a deterministic process) and at the same time capable of the logical thought processes that would enable the will to form coherent desires? Free will doesn't even make sense unless it is truly random.

Therefore true free will could only be expressed by randomness and insanity because it is a will that is not bound to rules and logic but instead is truly random. This also disproves free will, except insane people do exist, so perhaps not but the point is you don't want free will; you want to be bound by a logical mind that affects your actions even if it's just chemicals and atoms processing sensory information. Also: no, you don't have free will.

Pretty much what you are saying. But you are being a bit too literal.
Free will means the ability to make free-form choices with nothing 100% guiding your actions. You have the right idea though.

 

[Sucumbio]

That article was horrible.

How so? I'll admit it's not technically heavy (it's not meant to be) but it's not in any way wrong as far as I could tell... Or at at least not any more inaccurate than Wikipedia.

 

[Octavium]

I have very simple thoughts on the matter. Humans (and possibly everything else in the universe) are reactive beings, we react accordingly to the situation based on what we believe is the optimal choice for our goals in mind (Wether it be for survival, social attention, or even death). How we react is based on our past experiences and/or thought process at the time of the situation. By reacting to a situation(even if that reaction is doing nothing), we cause a different situation from our perspective which will then cause us to react again...and again and so on.

Based on this argument it is very likely ''free will'' is a non-existant concept, our thoughts are physically nothing else than a constant, complex and carefully organised chemical reaction (Unless we are missing something that we can't see from our current observation methods). I believe that free will is nothing but an illusion to us because we feel our actions are completely our own, but in fact they are reactions to the situations that are presented to us through our perception.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Free will is like a muscle - it atrophies with neglect. People habitually become automatic stimulus-response robots if they believe their intuitive human experience to be illusory.

Successful individuals will usually accept free will to acknowledge the value of their choices whereas those down on their luck espouse some form of determinism in order to avoid responsibility over their own counterproductive decisions.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Successful individuals will usually accept free will to acknowledge the value of their choices whereas those down on their luck espouse some form of determinism in order to avoid responsibility over their own counterproductive decisions.

Where is the evidence that proves such an extraordinary claim? And isn't this just more of the "argument from consequences" that we've been seeing from you since the start?

 

[FlusteredBat]

Where is the evidence that proves such an extraordinary claim? And isn't this just more of the "argument from consequences" that we've been seeing from you since the start?

I'm not making an argument, it's just something I have personally observed (and experienced) comparing those who believe in free will against determinists. There is no productive debate to be had concerning the subject of free will, it's inconclusive, but that does not give determinists a free pass to behave inconsistently relative to their principles.

 

[Octavium]

I'm not making an argument, it's just something I have personally observed (and experienced) comparing those who believe in free will against determinists. There is no productive debate to be had concerning the subject of free will, it's inconclusive, but that does not give determinists a free pass to behave inconsistently relative to their principles.

I disagree with your claim, but I agree with the fact that debates towards the concept of free will is inconclusive, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be debated however. This is entertainment for quite alot of us.

 

[Octavium]

Free will is like a muscle - it atrophies with neglect. People habitually become automatic stimulus-response robots if they believe their intuitive human experience to be illusory.

Could it be your personal definition of ''Free Will'' differs from ours?
The tendency and will to avoid becoming an ''automatic stimulus-response robot'' could just as well be considered predetermined instead of ''Free Will''.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm not making an argument, it's just something I have personally observed (and experienced) comparing those who believe in free will against determinists.

My apologies then. I'll speak my own opinion in that case.

I suspect what you might be thinking of is a sense of fatalism, where depressed individuals claim that there is nothing they can do or they can't change etc. Though, I believe this has more to do with their feelings than determinism or of any philosophical position. Being a product of one's environment and body actually provides a blueprint, a science with which one can use not just as an explanatory power with the past, but more importantly (or rather the thing that only matters), it can be used as a blueprint for how one must train yourself to become what you desire.

Finding, maintaining, and improving a proper environment and taking care of your body inside and out as much as you are able is what the inspired determinist preoccupies himself. And this, I believe, can create a healthy human who is likely to be proactive in society who is curious about how things work. Once someone perceives that what they are and what the world is, is who they are, they'll be provided with all the incentive in the world to wonder about themselves and what's happening around them.

And to turn it back around to fatalism, I think that to declare that one's actions are inevitable, inherently incapable, is an extreme case of presumption in most cases. Because from an actual deterministic viewpoint, they have all of the world (and what can be reached beyond), every strand of DNA, to use as a basis for change. Therefore it is absolutely absurd to believe that one knows what they're capable of with absolute certainty and to underestimate years upon years of evolutionary progress. It's a capital mistake to limit your imagination of what's possible to what you're doing and what you've witnessed. Suicide is literally irrational outside of horrific sickness.

Anyways, it's the idea that the world is a vacuum, that it is all one massive cog where even all the wallflowers play a subtly unique role in reverberating among one another. That what we do matters. That regardless of whether or not we're remembered, the casual chain of our actions can carry on, however slight, for a length of time practically impossible to predict, and that right now our daily lives is the consequence of this effect as well, embodied by countless people not in our history books that we'll never even be aware of. And that morality is everything we do, it is conduct, and it is entirely a physical, understandable, and secular thing. We're all in the same boat, and that's not a wholly bad thing.

So I'm not saying that determinism begets better human beings, but rather I just think it is not an innately corrosive view of oneself and others. It can truly be used as a source for never being able to logically sell oneself short because they don't comprehend the limits of their body, the universe, and the two reacting to one another. The consequence of which entails that we are, without resorting to mysticism, something that we'll never completely understand, or anywhere close, in our lifetime. We are to spend our life trying to "Know Thyself".

 

[FlusteredBat]

Could it be your personal definition of ''Free Will'' differs from ours?
The tendency and will to avoid becoming an ''automatic stimulus-response robot'' could just as well be considered predetermined instead of ''Free Will''.

There's not much to free will besides accepting the significance of personal choices in the outcome of one's life. It has nothing to do with mysticism, although it is commonly associated with religion (despite religion being deterministic in it's inclusion of an omniscient being).

As I've mentioned before, the "atoms are deterministic" justification for determinism is not solid enough to outright dismiss free will because consciousness already demonstrates that life can possess properties which individual building blocks lack.

It just bugs me how typical determinists believe themselves to be accepting something scientifically proven when the reason for their position is ultimately psychological.

Typical proponents of free will bug me too, "god gave us free will and knows everything".

 

[Zale]

There's not much to free will besides accepting the significance of personal choices in the outcome of one's life. It has nothing to do with mysticism, although it is commonly associated with religion (despite religion being deterministic in it's inclusion of an omniscient being).

As I've mentioned before, the "atoms are deterministic" justification for determinism is not solid enough to outright dismiss free will because consciousness already demonstrates that life can possess properties which individual building blocks lack.

It just bugs me how typical determinists believe themselves to be accepting something scientifically proven when the reason for their position is ultimately psychological.

Typical proponents of free will bug me too, "god gave us free will and knows everything".

The reason is psychological, because everything we do is psychological. lol

The main reason determinism is justified, is because most of our understanding of the universe supports that theory. Therefor to believe in "free-will" would be to believe something without any evidence. The only "evidence" I have ever heard about for free-will is just bogus claims about "randomness". Since nothing can be proven "random", I therefor side with determinism.

Not because of some petty psychological reason, but because of logic.