Free will

[Gamma Male]

I do not believe in free will, as I am a hard determinist. Instead of trying to explain to you why, I'll let Steven Hawking do it.
13Hl6-iE0PE

[Hypers]

I think humans as individuals have free will, but with society, this free will is limited. For example, society has laws, so you can't do certain things you could do if you were in your own world.

[Miserabilia]

I really really wanted to choose "No, we live in a deterministic universe. Free Will is impossible. ",
BUT that kind of depends on the definition of determinism, plus we can never COMPELTELY exclude free will (sadly).

Don't get me wrong, I'm a determinist, I do not beleive in free will.
Free will requires just as much irational faith as theistic religions.
Like I said in earlier thread, there is no true determinism on a small scale.

On the other hand, the human brain is not on a small scale; it's made out of countless particles so it's forced to be deterministic.
If that makes any sense.

[Horatio Nelson]

This is a tough one.

I don't think the universe has free will, I think there is an overall plan that cannot be escaped. But I think people have free will, you can choose to go somewhere or not go, but whether or not you do that "something" is already pre-determined. So I'm on the fence about it.

[Gamma Male]

This is a tough one.

I don't think the universe has free will, I think there is an overall plan that cannot be escaped. But I think people have free will, you can choose to go somewhere or not go, but whether or not you do that "something" is already pre-determined. So I'm on the fence about it.

It sounds like what you're stuck between is hard and soft determinism, which is basically just a debate over the definition of free will and not of metaphysics.

[Lovelife090994]

To me humans as all creatures with life have free will. The universe, existence, Nature, all have an order and a set way of design and working. While free will affects one's willingness and thoughts even then we are limited to what is humanly possible. Nature acts on its own in ways that it can be hard to predict but has a balance. The universe also has an order to follow. Gravity, orbits, light, dark, matter, energy, it all operates according to a set of fundamentals that cannot be broken. The laws can at times be warped, manipulated, studied, and coexist within the way the universe works.

[SawyerSauce]

This assumes that what we know as scientific facts today will still be facts in tomorrow's tomorrow. That's asinine.

[Miserabilia]

To me humans as all creatures with life have free will. The universe, existence, Nature, all have an order and a set way of design and working. While free will affects one's willingness and thoughts even then we are limited to what is humanly possible. Nature acts on its own in ways that it can be hard to predict but has a balance. The universe also has an order to follow. Gravity, orbits, light, dark, matter, energy, it all operates according to a set of fundamentals that cannot be broken. The laws can at times be warped, manipulated, studied, and coexist within the way the universe works.

Isn't that a huge contradiction?

Nature acts on its own in ways that it can be hard to predict but has a balance. The universe also has an order to follow. Gravity, orbits, light, dark, matter, energy, it all operates according to a set of fundamentals that cannot be broken.

That just sounds like a justification of determinism, what justification is there for free will? :what:

[Lovelife090994]

Isn't that a huge contradiction?



That just sounds like a justification of determinism, what justification is there for free will? :what:

Free will is what God granted humanity. Our only limits are our bodies and what is within reason.

[Miserabilia]

Free will is what God granted humanity. Our only limits are our bodies and what is within reason.

Free will is what God granted humanity.
once again, presenting me with an argument that implies that god exists in any way doesn't work.
Try justifying that free will exists without your god.

[Lovelife090994]

once again, presenting me with an argument that implies that god exists in any way doesn't work.
Try justifying that free will exists without your god.

I will not submit to you. God is real to me. Take it or leave it.

[Vlerchan]

I've decided to jump in with the determinists. It comes from taking a fully-material view of the brain.

This assumes that what we know as scientific facts today will still be facts in tomorrow's tomorrow. That's asinine.

What?

[Miserabilia]

I will not submit to you. God is real to me. Take it or leave it.

Submit to me?
Lol this is a ROTW on whether or not free will exists, present legitimate arguments or leave, I don't care about personal beleifs, as long as there is a legit argument behind what you are presenting.
Appearently there is not.

[ksdnfkfr]

i think in the short run we have free will, but not in the long run. in the short run i can decide if i want a cherry popsicle or an orange one. in the long run i think my life will play itself out the way it was determined. i really don't think anyone's life is all that unique scientifically. we are all born go though the same daily cycle of eating and sleeping etc and then we die. we don't have any control over that.

[backjruton]

And things like this make me wonder why I'm alive even more... :what:

[Gamma Male]

And things like this make me wonder why I'm alive even more... :what:

If by "why I'm alive" you mean how did you get here, that's perfectly explainable by science, evolution, and the big bang.
But if you mean what's the point of your existence, that's for you and you alone to decide. And don't let anyone ever tell you differently.

[backjruton]

If by "why I'm alive" you mean how did you get here, that's perfectly explainable by science, evolution, and the big bang.
But if you mean what's the point of your existence, that's for you and you alone to decide. And don't let anyone ever tell you differently.

I get scared by almost anything. Too big anxiety issues and even thinking slightly about this makes me feel worse. Especially with my friend that has cerebral palsy and is stuck in a chair, I feel bad for him and for someone like me that is saying something... The fact that someone there is "controlling" what we do and how long we spend here. Got to be some evil prick to be planning the bad things that happen to us. Science has caused me to panic before, might sound a little stupid but it's very true so I don't like to think about it and I even stopped going through the news websites because of how I would feel whenever I see a mention of anything scientific. I don't listen to anyone much so I won't let anyone control me, that I'm fine with, but everything gets to me because my anxiety issues seem to be that bad. I know I'm here for my own purpose, because I'm excelling in things none of us thought I would because I dared to try new things and I'm really happy I did. I just don't want to get too closely attached to anyone or communicate with anyone properly because I know it won't last forever and that pisses me off more than anything else... :(

[Capto]

The fact that someone there is "controlling" what we do and how long we spend here.

From my limited knowledge of what determinism entails, it is less so far that there is a greater being dictating every action and trend that occurs and more so that every action or change of trend is a direct consequence of the former trends and former state of the world a single time-unit beforehand [whereas time-unit details the smallest conceivable, yet still smaller, unit of time ever possible, such that it is essentially zero but subsequent time-units still dictate that a state may differ].

But I'm no determinist. I like being Markovian, thank you very much.

[SawyerSauce]

I've decided to jump in with the determinists. It comes from taking a fully-material view of the brain.



What?

Science is always changing so it's stupid to assume that scientific facts that we know as truths will still be the same in the future.

[CutYouDown]

I believe in free will to the extent of our physical and environmental capabilities.
In the words of the philosopher Rene Descartes "I think, therefore I am."

[Gamma Male]

I believe in free will to the extent of our physical and environmental capabilities.
In the words of the philosopher Rene Descartes "I think, therefore I am."

What does that quote have to do with free will? I have a better one. "You can do what you will, but you cannot will what you will.

[Vlerchan]

Science is always changing so it's stupid to assume that scientific facts that we know as truths will still be the same in the future.
I don't see the problem with:

Accepting Newton's Third Law of Motion
Rejecting Mind-Body Dualism which requires a religious-like faith in the idea to accept.

Whilst I can't guarantee that new laws won't arise I do believe that the chances of such arising are so slim they are not worth discussion. There's certainly nothing 'asnine' about it.

[Bleid]

I do not believe in free will, as I am a hard determinist. Instead of trying to explain to you why, I'll let Steven Hawking do it.
13Hl6-iE0PE

The problem with the reasoning presented in the video is that we are not certain that Free Will must manifest as a physical or observable process in the brain.

Similarly, even if we grant it, it engages in the fallacy of composition (http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Composition), but I'll get to that later.

Primary reasoning issue: There is no implication that Free Will must be provided by the actions in our brain. We are not aware of all metaphysical phenomena, and thus, we cannot rationally speak as though Free Will necessarily comes from the realm of physical science.

It could very well be that there is some unknown, transcendent influence that governs a Free Will and that we are only aware of the end result of that (the electrical and chemical processes in our brain that lead us to taking the choice). Hence, we cannot say that Free Will is impossible due to physical phenomena. Just because our brain is correlated to our 'decisions' does not necessarily imply that it is the cause of our decisions. We could simply be ignorant of all the possible variables.

Secondary issue: Let's grant that Free Will is present in the brain in some physical manner, but we have yet to find the "free will" section, so we use the Philosoraptor reasoning:

Atoms and particles behave in probabilistic ways, but our mind is made of atoms and particles.

How can Free Will exist?

(Assuming mind = brain, since we would have to be materialists to believe the argument in the first place)

Now we're engaging in the fallacy of composition, that I mentioned above.
Simply because something is composed of atoms and particles does not mean that it must hold to the same truths that the atoms and particles do.

Consider:

1. Atoms and particles are smaller than any human being can observe with the naked eye.
2. I am composed of atoms and particles.
____________
3. Therefore, I am smaller than any human being can observe with the naked eye.

Now simply plug in Free Will for myself and talk about probabilistic behavior instead of size, and we're left with equally poor reasoning:

1. Atoms and particles behave in probabilistic ways.
2. The mind (brain) is composed of atoms and particles. (Free Will would need to take place in the mind (brain))
________
3. Alleged 'Free Will' would need to behave in probabilistic ways.

See the problems?

Let me know if you need any further explanation for the above.

[PinkFloyd]

I think that by nature, we have free will, but those around us control too much for that to exist.

[Bleid]

I think that by nature, we have free will, but those around us control too much for that to exist.

Sounds strangely similar to, "We don't have Free Will."

[Vlerchan]

Let me know if you need any further explanation for the above.
Out of interest, do you believe in Free Will based off this or is there an equally strong argument against such?

[Bleid]

Out of interest, do you believe in Free Will based off this or is there an equally strong argument against such?

I don't believe in Free Will, but I do believe that it is still entirely possible.

I'll provide my reasoning:

1. If Free Will exists, it exists either in our universe or outside (transcendent) of it. (Tautology)

2. If it exists in our universe:

∵ We aren't currently aware of the full, complete extent to which our universe operates, and so, we couldn't argue that every single case must be deterministic or probabilistic, and thus, we couldn't conclude that Free Will cannot exist here in our Domain of Discourse quite yet.

3. If it exists as a transcendent (outside of our universe):

∵ We are not aware of any of the workings or physical laws for that which is transcendent, and so, it would be equally silly to exclude Free Will from this Domain of Discourse.

(considering it could be that some free agency influences us from outside of our universe and we are unaware of this or how it even would work)

4. Hence, In our universe as well as outside of it (influencing into it), there's not sufficient enough understanding to exclude the possibility of Free Will.
In addition, it certainly hasn't been demonstrated without reasonable doubt that Free Will exists.

__________

5. ∴ Free Will currently shouldn't be included in a rationally justified belief-set, but also should not be denied from it (in the propositional logic sense).