Free Will

[Ganondorf]

People keep saying Free Will dosen't exist, and say it as if it's a well known fact. Can someone fill me in, I don't get it? :(

[redleaf]

ur a slave lolzz

[Akira]

This is an awful thread because it is impossible to use anything remotely resembling fact to support an opinion that free will does or does not exist.

[-1up!-]

There are like 1019374 threads on this subject

[Der Übermensch]

This is an awful thread because it is impossible to use anything remotely resembling fact to support an opinion that free will does or does not exist.

Of course you can. All actions are not actions but in fact reactions. So everything you do isn't truley a matter of your own will, but rather the inevitable reaction for all related actions preceding it. :)

[siva_chair]

Of course you can. All actions are not actions but in fact reactions. So everything you do isn't truley a matter of your own will, but rather the inevitable reaction for all related actions preceding it. :)

I disagree.

:)

[Der Übermensch]

Of course you would... you have no choice in the matter :-p

[siva_chair]

Of course you would... you have no choice in the matter :-p

You would say that.:chug:

[Der Übermensch]

I had too... :thumb:

[italic zero]

free will is just a silly concept

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Personally I believe that genetics, instinct and conditioning (social and parental) effectively negate free will. Choice is an illusion in the "higher brain" long after the uncontrolable subconscious has decided what the score is.

[Danger Bird]

I clicked on this thread thinking Will Smith was in jail. >:[

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

your mom has free will

[thunderzstruck]

"I've visited thirty-one inhabited planets in the universe, and I have studied reports on one hundred more. Only on Earth is there any talk of free will"

[Ganondorf]

But surely if free will dosen't exist then no one is blameworthy for anything, and no one shoud go to prison or anything?

[Mr. Ron]

But surely if free will dosen't exist then no one is blameworthy for anything, and no one shoud go to prison or anything?

yup. but society wouldn't really like that

murderers are victims of circumstance.

[Der Übermensch]

But surely if free will dosen't exist then no one is blameworthy for anything, and no one shoud go to prison or anything?

Well the reaction can't be helped either, can it?

[Permanent Solution]

Personally I believe that genetics, instinct and conditioning (social and parental) effectively negate free will. Choice is an illusion in the "higher brain" long after the uncontrolable subconscious has decided what the score is.
Even given the entirety of experience of a person there's still an aspect of unpredictability in their actions that can't be accounted for. I don't believe that is based on a limited knowledge of the model, there's still always some little bit of randomness to action.

[Mr. Ron]

Even given the entirety of experience of a person there's still an aspect of unpredictability in their actions that can't be accounted for. I don't believe that is based on a limited knowledge of the model, there's still always some little bit of randomness to action.

Is there really such a thing as "randomness" though? Surely after a while a pattern will form.

[RNR]

This discussion always makes me want to stab everyone who is serious about it and everyone who doesn't understand that most aren't :stab:

[Mr. Ron]

This discussion always makes me want to stab everyone who is serious about it and everyone who doesn't understand that most aren't :stab:

Idk, I think its sort of important from a philosophical stance.

[Permanent Solution]

Is there really such a thing as "randomness" though? Surely after a while a pattern will form.
Have you ever known someone your whole life? Have you ever been surprised by them still after knowing them 20 years?

[Mr. Ron]

Have you ever known someone your whole life? Have you ever been surprised by them still after knowing them 20 years?

I don't see that as randomness. Just something that doesn't happen all the the time.

[RNR]

Idk, I think its sort of important from a philosophical stance.

I suppose. But arguing about it is beyond stupid. I've seen people get really into it :smash:

[Permanent Solution]

I don't see that as randomness. Just something that doesn't happen all the the time.

Well, or phrased more aptly: Have you ever had a situation where you know someone is going to do something because they always do and then they don't?

Think of it like practicing for a sport. You can practice executing a play perfectly 1000 times but sometimes when you're out to perform it you slip up just a little bit and have to reassess your performance and try to recover the best you can.

Most of life is our rehearsed plays but every once in awhile there's some little thing that goes wrong that usually doesn't and forces everything to change.

[sweboy]

Is there really such a thing as "randomness" though? Surely after a while a pattern will form.

Yeah, there's no such thing as randomness in reality. Except possibly (I'm not well-grounded in the subject) when talking about quantum fluctuations and such, but stuff on that level is irrelevant to the discussion anyway because it doesn't open up for free will in any case.

[Mr. Ron]

Well, or phrased more aptly: Have you ever had a situation where you know someone is going to do something because they always do and then they don't?

Think of it like practicing for a sport. You can practice executing a play perfectly 1000 times but sometimes when you're out to perform it you slip up just a little bit and have to reassess your performance and try to recover the best you can.

Most of life is our rehearsed plays but every once in awhile there's some little thing that goes wrong that usually doesn't and forces everything to change.

The straying away from the normal has a reason for why it happened. Randomness has no reason.

[Permanent Solution]

The straying away from the normal has a reason for why it happened. Randomness has no reason.
the reason could be randomness though.

Swe: Butterfly effect tbh. Only quantum scale.

[RockAndRoll]

But surely if free will dosen't exist then no one is blameworthy for anything, and no one shoud go to prison or anything?

Not true. Some concepts, such as revenge, may seem rather stupid when examined under the presumption of a universe without free-will. However, I don't think the judicial system should be based on principles of things like revenge anyways.

If someone is going around murdering others and we want to stop them from doing so, it only makes sense to put them in jail. It doesn't matter whether they have free will or not. Just as if a giant armageddon style asteroid were headed to wards earth we would try to destroy or deflect it, regardless of the fact that it isn't actually choosing to come and kill us.

[Mr. Ron]

the reason could be randomness though.

Swe: Butterfly effect tbh. Only quantum scale.

All randomness is, is a sheer amount of possibilities that are too large to calculate, yet.

[Permanent Solution]

All randomness is, is a sheer amount of possibilities that are too large to calculate, yet.
The world is not an equation that can be solved for every variable.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

What about God can he solve it

[siva_chair]

Yeah, there's no such thing as randomness in reality. Except possibly (I'm not well-grounded in the subject) when talking about quantum fluctuations and such, but stuff on that level is irrelevant to the discussion anyway because it doesn't open up for free will in any case.


Why is that really irrellevant. It is quite possible that quantum fluctuations affect the macro world to a degree we simply cannot comprehend yet. This would surely have something to do with free will.

[Reaganista]

yeah but they dont

[siva_chair]

yeah but they dont

I'm glad you can assume that with 100% certainty.

[Permanent Solution]

yeah but they dont

any microscopic variation will have an effect on its macroscopic properties. It's very reasonable to assume this holds at the quantum level too.

[Reaganista]

im glad you can never do anything but vaguely speculate
any microscopic variation will have an effect on its macroscopic properties. It's very reasonable to assume this holds at the quantum level too.
no
and no it's not

[siva_chair]

im glad you can never do anything but vaguely speculate

no
and no it's not

I'm glad you still think you have the infallible knowlege of God and still resort to "no that's wrong" responses.

[Permanent Solution]

no
and no it's not
Then refute why it's not.

What I stated is a well acknowledged fact among scientists so you need to provide justification for why it would not hold at a quantum level or else you're just talking out of your *** and while i appreciate that that is all you know how to do it's not cute or entertaining.

[italic zero]

Randomness doesn't account for free will. If a choice is random the actor is of no importance. Free will can't exist with or without determinism.

[Ganondorf]

Not true. Some concepts, such as revenge, may seem rather stupid when examined under the presumption of a universe without free-will. However, I don't think the judicial system should be based on principles of things like revenge anyways.

If someone is going around murdering others and we want to stop them from doing so, it only makes sense to put them in jail. It doesn't matter whether they have free will or not. Just as if a giant armageddon style asteroid were headed to wards earth we would try to destroy or deflect it, regardless of the fact that it isn't actually choosing to come and kill us.

Okay, fine put them in prison, but assuming free will dosen't exist, murderers, child rapists, regular rapists, Hitlers etc are not morally reprehensible in any way. Am I the only one who thinks this attitude is ridiculous?

[sweboy]

Quantom fluctuations could very well affect the macro world, but that has nothing to do with free will.

[BridgeToSolace]

Okay, fine put them in prison, but assuming free will dosen't exist, murderers, child rapists, regular rapists, Hitlers etc are not morally reprehensible in any way. Am I the only one who thinks this attitude is ridiculous?

Does it matter?

Moral reprehensibility has more to do with intent than with free will. But that's another thread, methinks.

Responsibility and blame are two different things, though.

[Reaganista]

Then refute why it's not.

no

What I stated is a well acknowledged fact among scientists
no it isnt

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

haha yes it is

[lfantwister]

Responsibility and blame are two different things, though.
explain further?

prison is more for society than for the individual

[BridgeToSolace]

explain further?

"When you don't understand the consequences of your acts, how can you be blamed for them?
You don't take the blame. But you still take the responsibility. For healing the wounds you caused."

-Orson Scott Card

Admittedly, it's probably not applicable to some of the people that Ganon mentioned.

I guess the point is that blame is fairly irrelevant. Who takes responsibility is more important.

[lfantwister]

"When you don't understand the consequences of your acts, how can you be blamed for them?
You don't take the blame. But you still take the responsibility. For healing the wounds you caused."

-Orson Scott Card

Admittedly, it's probably not applicable to some of the people that Ganon mentioned. ..thats only for people who dont understand the repercussions of their actions..

I guess the point is that blame is fairly irrelevant. Who takes responsibility is more important.so arguably wouldnt this be society, for creating the person who committed the crime?

[BridgeToSolace]

..thats only for people who dont understand the repercussions of their actions..

No one fully comprehends the consequences and repercussions of every action that they take.

Although surely there are people so narrow minded as to assume that they do.

so arguably wouldnt this be society, for creating the person who committed the crime?

Arguably, I 'spose. It's the criminal's responsibility to pay for his crimes, and it's society's responsibility to make sure he does.

I tend to just blurt **** out and then formulate better opinions based on what other people say about it. My bad.

[GreyHam]

Okay, fine put them in prison, but assuming free will dosen't exist, murderers, child rapists, regular rapists, Hitlers etc are not morally reprehensible in any way. Am I the only one who thinks this attitude is ridiculous?

no, im the same

the idea that free will is a myth is a really sad attitude to have, and one that i just dont subscribe to. in the majority of cases, decisions you make are done at a conscious rather than subconscious level. Thats not the illusion of free will - thats exactly what it is. For every event that occurs, you have thousands of ways to react to it, and you pick the one you think is best.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Quantom fluctuations could very well affect the macro world, but that has nothing to do with free will.
It demonstrates that the cause and effect principle doesn't hold for everything in nature, which doesn't prove free will either way but certainly establishes it as a plausible concept.

But I don't know anything about quantum whatever and I don't really care so I dunno if it's really random or not.

[lunchforthesky]

no, im the same

the idea that free will is a myth is a really sad attitude to have, and one that i just dont subscribe to. in the majority of cases, decisions you make are done at a conscious rather than subconscious level. Thats not the illusion of free will - thats exactly what it is. For every event that occurs, you have thousands of ways to react to it, and you pick the one you think is best.

I had a feeling this would descend into people arguing over the definition of free will not whether or not we actually have free will.

[Against Miik!]

We do what we do regardless of whether free will exists or not. So while it makes for some heated philosophical argument, there is no point in arguing it. Unlike other arguments, even debates on religion, there are no situations you can point to to back up either case.

[lunchforthesky]

We do what we do regardless of whether free will exists or not. So while it makes for some heated philosophical argument, there is no point in arguing it. Unlike other arguments, even debates on religion, there are no situations you can point to to back up either case.

I agree, it's an ejoyable but ultimately pointless argument.

[RunAmokRampant]

I like Russeau's quote 'Man is born free, but everywhere he's in chains'. I think that statement holds some ground in that society puts restrictions on free will in order for society to function properly.

[Against Miik!]

I like Russeau's quote 'Man is born free, but everywhere he's in chains'. I think that statement holds some ground in that society puts restrictions on free will in order for society to function properly.

I think that quote is more in reference to government, but good point.

[Lupus]

Even if quantum fluctuations affect our decisions free will is still bunk.

[PerpetualBurn]

It demonstrates that the cause and effect principle doesn't hold for everything in nature, which doesn't prove free will either way but certainly establishes it as a plausible concept.

But I don't know anything about quantum whatever and I don't really care so I dunno if it's really random or not.

No if quantum mechanics actually worked in a way to make macroscopic events random it means that choice would be a random product of our surroundings as oppose to a determined choice. Not our choice.

[Dave de Sylvia]

No, it just means that not everything is predictable.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah

but it doesn't grant people any more control over their will

it just means there's chance in their actions

so such a contentious point isn't even relevant.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Nobody said it strengthens the free will argument, it just weakens the positive determinist one.

[italic zero]

You said it establishes free will as a plausible concept.

[Dave de Sylvia]

For people who use the cause and effect principle as an argument for determinism.

[Ganondorf]

I had a feeling this would descend into people arguing over the definition of free will not whether or not we actually have free will.

Please, tell me what ''real'' free will is then.

[Der Übermensch]

Well you do have to have a definition to know if we have it or not.

I believe we have the apparency of free will... we FEEL like we have the ability to choose, but that doesn't mean we truly had a choice...

[italic zero]

For people who use the cause and effect principle as an argument for determinism.
But it still doesn't establish anything regarding free will; it only undermines the argument for determinism.

There are two possibilities: that the universe is a deterministic system, or that it is not. Neither establishes free will as a plausible concept.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Well I phrased my point badly then.

[lfantwister]

No one fully comprehends the consequences and repercussions of every action that they take.

Although surely there are people so narrow minded as to assume that they do.

The quote you said earlier, do you think it still holds for people who can forsee basic consequences? I mean like people with a good grasp on morality who decide to murder their wives even though they know its wrong and realise that they will go to jail for it

Does this free will discussion inspire anyone else to do something really dumb and shirk the blame because you can? it might just be me

[BridgeToSolace]

The quote you said earlier, do you think it still holds for people who can forsee basic consequences? I mean like people with a good grasp on morality who decide to murder their wives even though they know its wrong and realise that they will go to jail for it

People only do what they think is the right thing at the time. That man who murders his wife lacks the empathy to full grasp where his wife is coming from (although since I don't know why he's killing her, I can't say anything else about it). He clearly thinks that his wife is less important than the alleviation of whatever (perceived?) pain and suffering she's putting onto the world.

Just thinking about, maybe that's why no one really deserves blame. Because people always do what they think is right (or more right, anyway), and this isn't their fault. People generally don't just create their own values and what not (ei. the guy who kills his wife because he values his sanity more than the constant nagging), their thoughts come from society or their genes, which they have no control over.

I think even Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor. Even if he was incredibly misguided and wrong.

Does this free will discussion inspire anyone else to do something really dumb and shirk the blame because you can? it might just be me

But your actions are still always your responsibility....

Blame doesn't really matter.

[Reaganista]

I believe we have the apparency of free will... we FEEL like we have the ability to choose, but that doesn't mean we truly had a choice...
wat do choice and free will have to do with each other

[hethamulburton]

Please, tell me what ''real'' free will is then.

In its broadest sense:

Free will- the ability for situations to arise, choices to be made from those situations, and for that choice to have been not known by any other being. In other words, to act without an omniscience knowing everything you will ever do.

It may fit a pattern, such as a person who generally votes Republican, you can venture to say they will vote Republican. Or if a person is failing school and has the options of either do homework or playing video games, you can pretty much know what that person will do. But free will means for any situation, even those with a pattern, a person can choose a path no one expected or no one even knew. And this would extend up the ladder to God, to the idea that even God cannot know who we will become. Otherwise, the Antichrist would never be a fear in Christian belief. For if God knew how everything was to go down, that means he created that person's timeline- he drew up their birth, their events, their death. This means he could simply kill the Antichrist as it was born; therefore, no worries. But it is not so. Using this and other points you can offer a strong case that the concept of God, should it exist, would not be omniscient.