Do you believe in free will? Why or why not?
Quote:
Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)07:32 No.1001625
If free will exists its either random or predictable.
Either way its not free. Yet it just seems that we have the choice but we don't observe the process that leads to that choice.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)07:33 No.1001629
>>1001625
the game
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)07:36 No.1001637
I call BS, free will is free, and there is infinite possibilities of what shall be your future in a few seconds depending on your and your environments actions,
of course we cant observe all those paths leading to various endings, some assume its faith, some assume its random. The fact is you ahve free will, if you ahd teh ability to see all the possible variatiosn of the future (As GeX can/could) you would understand how free it is.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)07:37 No.1001644
>>1001637
>your actions
What decides these actions?
(The one case in which science is really trolling us)
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)07:38 No.1001649
>>1001637
Innumerable generations of philosophers thank you for finally answering the question. Oh, how could nobody have thought of it that way before?
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)07:46 No.1001680
>>1001625
>Freewill isn't free because outside factors effect your future
Big deal! You can effect your future too.
It's like saying a man isn't alive because some day he will die.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)07:49 No.1001692
OP is right, unfortunately.
Anyone who believes in science and likes philosophy reaches that conclusion.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)07:52 No.1001704
Why can't I be free of free will?
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)07:57 No.1001727
what if multiverse theory is true, then there could be such
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:01 No.1001736
>>1001625
Someone obviously just watched Waking Life recently...
Here's my take on it...
When we are babies, our actions are pretty random and mostly determined by environmental factors and what people try to tell/force us to do. Very little free will involved here. As we grow older, we start making more and more decisions for ourselves, thus gaining (more?)free will. However, consider the following situation.
John makes a decision to go see a movie. What led up to that decision? Well, lets see. Perhaps...
He saw a preview for the movie and thought it looked good. (something he had no control over)
This can be broken down further. Why did he think the movie looked good? Perhaps...
because it's a horror movie, and he likes horror movies because he grew up watching them.
Why did he grow up watching horror movies?
Because his dad showed him one when he was little and he liked it(he neither was able to control watching it or whether he liked it).
The reasons we do the things we do, is because of a domino series of events leading to the decisions. At the beginning of the chain is always something we have no control over.
Every person is not just 1 living thing, but trillions(or more) of living things all communicating and working together for the purpose of survival. Every individual cell is its own living thing, each one with its own agenda. Free will is an illusion.
Every time you exercise your "free will" You are only doing something which a series of events drove you to do.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:04 No.1001744
words are words, why should i care for some abstract freedom, that cant be fulfilled by reality when i'm enjoying my current state very much. i suggest to burn op for poisoning the youth with his ideas.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:05 No.1001749
>>1001704
Drugs, duh
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:07 No.1001760
Someone show some neurological proof of free will, and I will believe it.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:07 No.1001761
Free will implies there is some force outside the universe that allows you to transcend your physical deterministic life and make some choice, completely disregarding the world influence.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:11 No.1001771
>>1001625
There's a huge, interesting area of complex-systems analysis involving systems right on the edge between randomness and predictability. It has the unfortunate name of 'chaos theory'. I expect that we'll find that many features of the human brain are in this edge state.
Remember that predictable-in-theory is not the same as 'actually predictable' -- there's a limit to the accuracy of measurements. Heisenberg's limits, ultimately, but most measurements are swamped by noise at precisions far above that point.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:16 No.1001785
>>1001771
The point being that it will ALWAYS be possible for some to say "this particular mental event was ultimately caused by factors in the preceeding mental state that were too subtle for us to measure" OR "this particular mental state was caused by non-physical phenonema."
Neither can ever be proved; Occam's Razor is a useful guide, but it _proves_ nothing.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:19 No.1001797
>>1001785
The point isn't to prove it, but to understand it. If you understand it, you have proof for yourself.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:22 No.1001802
>>1001797
Since it's undecidable, to understand it you have to understand BOTH views, and understand that they BOTH account for the phenomena we observe, and that other poeples' views in this particular area are just as valid as your own.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:26 No.1001811
>>1001802
AND you have to understand that this ambiguity is inherent in the laws of nature and that no future developments will make the issue any clearer (barring a complete overturning of quantum theory or some sort of proof of supernatural phenomena -- both quite unlikely to occur).
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:26 No.1001813
>>1001802
Perhaps you could enlighten us by explaining the other side of the coin to the best of your ability?
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:29 No.1001819
>>1001637
No.. there isn't an infinite amount of possibilities. There is only one possibility, which is the one which will come to be. If it could happen another way, it would. but it doesn't so it cant.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:32 No.1001826
>>1001813
It's covered by the previous posts. In summary: we will never be able to completely measure the state of any brain with perfect accuracy, and therefore EVEN IF mental processes are perfectly predictable IN THEORY, they never will be in practice.
At some point in our development of neurology, we'll be able to examine mental states, and the transitions between them. But because of the aforementioned limitations, there will be (unpredicted) mental events for which we will have to say "This event was caused by conditions to subtle for us to measure, but which are physically possible." Someone else might look at the same mental event and say "This event was caused by something supernatural."
Neither can honestly say he _knows_, or even that he _can_ know, that the other is wrong.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:36 No.1001848
>>1001826
And therefore the whole free-will-vs-determinism argument is undecidable for any system which exhibits the sorts of behavior described by 'chaos theory'. This certainly includes human brains, maybe ALL brains. It does NOT include any digital computer (because its complete state is perfectly knowable), but MIGHT include some sort of analog or quantum computer.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:42 No.1001861
>>1001826
But why does it matter what conditions caused which event? The fact remains that conditions(whatever they may be) resulted in an event. Those conditions themselves were brought about by events which was caused by certain conditions and so on and so forth.
And mental processes have never been nor will they ever be predictable to humans. There are far too many variables involved, both within the brain itself and in the environment which contains a nearly infinite number of variables(and many of those with there own variables... they're all intertwined in a strange way which isn't at all obvious) within it. To totally predict a human's mental process we'd have to also understand all the variables the person is either directly or indirectly linked to
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:44 No.1001868
>>1001819
So just because i don't pick up my coke means that it's not possible to pick up my coke? Whaaa?
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:45 No.1001876
File1274618744.jpg-(46 KB, 480x640, ZdMwam6r13ei97Fg.jpg)
46 KB
>827801
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:46 No.1001880
freedom of will is like freedom of the press: it is given to those who own one.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:47 No.1001881
>>1001861
It matters for this reason: if we could KNOW that these events arose from purely physical conditions, even if the exact details of those conditions are not perfectly knowable, then we would KNOW that humans cannot have free will.
Since we CANNOT know that, ever, then we CANNOT be certain whether humans have free will or not.
As a practical matter, most people seem to _think_ we have free will. Since there's no way of knowing the truth, I'd suggest that we behave as if we (and everyone else) is free, while always keeping in mind that this is something we merely PREFER to believe in the absence of proof.
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:49 No.1001884
>>1001868
Not quite, but close. Because you didn't pick up your coke, that means that it wasn't possible for you to pick up your coke during that specific point in time.
Even though you felt physically able... as if you could have picked it up had you wanted to, the fact of the matter is that you didn't want to(or for whatever reason "chose" not to). And you made that decision because of events leading up to the decision. If the events leading up to it had been different, perhaps you would have picked it up.
>> rec & play !!ZTOm5LLVLJH 05/23/10(Sun)08:58 No.1001904
OP is right. However, I'm not happy with his or her way of expressing it; "if free will exists it is not free will" rather than "free will doesn't exist because [...]".
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)08:58 No.1001906
>>1001884
It's not possible for me to pick up a coke because I don't want to? Why?
>> Anonymous 05/23/10(Sun)09:29 No.1001960
>>1001906
Do you know anything about programming? If not, google what an if/else statement is.
Ok, single celled organisms basically run off of if/else statements. Humans, because of the sheer number of cells have a lot of possible else's, but once they hit their if(true) they act. This happens on a level beneath our awareness. Now, the brain is a remarkable group of cells because they exhibit dynamic behavior. That is to say, the same if/else if encountered at another point in time might be handled differently by the given cell(s). What causes the cells to change their behavior? Well, as has been mentioned earlier, each cell(or group of cells) has their own agenda. Some brain cells are for monitoring, some for storing, some for executing, etc... All of these can change their behavior, usually(but not as a rule) on the condition of an undesirable result to an action. Because undesirable results go against their purpose(survival). When you are making the decision to pick up your coke, rather then performing an act of free will like you feel like you are, its really a ridiculously complicated series of if/else statements that lead up to it. Now, you may be "thinking" "well, my thoughts are what are causing the cells to change behavior. I make a decision in my head and the cells behave accordingly", but did you ever stop to think about where your thoughts came from? They came from that same group of cells that you think you're controlling. So clearly, one part of the brain(the part where thoughts originate) must have control over some of the rest then, right? Absolutely. It does. Hence the illusion of free will. But this part of the brain is not immune to the hypothetical if/else statements. Everything we think, is for a reason(obviously). Those reasons are either
A. Derived from other thought processes(which follow this same rule)
or
B. Beyond our control.
This discussion took place somewhere, but it is no longer an active thread. I would like to see further discussion. I won't add anything to it at this very moment because I already have posts in there. I'll give you guys a chance to share your thoughts first (I realize it isn't organized the best it could be. ">>" more or less means "referring to post number". therefor >>12345 would start a response to post 12345)
_________________
2101729 Kalantir-Bar-Orc-Mal-Cha escaped the dungeon
Last edited by kalantir on 23 May 2010, 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
23 May 2010, 9:06 am
