filtherton

Okay, i realize that this might be a little out of nowhere, but i have a deformable body mechanics final tomorrow and i'm trying really hard to procrastinate.

So here it is, a question for the atheists on the board:

Do you believe that you have free will? I mean, it's one of those things that everyone just kind of assumes because it's really depressing not to, but it strikes me as something that lacks a certain amount of evidentiary basis, especially in light of the tricky ways the human mind works in the context of biochemistry and reaction times.

Now, the reason i'm asking the atheists is that as far as i can tell the atheists here are atheists because they a rigorous skeptics - they don't believe in things that can't be proven. To me, this kind of strictness in perspective seems really limiting in light of the complete lack of understanding science currently has about the nature of consciousness.

I'm really going to try and not turn this into a discussion about theological belief (or lack thereof). I'm just curious, because i don't really think that there is sufficient evidence of the existence of free will.

Willravel

I like to believe that free will is an interpretation based on subjective ideals. Things like the meaning of life are flights of fancy. Do I have free will? Probably.

filtherton

What do you mean by an interpretation based on subjective ideals? Could you elaborate please?

Willravel

I suppose I follow a somewhat pragmatic system. The idea that my life has a universal given meaning is preposterous. One can assign their life meaning in order to clarify direction, but the idea that our existence has significance from outside each person's subjective perception doesn't make sense to me. As such, the consideration of free will, which is an interpretation of self based on ideas like predetermination in philosophy instead of science (imho), is another exercise in futility. There are no big sweeping philosophical truths, merely factors. It's all causality. One thing tends to cause another to do one thing, which causes another to do one thing. As I type this, there are multiple systems at work: biochemical and neuro-electrical processes in my physical brain and reasoning systems that have developed from innate processes and environmental development. The thing is: that's not predetermination. That's just the way it works. Predetermination suggests someone or something has caused these events and is measuring them. I usually relate this to the famous Schrödinger's cat experiment in explaining the paradox of decoherence. It's about the appearance, and since there is no god or great force monitoring all variables and results, there is no reason to believe in predetermination. I recall the thread about the problematic axioms presented by Plantinga. Most of his philosophical ideas, whether purposefully or accidentally, presupposed the existence of god. While it wasn't clear in the plain wording, a little digging brought it right up. Oops, I ranted again...

Free will and predetermination are subjective interpretations of a philosophical exercise in meaning of action. In the traditional sense, I don't really believe in free will or predetermination. The way I see it, as my mind works, the systems only tend to favor one thought or action or an alternate. The thing is, after studying psychology, the human mind is not as precise as figuring out where a rain drop will land or what the weather will be like tomorrow. The rules in the DSM4 are different than the rules of physics or biology in that they are not as fixed. In that way, I do, sort of, believe that free will exists.

I hope that made sense. I'm on a lot of benadryl. Best of luck on your deformable body mechanics final tomorrow.

filtherton

Yeah, it made sense. I thought you'd have an interesting perspective given your schooling and i'm not disappointed. I'm pretty sure we agree on this subject.

Thanks for the luck wishes.

Dilbert1234567

No, I don't believe in free will. I believe in cause and effect. In any closed system, if you know the starting conditions, you can predict the outcome, I cannot fathom how this could not transfer to the universe as a whole, thus although we don't understand it, we have no control over our lives, none at all. Yes it is a bleak and depressing point of view, but, I don't let it stop me from living my life. We have the illusion of free will, because the universe is to complex for us to understand and predict the outcome. If you look back in time, predicting the weather was pretty much impossible, but as we advance in our technology, we learn to understand the causes and effects of weather, and now we can have a decent 5 day forecast. Although it is apparently technically impossible to view down to the basics of atoms, they to be governed by laws which dictate cause and effect, these laws are unknown to us at this time, but I am sure are there.

I had no control over what I just wrote.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Willravel

It still seems as if saying 'I don't have free will' suggests that the power over actions comes from elsewhere. The problem is the presupposition of meaning of actions. If you can get past that, then the question becomes irrelevant.

Dilbert1234567

i still do take responsibility for my actions though.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

CSflim

Do I think that my brain and my body at all times obey the laws of physics? Yes I do.

Do I believe that my thoughts somehow have the ability to "over-ride" the laws of physics? Certainly not.

So, does this mean that I believe that we don't have free will? Well, not quite. It very much hinges on what it is that you understand by the phrase "free will". I think that many people seem to believe that it is something as described above; that our "thoughts" have some ability to magically "poke about" at our neurons - going above and beyond what is possible physically. This is not something that I accept, so if one were to insist on this view of "free will", then I would have to admit that; no, I don't believe that we have that kind of free will.

So what else could "free will" be? I think that it is a much "higher level" concept than that which is described above. If you expect to find some phenomenon known as "free will" on the physical level of neurons, and charges and physics and so on, you are looking in the wrong place. Free will is something which exists at a much higher level - it is more of a psychological/social phenomenon than a physical one.

To give an analogy: A volume of gas at a given temperature has a particular pressure. This can be measured and quantified, and in my opinion should be considered a "real" property of the gas. But if you "magnify" things and look at a tiny tiny "bit" of the gas, you will just see individual molecules bouncing around in a vast emptiness - nothing remotely resembling "pressure" going on at this level.

A less remote analogy is to take a look at a novel. It is a book, with English sentences written on sheets of paper. It describes characters and a plot and so forth. If you look incredibly closely at the physical form of the novel, you will just find blobs of black ink on paper - if you are trying to find a 'plot' by examining the chemicals that make up the ink of the book, you are looking at the wrong level. A 'plot' is nothing to do with the 'physics' of the book.

So 'free will' is like the 'plot' or the 'narrative' of our brains. Seeing people as possessing free will allows you to understand their actions - it allows you to understand the motivations behind their actions, and allows you to make predictions about their future behavior given a certain set of circumstances, and allows you to engage in meaningful interactions with them.

So the question "Do we (really) have free will?" boils down to having the same answer as "Does a book (really) have a plot?". Giving an actual answer of 'yes' or 'no' to a question like that doesn't really matter. But for the record, I would answer them both with a 'yes'.

__________________

Willravel

Well of course; you're sentient. You're cognisant. That's what I was talking about before, sort of.

Oh, and I do believe in free willy:

Martian

I won't answer the question, as I'm strongly agnostic and therefore it isn't addressed to me. I will, however, point out that it probably should be. An atheistic philosophy takes just as much on faith as any theistic one does. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and anybody who assumes it is needs to take a class in elementary logic.

Mind you, that's not to say that I take issue with atheists. So long as they don't try to pawn their beliefs off on me as logic, I reckon they're entitled to believe whatever they want. As far as my viewpoint is concerned, you may all be right or maybe none of you are; the folks who know ain't telling.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

roachboy

i'm sorry, but i dont understand the question.
i dont understand what you mean by "free will"...it is a metaphysical notion, yes?
are you asking whether we are able to act without those acts being conditioned at one level or another by our own trajectory (past/history/memory)? then yes and no. yes we can act, no in that any action is circumscribed by the trajectory (human beings are vectors)...

or is this another way of asking about the extent to which mechanical causality can be mapped onto human actions?

speaking of which:
dilbert: where do you get the idea that human beings--or biological systems in general--are closed? this is one of the most basic transformations in theoretical biology of the past 30 years or so--that living systems are open, that principles developed in the context of classical physics do nto apply in the way it was once thought they did, that entropy figures very differently in the context of complex open systems that it would in closed systems.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

asaris

When I think about free will, I tend to define it as "That thing, whatever it is, that enables some of our actions to be praiseworthy/blameworthy and some of our actions not." The thought is that we view some actions as blameworthy, yet would not view those actions as blameworthy if committed by a madman. I think this cuts through some of the silliness when discussing free will. I'm not sure if that's what anybody else here means by it, though.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

filtherton

Roach, i think that free will in this context question of whether consciousness is purely reactive or not. Does one actually choose to do anything, or is every "choice" merely the natural and expected result of a combination of things(determined or probabilistic) which are essentially beyond our control? Are we just hyper aware automatons, or what?

Jinn

I think atheism and 'free will' are strongly bonded, and I'd question any atheist who claimed atheism on the basis of "insufficient proof" who didn't also believe in free will.

I personally hold atheism as a superior theory to theism because there is no convincing and substantial empirical evidence to demonstrate the existence of a deity. In this absense of evidence, the safest position is to deny the claimed existence. The existence of the Easter Bunny is similarly unsupported, so the safest position is to deny its existence.

So when asked the question of free will, that is, are my decisions pre-determined or decided by an outside force, the answer is the same. As far as I know and can empirically measure, all of my actions, positions, and determinations are a product of my brain and therefore my "free will." Until such convincing and substantial empirical evidence exists to demonstrate that my decisions were actually made by another individual or entity, I see no reason to believe it.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

pig

hmmmm...without getting too hung up in semantics filthy, i think i know what you're getting at with the question. my personal take is that its a matter of perspective; quite similar to the post by csfilm. in fact, i've used similar analogies to explain the position. i don't believe in the big billiard ball analogy of the universe; in a sense, this was shown to be incorrect by the advent of relativity/quantum etc, at least as far as the notion of limiting certain phenomena to nothing but mechanical constructs. i think when we go from the perspective of purely biological / physics to questions of social orientation, psychology and spirtituality different factors come into play. so in a sense, perhaps you have free will with certain restrictions; maybe you have predetermination with a bit of randomness. statistics, averages, and so forth, if you want to get mathematical about it. or to put it another way, we are all unique lovely snowflakes...just like all the other unique lovely snowflakes. so i tend to believe somewhat in both concepts, depending on the particular perspective and reason for the discourse.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Ourcrazymodern?

Where does the opposite of free will come from? Even the bible says we're allowed to choose our fates based upon our actions. If I chose to do (something) and then suddenly changed my mind and decided to do (something else) should I blame myself, or some(thing) else?

There's no coherent reason that I understand for asking this only of the atheists.

God is within us and all around us.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Willravel

There are, in my understanding, two sources behind the antithesis of free will: destiny/fate (philosophical/religious) or the closed system (logical/scientific). Dilbert gave us a pretty good understanding of the closed system, and destiny is simply the idea that events or actions are predetermined as a metaphysical principle.
That's simple. Atheists don't have a text or philosophy from which they derive specific philosophical beliefs, therefore the reasons and sources of information around philosophy of meaning could be much more varied. When one asks a Christian, they usually derive their answer from biblical scripture. Unless you count The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, atheists have no scripture from which we all derive philosophical truths or meanings.
I suppose this sentiment is the opposite of Frederick Nietzsche's proclamation that "God is dead." I'm going to be honest: I' don't think either sentiment carries meaning for me.

roachboy

thanks for the clarifications.

so free will seems to function best in action theory/ethics--if you want to hold individuals accountable for their actions, you need a way of enframing actions as following from choices freely made by competent people.
so it is an assumption. you can decide to accept it because the consequences of its being in place are preferable to the contrary and so there we are. i dont think anything in action theory/ethics actually demonstrates that there is or is not "free will"--so i take it a structuring rule/assumption for that particular language game, if you like.

as for the filth's rephrase about consciousness being reactive---there are a lot of problems.
in old-school epistemology, consciousness experiences the world as given and so perception would be in a sense reactive. but that leaned on a pile of assumptions--the mind-body split, correlates of the soul that enable one to take consciousness as itself simply given and start from that. it'd probably take way too long to explain this, so i'll just say it---there is no reason to assume a mind-body split; the is no reason to accept any correlate of the christian doctrine of the soul as saying anything beyond what christians might believe to be the case, and even this would have to be limited to a particular type of statement (answers to a question like "how would your religious beliefs lead you to describe what it means to be human" or some such)--it seems more like we are processes, complicated networks of processes that link somehow across scales in ways that we do not yet understand---part of the reason for this is that it seems that the types of bio-system relations that we have to, say, language are not much at all like the relations that we have to the world as strucured through language (and almost everything about how we see the world is so structured)--so there is something other than a recursive problem involved with trying to loop around this kind of relation and see something else simply because we seem to have trouble breaking with our own logic--well not even logic--our own modes of staging the world, better. not exactly representing it--staging it. there is some interesting stuff out there about this--in linguistic-type work, based on complex dynamic systems assumptions, r. petitot (i forget his first name) has been developing topological models as a way of trying to show something of human relations to language at the biological level. they're interesting. they sure look cool. i dont know who one would evaluate them, really. i think about this perhaps too much.

anyway, we are active in the world, but that world is itself particular, social-historically particular--so we create the world as meaningful for ourselves but within particular limits. (one implication of this is that old-school epistemology gets dissolved into an aspect of social ontology, but that is another matter.)

so if we are embodied, and embodiment entails that we are processes, then we cannot be reactive. on the other hand, consciousness is embodied but in a way that is filtered--for example we are not plagued with the noise of our own physical processing somehow--not all physical co-ordination is conscious--so some subsystems would unfold in a manner that would be more or less reactive--reflexes, responses to physical pain, etc.

ugh.
i wanted this to be short and here we are, not short, but still with not even the barest outline. summary: we are both active and reactive. we are neither. the question is too simple. problems problems. sometimes i think it would have been better to become a mechanic or something--deal with closed relatively simple systems and just make em work----but my total incompetence would have surfaced sooner or later--but still, it is a nice fantasy, something other---this philo stuff makes my brain tired.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pig

nah roach, i think you basically took ye olde hammer to ye olde head, at least in my opinion/perspective. language=convenience, utility. we have this question because we somewhat invented it, in terms of developing structures and ontologies that allow us to operate and think about how we operate. what is, is. so mind/body split is a convenience we invented to allow us to talk about certain things in a convenient way. no problem with that personally. however, we forget that we created it (and for good fucking reasons, i must say...it is...suggestive so to speak) and then off to the rat race we go.

i don't really necessarily like that idea that we "create the world"...i think the world is. we perceive it. then we create 'our world.' then we confuse the two, because we're fuckers. so i think the filter we create for the world is particular, but the "world" itself doesn't give a shit. it just goes on lying out at the beach, enjoying our cacophony. so to...ummm....speak.

i guess i'm rather utilitarian in that aspect.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

roachboy

pigglet: but we are language in the sense that we are able to separate ourselves from our environment, to become agents/actors, across the process of acquiring language (this separation happens pretty early on in human development, like somewhere in the 3-5 year-old range...): we are an "i" because we reshape/reorder information around it. we make the world as meaningful, as coherent for us. we impose an organization on the world and live through that organization. so it's not like we make rocks. but we make the category "rocks"---and so the phenomena we encounter that we group as "rocks" are as they are because we organize them in that way, across that category--and by ordering phenomena, by making them meaningful we create them.

there is an argument that i am still thinking about but i'll relay it here anyway: human beings are animals the natural habitat of which is language.
obviously more needs to be said about this, but for the moment, i'll leave it at that. there is a husky who grows impatient, waiting for a walk through forests of nouns, past theaters of verbs. somewhere in the middle of that, he will poop.

anyway, i should have been clearer. like anything else of any complexity, it is hard to say what should be said in a messageboard format. such is the nature of the beast.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

archetypal fool

@filtherton

Unfortunately, this topic (free-will), as it deals with humans, is one which is very difficult to test. The only conceivable way to test whether we posses free will or not would be...barbaric, to say the least (more on this further down).

As an atheist, I don't believe in determinism by way of an ultimate entity, but in light of our previous conversation about randomness and the universe, through our perspectives, speaking strictly through scientific terms, it's possible that our actions are determined by the past, though in the fundamental levels, as we discussed earlier, there is an element of randomness (our perspectives aren't sensitive to this, but lets avoid this scientific venture for now). However, consider this: writing this paragraph now, I could've chosen to use the words "monstrous", or "unethical", or "inhumane", in place of the word "barbaric" above. I pondered for a good 10 seconds which word to use, before coming to the conclusion. Which element of my past influenced my decision, being that all the possible words above have the same meaning in the context I'm suggesting? I could've chosen any of those words, or I can change it now through the Edit function if I wanted to, but what influenced me to do so? I can conceive no provable explanation. For all I know, I could've heard the word "barbaric" used in such a way that it stuck out of my mind more than the other words did, some long, long time ago. I don't know. If someone wants to call that determinism, then they have at least one leg to stand on. But still, I chose this word for no particular reason, other than its definition, by my own free choice. I can go back now and change it, and no-one would be the wiser. So why change it? Why not? Because I choose my actions, and I decide what to do. I hope that made some sense...

The only experiment I can think of which would definitively (I think) answer the question of whether free will exists or not would be to take two identical twins, separate them, isolate and raise them identically, with every possible variable constant between the two lives. After they've reached an advanced age (say 7-8), if they are presented with questions/challenges and they complete them identically, then perhaps free-will is only an illusion, and we are, as you stated, "just hyper aware automatons." However, if their answers or choices vary significantly, then it's fair to conclude that it's possible that free-will is more probable than determinism.

^ Obviously, this will never happen, as it is wholly cruel and unethical.

I hope all this made some sort of sense.

opus123

Hmmm, I am another agnostic, but this thread is sure interesting, so I will post something if that is ok. *smile*

My view of life is that many people are automatons, but if you invent something in science, or write a unique play or poem, or come up with something that no one else has done before like art, then you are proving free will on a personal level and you cease to be an ant. That said, even those that break free into the land of free will, often ease back into the automaton role and watch tv and eat food and basically regurgitate text and quotes and ideas that other people have already invented first.

This kind of leads into the concepts of existence, but we should leave that for another time. *smile*

Jonathan

__________________
"We are sure to be losers when we quarrel with
ourselves. It is a civil war, and in all such
contentions, triumphs are defeats." Mr Colton
==================================

Ourcrazymodern?

Questioning flows through us all. Yahweh got many people stoned, and the people didn't understand what they were doing was wrong. A couple thousand years later, why do we understand no more?

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

lankrypt0

"Free will" is one of those really hard things to define, so it's even harder to easily speak about. In my opinion, everything deemed to be "free will" is really "imitataion free will". Likewise, this applies to "random" events, we see them as random because we don't and can't understand the mechanics behind them. The instant the big bang occurred, everything that was going to be and was ever going to happen was determined.

As Dilbert1234567 said, "if you know the starting conditions, you can predict the outcome". Well, in the case of the big bang, we don't know the starting conditions, and therefore we cannot predict any outcomes, which is why we preceive events as random. But in that instant in time an unending chain reaction started. My typing this message isn't because of free will, it's because of the unmeasurable amount of chain reactions that occurred up to this point in time.

Jinn

Then what of probability, lankrypt?

If I flip a coin, there is a 50% chance for it to heads, and a 50% chance for it to be tails. We know this empirically, but we also know it logically.

It has nothing to do with previous experience ("chain reactions", as you call them), and can easily act in either of the two potential states.

Are you claiming that the reason it's 50% is not because it's random, but because there is something about the physics of flipping a coin that we don't understand?

If not, then why our lives not allegorically described in the same way as flipping a series of independent coins?

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

If you know all the variables on the coin and about the flip, you can determine with certainty if it will come heads or tails.

pig

if i give you a coin, and tell you to flip it exactly the same way everytime, can i predict how you will flip the coin and thus call the shots on how it will turn out? i think in the context of this particular question, there would seem to be a difference between relatively macroscopic physical questions, and those that determine intellectual / psychological / spiritual choices or events. additionally, at least from what little i know of physics and so forth, predicting the phenomena associated with length and time scales involved in coin flippage are quite different than those involved with molecular events and submolecular events, and i suppose also very large time and length scales. i suppose i would tend to think the questions of the mind/spirit are probably germane to original question posed; the second about whether we can predict everything that ever will be in the universe if we only knew the initial conditions with sufficient accuracy. if i'm not mistaken, this idea was heavily called into question when newtonian physics was somewhat superceded by modern quantum and relativity based studies.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

lankrypt0

You need to think deeper into the past, before you flip that coin, realize its outcome was already determined. EVERYTHING has already been determined, you reading this post, your brains thoughts as you think of a response and then you typing it. Your life, your actions and "choices" between now and your death, already "known" we just don't know how to predict it.

When I talk about "chain reactions" I am talking about literal atoms colliding, joining and splitting, that all started with the big bang itself. Your action of flipping a coin was determined THEN. That flip is just a result of an unmeasureable amount of previous atomic level chain reactions. The "random" 50% chance of heads and tails is really just an illusion. So, I suppose, its outcome is being determined by something we do not, and cannot understand.

This concept took me a while to really understand myself, its really like trying to wrap your head around infinity. Sure we talk about something being infinite, but have you ever tried to really sit down and imagine it? This is along that same a line, there were a fininte, number of "actions" that led us here. (Though the number is anything we can imagine and for all intents and purposes could be infinite)

archetypal fool

That isn't necessarily true. In a similar thread, it was shown that in quantum mechanical theory, randomness is integral, because the universe breaks down into probabilistic terms. Note Bell's Theorem (link here and here), for which I haven't found a non-mathematical/non-esoteric explanation, so I'll go ahead and simplify it here:

Assuming information doesn't travel faster than the speed of light (a trait which has been both theoretically and experimentally verified), then there exists no local hidden variable within space which effects any event. Bell's Theorem has already been verified many times experimentally.

Because of this, the most elementary properties of the universe are inherently random (since there is randomness in probability), and no prediction can be 100% true. Therefor, relating to a previous topic, if you were to go back in time one year and observe yourself up until the present, there is a chance that this reality is not the same as the reality you traveled from. This implies that the universe isn't deterministic, even though in our scale it projects the illusion of determinism.

__________________
I have my own particular sorrows, loves, delights; and you have yours. But sorrow, gladness, yearning, hope, love, belong to all of us, in all times and in all places. Music is the only means whereby we feel these emotions in their universality. ~H.A. Overstreet

filtherton

Sorry for my lack of participation in the thread. I had a few finals to take, but they're done now.

That being said, i don't think that a probabilistic model of reality necessarily suggests any sort of free will, since it doesn't imply the making of any sort of decision - flipping a coin isn't an active form of decision making in the same way that asking a random passerby what to do isn't an active form of decision making.

roach, i have a book called "Consciousness" by susan blackmore. It's meant to be a textbook for a college class on consciousness. Granted, i haven't gotten all of the way through it, but a recurring theme seems to be that there aren't really any reasonable assumptions that can be made about the nature of consciousness - all assumptions are problematic because the definition of consciousness isn't really that tangible beyond "it's, you know, that stuff that happens in our minds".

Ourcrazymodern?

Does anyone here think you don't make your own choices, act upon them, and enjoy or suffer the consequences?
Being convinced you have the right of it is even a choice. The unwillingness to believe in free will is a choice abdicating responsibility.
Strangely enough, "believe" still has a lie in the middle.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

archetypal fool

@ filtherton

I see what you're saying, but a stronger case can be made against a deterministic universe, where it's assumed that since everything is determined, there isn't any sort of free will at all, or a mechanism which projects the illusion of free will.

But if I understood you correctly, you're saying that since the randomness of the universe is what drives us to do what we do, then we don't really have free will in this scenario either, since we still aren't choosing anything; we're being driven just as if everything were determined, the only difference being that everything isn't.

Now there's something for me to ponder on for a while....

@OurCrazyModern

I agree. Of course we have a choice of what to do at any given moment. If the universe were really determined, then really, how could someone blame anyone for any crime they might commit? After all, it was their role in the universe to commit that crime, and they were already guilty before committing it. I don't want to live in such a bleak and hopeless world.

__________________
I have my own particular sorrows, loves, delights; and you have yours. But sorrow, gladness, yearning, hope, love, belong to all of us, in all times and in all places. Music is the only means whereby we feel these emotions in their universality. ~H.A. Overstreet

Johnny Rotten

I think predetermination versus free will is a false dichotomy, and that the truth lies in the middle: we act according to probabilities.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

Ourcrazymodern?

Did you ever experience what lies in the middle, JR?
Predetermination lies in the imagination of those who have free will.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

filtherton

I think that it's probably the other way around.

I also don't think predetermination is important for this discussion. Just because things aren't predetermined doesn't mean that choice is involved.

Luciian

I know this is a philosophical thread but I see it has already diversified into science and probability so I wonder if any of you have thought about the social learning aspect of free will.

Do we ever have free will, are our choices ever our own. If we think about how social learning influences our our thoughts in almost every aspect it brings about stirring resolutions for me at least.

Example: If it is cold outside I put on a jacket.

To me thinking about free will boils down to the smallest decisions we make and normally don't even take into account. Of course you put on a jacket, its cold outside. But is the fact that you wore a jacket predetermined by the fact that its cold and hence you never had a choice in the matter?

We are all also subject to advertisement. I know there is another thread detailing the amount of advertisement that influences our lives, but I believe it is applicable here as well. Even if you are a person that doesn't buy name brand clothing to be in style it is inevitable that through all the insesant maurading of advertising something got through to your unconscience. Does this truely influence your choice on purchases or even favorite colors and hence did you actually choose that color or brand to be your favorite or did the advertisement you didnt even pay attention to but still was picked up by your brain influence your decision.

If you apply these to nearly every facet of life how can we say that we ever make choices truely of our own volition which would be the possetion of free will.

__________________
i am ninja

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind dont matter, and those who matter dont mind." -Dr Seuss

opus123

Your use of the word 'almost' implies that sometimes there is choice and sometimes fate. Not sure how you can use the word 'almost' and 'resolutions' in the same sentence. *smile*

I posit that choice and fate are not always evident. If I wish to borrow a coat, I might shiver in the cold on purpose to non-verbally ask them for a jacket. That person might think that I involuntarily shivered.

Another more unique example is from the movie Galaxy Quest. The alien race mentioned Gilligan's Island as a historical document. Clearly acting is not real, yet sometimes real events are filmed on the show. Some are fake and some real or at least they were real on take 5. (^: The aliens clearly were fate influence as they had little or no lying in their culture and acting would be lying in a sense. Yet the alien race, and we also, have a choice to fight for freedom from oppression in creative ways.

As a further conundrum, we might never know certain events are real or not. Once I was driving down a road that I thought was 5th Avenue. But it was Alder Avenue as the numbered streets skipped 5th and went from 4th to Alder to 6th.

Lastly, I suppose anytime we invent a product, create a new pun, design a new tattoo, or even create a child on purpose at a certain time of year, one is in the choice moment and not much under a fate based initiative. (^:

Jonathan

__________________
"We are sure to be losers when we quarrel with
ourselves. It is a civil war, and in all such
contentions, triumphs are defeats." Mr Colton
==================================

newtonX

The question of freewill is perhaps best tackled in an analytic fashion. (Not strictly, of course, for this may be one of those meaningless questions according to logical positivism.) Anyways, one must think of what the self is. Most probably one will think that it’s, among other things, a mixture of ideals and consciousness (whatever that is). Thus, the question becomes: are my actions dictated by my ideals, consciousness, etc. It is a very complex question, however, if one considers the non-reasoned sways that our emotions sometimes provide. For example, perhaps one has a broken heart and feels compelled to call one's ex, even though one's ideals recommends not to call. If humans acted only logically and according a simple self comprised of ideals and paradigms then it would seem that the self does control all actions. Hence, freewill. However, we are not always so robot-like. It really does depend on the definition of the self is. I think that traditionally western religion would hold not only that the self does dictate actions, but that one may change one's self (one's ideals, paradigms, etc.). Thus, religion seems to hold out for an even stronger freewill than most compatibalists would agree with. Personally, I would just shrug this question off.

Makhnov

I realize this message was posted 3 years ago. I don't know if this guy is even here at the forum anymore. But for those of you interested in this thread, I will provide my personal fodder.

archetypal fool's simplification is okay. Allow me to provide a simplified explanation of Bell's Theorem. My simplified explanation is contained in three parts.

Part I. Hidden variables.
"Hidden variables" is a fancy way of saying that the particles in question do not have a deeper structure that our microscopy has not yet uncovered. Another way of saying this is that fundamental particles are fundamental.

Part II. The three assumptions.
(A) Logic is valid.
(B) There is an objective reality separate from observers.
(C) All physical interactions take place locally.

Local interactions just means no particle effects any other unless they touch in space and in time. If this is not the case, such interactions are called "non-local".

Part III. The theorem.
Bell's theorem says that at least one of the three assumptions must be false. It does not specify which one. A funny way of saying this is that Bell's theorem is a genie that hands you three scrolls and asks you to "pick two" for which you will carry away as being true statements.

If you study physics as a student in an academic university, you will be told that A and B are true, and that C is false. This should explain why wikipedia articles about entanglement all make that claim something like this, "Bell's Theorem proves that there are non-local interactions in the universe". This has a very strict definition. It means the effects are propagated instantaneously. Relativity does not allow a finite speed that is greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. However, relativity does not explicitly rule out "infinite" speed.

The academic take is a very conservative interpretation of entanglement. Bell's theorem actually allows any combination of the three assumptions to be false. It even allows all of them to be false.

That concludes my simplified description of Bell's Theorem. A more detailed discussion would get into redux of the assumptions, and multiverses.

The middle assumption, B, is that an objective reality exists separate from observers. This assumption obviously gets a lot of lip-service from philosophers and mystics. This problem is more epistemological, and is related to Kant and Idealism. It says nothing of the subject of determinism and randomness that is being bandied about in this thread. Its contention is rather more hallucinogenic than that.



This does not follow from Bell's Theorem. Sorry to whoever wrote this.